Tsarnaev Appeal
Tsarnaev Appeal
Tsarnaev Appeal
v. No. 13-CR-10200-GAO
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
United States of America and defendant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, by and through their
counsel of record, hereby stipulate that the record on appeal should be supplemented
with the items listed below and, as supplemented, be certified and forwarded to the
social media printouts), served and filed by hand by the defense on 2/27/15
5/7/14, as well as DEs 295-4 through 295-8, which were not previously
sealed exhibits 1-3 to DE 1342, the defense motion for orders to produce
4. Exhibit D, attached hereto (under seal), is a true and accurate copy of the
5. Exhibit E, attached hereto (under seal), is a true and accurate copy of the
follow-up proposed voir dire questions, served and filed by hand by the
7. Exhibits G through M are various pleadings for which the parties do not
government on 4/11/16.
about 02/02/2017.
accurate list of the exhibits provided to the jury on the JERS system.
9. Exhibit O, attached hereto, is a true and accurate list of all proffered and
10. Exhibit P, filed by hand on CD, is a true and accurate copy of a PowerPoint
argument. When it was played before the jury on 4/6/2015 (see Tr. 95), the
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744 Filed 10/21/18 Page 4 of 5
audio recording of the nasheed played over slides 52 through 56 and played
for up to 19 seconds.
11. Exhibit Q, attached hereto, is a true and accurate copy of the government’s
penalty phase opening photo array. Throughout the opening statement, the
size, in a line directly facing the jury, with a fifth 4’x3’ photograph in the
middle covered with a black cloth. The black cloth was lifted off the fifth
So stipulated.
Andrew E. Lelling
United States Attorney
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic
Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered
participants on October 21, 2018.
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
Defendant, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, by and through counsel, respectfully moves that this Court
suppress all statements that he made to law enforcement agents while he was hospitalized at Beth
Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The agents began interrogating him approximately 20 hours
after he arrived at the hospital. They questioned him on and off over a period of 36 hours,
despite the fact that he quickly allayed concerns about any continuing threats to public safety,
repeatedly requested a lawyer, and begged to rest as he recovered from emergency surgery and
1) The statements were involuntary, see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978);
2) The so-called “public safety exception” does not permit admission of the
statements; and
3) The delay in presenting Mr. Tsarnaev to a court, for the purpose of prolonging
Facts
In the early morning hours of April 19, 2013, Mr. Tsarnaev was shot and his brother,
Tamerlan, was killed during a gun battle in the streets of Watertown. Mr. Tsarnaev fled. He was
arrested some 20 hours later, after suffering multiple gunshot wounds when police unleashed a
- 1-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page22ofof21
162
barrage of bullets into the boat where he was hiding, unarmed. Before he surrendered to law
suspect.
Mr. Tsarnaev was transported by ambulance to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
(“BIDMC”) at approximately 9 p.m. on April 19. He was in critical condition, with numerous
serious injuries from gunshot wounds to his head, face, throat, jaw, left hand, and both legs. 1
Although oriented upon arrival, Mr. Tsarnaev's mental status suddenly declined and he required
intubation to keep him alive during the initial examination of his injuries. After being stabilized,
20, he was transferred to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit. He was given narcotic pain
The news media publicized Mr. Tsarnaev’s arrest and hospitalization around the world.
Many of these news accounts highlighted federal officials’ announcement that they intended to
interrogate him without first giving him constitutionally-required Miranda warnings. See, e.g.,
ABC News, “Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar
suspect-high-value-detainee-interrogation-group/.
Agents from the FBI “High Value Interrogation Group” began questioning Mr. Tsarnaev
at 7:22 p.m. on April 20. See FBI 302 report dated April 21, 2013 (filed under seal as Exhibit
1S), at 6-7; agent notes dated April 20, 2013 (filed under seal as Exhibit 2S). The interrogation
continued, with breaks ranging from 30 minutes to 3 hours and 13 minutes, until 7:05 a.m. the
next day. Id. The agents resumed interrogation at 5:35 p.m. on April 21, and continued, with
1
The description of Mr. Tsarnaev’s medical condition and treatment is based on a review of
records from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
- 2-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page33ofof21
162
breaks of varying lengths, until 9:00 a.m. the following day, April 22, when counsel was
appointed to represent Mr. Tsarnaev. FBI 302 Report dated April 22, 2013 (filed under seal as
Exhibit 3S), at 8-9; agent notes dated April 21, 2013 (filed under seal as Exhibit 4S). A
complaint charging Mr. Tsarnaev with crimes carrying a potential death sentence had been filed
the previous evening, under seal. See DE 1, 3. Throughout the time that Mr. Tsarnaev was
being questioned, lawyers from the Federal Public Defender’s Office repeatedly asked the court
Before interrogation began, two lawyers from the Federal Public Defender Office and a
private lawyer who had been appointed by the state public defender’s office (pursuant to its
authority to assign lawyers before charges are filed in homicide cases) attempted to meet with
Mr. Tsarnaev at the hospital. They were turned away by FBI agents, who refused to accept a
letter to Mr. Tsarnaev notifying him of counsel’s availability. See Affidavit of Charles P.
McGinty (“McGinty Aff.”), attached as Exhibit 1. One of the agents insisted, nonsensically, that
Hospital records show that Mr. Tsarnaev suffered gunshot wounds, including one to the
head, which likely caused traumatic brain injury. Following emergency surgery, Mr. Tsarnaev
was prescribed a multitude of pain medications, including Fentanyl, Propofol and Dilaudid. 2
The side effects of these medications include confusion, light-headedness, dizziness, difficulty
concentrating, fatigue, and sedation. Damage to cranial nerves required that his left eye be
2
The FBI reports state that, according to two nurses, Mr. Tsarnaev was taking only “phenatyl”
(presumably Fentanyl) and antibiotics. The medical records reflect that Mr. Tsarnaev received
Dilaudid during this time period and may have received Propofol as well. “Fentanyl, which is
used to relieve severe pain and is often given to end-stage cancer patients, can be as much as 40
times more powerful than heroin and 100 times more powerful than morphine.” Brian MacQuarrie,
Deadly opioid Fentanyl confirmed in Boston overdose, Boston Globe, April 30, 2014, available at
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/29/fentanyl-deadly-opiod-confirmed-boston-
overdose/LVVkH6Jzng1CJypurWWM1L/story.html .
- 3-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page44ofof21
162
sutured shut; his jaw was wired closed; and injuries to his left ear left him unable to hear on that
side. Although apparently able to mouth words when asked about his medical condition by
hospital staff, he was unable to talk, in part because of a tracheotomy. He was handcuffed to the
A “high powered” gunshot wound had fractured the base of his skull. See transcript of
April 22, 2013 testimony of Dr. Stephen Odom, at 4, DE 13. This injury would likely have
caused a concussion. Immediately before the initial appearance on April 22, Dr. Odom, who was
treating Mr. Tsarnaev, described his condition at that time — approximately 36 hours after the
agents began their interrogation and two hours after it ended — as “guarded.” Id. Mr. Tsarnaev
The first interrogation began at 7:22 p.m. on April 20 and continued through the night
until 7 a.m. on April 21. Exhibit 1S, 2S. Mr. Tsarnaev wrote answers to questions in a notebook
because he was unable to speak. These notes reflect his attempt to respond to urgent questions
(he assured the agents that no public safety threat remained), as well as his poor functioning and
limited cognitive ability. On the first page, he wrote his address in Cambridge incorrectly the
first time. See notes (filed under seal as Exhibit 5S). His next note assured the agents that there
were no more bombs. On the fourth page, he wrote, “is it me or do you hear some noise,” an
indication of how those injuries were interfering with his cognitive processes. 3 The notes
Interspersed with these pleas are his assurances that no one other than his brother was
involved, that there was no danger to anyone else, and that there were no remaining bombs. In
all, he wrote the word “lawyer” ten times, sometimes circling it. At one point, he wrote, “I am
3
It is unclear whether Mr. Tsarnaev was hearing actual sounds or experiencing auditory
hallucinations at that point. A later note reads, “whats that noise, she made it stop can you tell
her please”.
- 4-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page55ofof21
162
tired. Leave me alone. I want a l[illegible].” His pen or pencil then trails off the page,
suggesting that he either fell asleep, lost motor control, or passed out. At least five other times in
these pages, he begged the agents to leave him alone and to let him sleep. He also wrote, “I’m
hurt,” “I’m exhausted,” and “Can we do this later?” At one point, he wrote, “You said you were
According to the FBI report regarding the interrogation on April 20-21, Exhibit 1S, Mr.
Tsarnaev “asked to speak to a lawyer on multiple occasions” sometime between 8:35 pm and
9:05 pm on April 20. “JAHAR was told that he first needed to answer questions to ensure that
the public safety was no longer in danger from other individuals, devices, or otherwise.” Id. The
reports omit any mention of Mr. Tsarnaev’s repeated pleas for sleep.
Mr. Tsarnaev also asked the agents several times about his brother, who, by the time of
questioning, had been dead for nearly 48 hours. It is apparent that the agents falsely told him
that Tamerlan was alive. One of Mr. Tsarnaev’s notes reads: “Is my brother alive I know you
said he is are you lying Is he alive? One person can tell you that.” Exhibit 5S. Another asked:
“Is he alive, show me the news! Whats today? Where is he?” Id. In his last note, 4 Mr. Tsarnaev
wrote, “can I sleep? Can you not handcuff my right arm? Where is my bro Are you sure.” Id.
Despite Mr. Tsarnaev’s entreaties to be left alone, allowed to rest, and provided with a
lawyer, the agents persisted in questioning him throughout the night and into the morning of
April 20. The FBI report and notes makes it clear that the interrogation was wide-ranging,
covering everything from how and where the bombs were made to his beliefs about Islam and
U.S. foreign policy, as well as his sports activities, future career goals, and school history. The
interrogation resumed on the afternoon of April 21. See FBI report dated April 22, Exhibit 3S;
4
The notes do not contain any indication of when they were written. Apart from the sequence in
which they were provided, it is impossible even to determine on what day they were written.
- 5-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page66ofof21
162
Agent notes, Exhibit 4S. This second round of interrogation covered many of the same topics as
the first one, eliciting a detailed description of the brothers’ activities during the days after the
bombings.
It is hard to ascertain exactly what questions the agents posed, since their reports simply
summarize his statements in a continuous narrative format and their notes reflect only a few
questions. In keeping with its controversial and much-criticized practice, the FBI chose not to
make any audio or video recording of the questioning. Such a recording would have permitted
the Court to assess Mr. Tsarnaev’s condition and functioning, to hear the actual words he used
and the way he used them, and to verify the sequence of events. Instead, the FBI reports
reconfigure Mr. Tsarnaev’s statements into an unbroken narrative. Mr. Tsarnaev’s handwritten
notes provide a much clearer picture of the circumstances of the interrogation than the 302
reports do.
At 6:45 p.m. on Sunday evening, April 21, a criminal complaint was filed under seal. DE
3. However, counsel were not appointed until the next morning. It was only at that point that the
Argument
Any use of an involuntary statement against a defendant is a denial of due process. See
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978). A statement is involuntary if it was not “the
product of a rational intellect and a free will.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 306 (1963)
(quoting Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208 (1960). The government bears the burden of
proving that any statements it seeks to introduce were made voluntarily. Lego v. Twomey, 404
- 6-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page77ofof21
162
In Mincey, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on its conclusion that statements
made in a hospital bed by an injured suspect, who repeatedly requested a lawyer, should not have
The facts presented here may be distinguishable in some respects; for example, Mr.
Tsarnaev did not complain of “unbearable pain,” as Mincey did, although hospital records reflect
that Mr. Tsarnaev’s pain level fluctuated during this period 5 and increased as medications
started to wear off. Of course, Mincey had not been shot in the head or subjected to flash-bang
grenades. Like Mincey, Mr. Tsarnaev “was questioned [while] lying on his back on a hospital
bed,” connected to tubes and medical equipment. Like Mincey, “[h]e was, in short, ‘at the
complete mercy’ of [his interrogators], unable to escape or resist the thrust of [the]
Mincey was questioned for four hours, with breaks for medical treatment. Mr. Tsarnaev
was questioned during two sessions, lasting a total of more than 27 hours, with breaks. During
these breaks, he was receiving medical treatment. The government may argue that Mr. Tsarnaev,
5
The hospital records reflect “generalized” complaints of pain on April 20 and “significant
surgical pain” on April l 21 at 3:28 pm. On April 21, he had “incisional pain and generalized
discomfort”. On April 22, he rated the pain in his hand as 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, which is
considered “severe” and “very intense.” It is defined as pain that “completely dominates your
senses, causing you to think unclearly about half the time.” See
https://lane.stanford.edu/portals/cvicu/HCP_Neuro_Tab_4/0-10_Pain_Scale.pdf.
- 7-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page88ofof21
162
unlike the defendant in Mincey, did not give incoherent answers. 6 That is not necessarily true.
Mr. Tsarnaev gave inconsistent responses — for example, in answering questions about when he
first learned of the bombing plan — and his written notes are at times illegible or simply trail off.
But more to the point, the medication that Mr. Tsarnaev was administered before and during both
interrogation sessions — including the opioid painkiller Dilaudid, given intravenously — had
disinihibiting and sedative effects and impaired his judgment, increasing his susceptibility to
pressure. Cf. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307-08 (1963) (confession given after “truth
Like Mincey, Mr. Tsarnaev “clearly expressed his wish not to be interrogated.” Id.
These entreaties — along with his pleas for a lawyer, for a chance to rest, and to be left alone —
were ignored by the agents. The Mincey Court’s conclusion is equally applicable here:
[T]he undisputed evidence makes clear that Mincey wanted not to answer
Detective Hurst. But Mincey was weakened by pain and shock, isolated from
family, friends, and legal counsel, and barely conscious, and his will was simply
overborne. Due process of law requires that statements obtained as these cannot
be used in any way against a defendant at his trial.
In some respects, moreover, the interrogation in Mincey was less coercive than the
agents’ relentless interrogation here. In Mincey, the interrogator at least told the suspect, “If you
want a lawyer now, I cannot talk to you any longer, however you don’t have to answer any
questions if you don’t want to.” Id. at 401. No such assurances were given to Mr. Tsarnaev.
Instead, agents made clear by word and deed that they would not allow him to see a lawyer until
6
At the initial appearance, which occurred an hour or two after the last round of interrogation
ended, the magistrate judge found Mr. Tsarnaev to be “alert, mentally competent, and lucid.”
DE 11 at. 7. That finding does not, however, demonstrate that he was competent to waive his
rights and voluntarily submit to questioning.
- 8-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page99ofof21
162
they had finished questioning him. 7 He was thus given no choice but to submit to lengthy
interrogation. That fact distinguishes this case from others where a defendant who was
questioned while recovering from injuries challenged the use of statements against him or her.
Cf. United States v. Siddiqui, 699 F.3d 690, 707 (2d Cir. 2012) (agent routinely asked defendant
hospitalized in Afghanistan if she wished to speak with them; if she said she did not, the agent
United States v. Abdulmutallab, No. 10-20005, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105462 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 16, 2011), and United States v. Khalil, 214 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000), are not to the
contrary. In Abdulmutallab, unlike here, “there was no evidence that Defendant was reluctant to
answer questions.” Abdulmutallab, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105462 at *4. Nor did he apparently
request a lawyer. The same was true in Khalil, 214 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000).
The undisputed fact that the agents expressly told Tsarnaev that he would not get a
lawyer until they were done questioning him also renders the statements involuntary. See
Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963) (pre-Miranda case holding that written statements
obtained from suspect by police who rejected his request to contact his wife so she could get him
a lawyer until he cooperated and signed a confession rendered his ensuing statements
inadmissible). In Haynes, the Court emphasized that “[t]hough the police were in possession of
evidence more than adequate to justify his being charged without delay . . . Haynes was not taken
before a magistrate and granted a preliminary hearing until he had acceded to demands that he
give and sign the written statement.” Id. at 510. Based on those facts, the Court found that
Haynes “was alone in the hands of the police, with no one to advise or aid him, and he had ‘no
reason not to believe that the police had ample power to carry out their threats . . . to continue,
7
Here, there is the additional fact that counsel unsuccessfully tried to see Mr. Tsarnaev, who was
not informed of their availability.
- 9-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page10
10ofof21
162
for a much longer period if need be, the incommunicado detention – as in fact was actually
done.” Id. at 514. Despite a half-century of precedents since Haynes forbidding the use of such
Before leaving this issue, a word must be said about the government’s failure to record
the interrogation. Presumably, given the fact that the FBI arranged for members of its High
Value Intelligence Group to travel to Boston, it could easily have arranged for electronic
recording of the questions asked and the answers given. Such recordings would have provided
this Court with direct evidence of Mr. Tsarnaev’s condition, his demeanor, and the manner in
which the questions were posed. It is clear that government officials — who surely conferred at
the highest levels about the scope and timing of the questioning, given the U.S. Attorney’s
televised announcement of how it would proceed — made a deliberate decision not to create
such a record. Indeed, a 2006 internal FBI memorandum, cited as among the reasons not to tape
a defendant’s statement, explains that techniques used by investigators to question suspects “do
not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining
information from defendants.” FBI Memorandum dated March 23, 2006, attached as Exhibit 2.
The memorandum goes on: “Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and
misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair
deceit.” Id.
with prior approval of the Assistant Special Agent in Charge. See FBI Domestic Investigations
and Operations Guide (2011) (“DIOG”) at18.6. 8 Given the massive mobilization of FBI
8
The memorandum and policy have been widely criticized for being too restrictive. See, e.g.,
Steve Chapman, The FBI shuts a window on the truth: recording interrogations is way overdue,”
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 8, 2010, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-
08/news/ct-oped-0708-chapman-20100708_1_recording-interrogations-fbi-device. In one
- 10-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page11
11ofof21
162
personnel and resources, this could have easily been obtained — if the government wished to
create a record. The FBI policy is not intended to “indicate that the FBI disfavors recording.
Indeed, there are many circumstances in which audio or video recording of an interview may be
prudent.” Exhibit 2. If this case did not present such circumstances, it is hard to imagine one
that would. The government’s apparently deliberate refusal to create an electronic record should
weigh against any claim it now makes that Mr. Tsarnaev’s hospital statements were voluntarily
given.
If the statements were not voluntary, they must be excluded. The public safety exception
to Miranda, first recognized in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) does not apply to
involuntary statements. United States v. DeSantis, 870 F.3d 536, 540 (9th Cir. 1989). Cf.
Quarles at 654 (case involved “no claim that respondent’s statements were actually compelled
II. THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO MIRANDA DOES NOT PERMIT ADMISSION
9
OF THE STATEMENTS.
In Quarles, the Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of a rape suspect’s response to
a police officer’s question, posed before Miranda warnings were given, concerning the location
of a missing gun. The suspect, who was wearing an empty holster when arrested, told police
highly publicized case, a U.S. Attorney in Arizona was fired after requiring agents in his district
to record statements by defendants. See E. Lipton, J. Steinhauer, Battle Over F.B.I. Policy
Against Taping of Suspects Comes to Light in Firing Inquiry, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 2,
2007, available at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E5D71E30F931A35757C0A9619C8B63.
9
This issue may be moot, as government counsel informed defense counsel by e-mail on the
afternoon of May 7, as this motion was being finalized, “that it does not intend to use Mr.
Tsarnaev’s statements at Beth Israel in its case-in-chief at trial or sentencing.” Because,
however, the government has not agreed to forego all potential uses of the statement, e.g., in
rebuttal, and has explicitly declined to disavow reliance on Quarles, defendant seeks by this
motion to preserve all issues regarding the admissibility of the statements.
- 11-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page12
12ofof21
162
where to find the weapon. The Supreme Court held that the statement was admissible, where the
police, “in the very act of apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the immediate necessity
of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun which they had every reason to believe the suspect had
just removed from his empty holster and discarded in the supermarket.” Quarles, 467 U.S. at
657.
The scope of the public safety exception has been debated ever since the Supreme Court
first recognized its existence in Quarles. Defense counsel submit that, however broad it may be,
In Quarles, the Supreme Court upheld the admission of statements made moments after
arrest to officers who, “in the very act of apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the
immediate necessity” of determining where the suspect had discarded a gun. Quarles, 467 U.S.
at 657. As soon as the suspect told them where the gun was, they read him his Miranda rights
The prolonged and comprehensive interrogation at issue here is the very opposite of what
the Court approved in Quarles. When Mr. Tsarnaev’s interrogation began, more than five days
had passed since the bombings and he had been in custody for nearly 24 hours. His brother was
dead. Agents had spent nearly 12 hours searching the Tsarnaev family’s Cambridge home.
They had also searched and secured all cars known to have been used by the Tsarnaev brothers.
Whatever emergent circumstances might have existed earlier in the week had largely, if not
completely, dissipated.
The first round of interrogation lasted nearly 12 hours, with breaks. The second round,
resumed on the afternoon of April 21, lasted more than 15 hours and ended only when counsel
- 12-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page13
13ofof21
162
were appointed. Mr. Tsarnaev had assured his interrogators — apparently within the first few
minutes — that there were no other bombs, that no one else had been involved in the plot, and
that no further danger remained. He provided them with details about how the bombs were
built. But still the questioning continued for hours, in what was obviously an effort to extract as
much incriminating information as possible, without regard for the protections of the Fifth
Amendment.
The FBI agents elicited information about the brothers’ activities before and after the
bombings, about the murder of Sean Collier, about the carjacking, and about their family
relationships and history. These questions went well beyond even the Department of Justice’s
own written policy regarding use of the public safety exception to interrogate members of
terrorist organizations. This policy contemplates limited questioning outside of Miranda about
“possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by
weapons that might post (sic) an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and
activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks.” FBI,
Terrorists Inside the United States,” (October 21, 2010), as published in The New York Times on
March 25, 2011, attached as Exhibit 3. The memorandum encourages agents to “ask any and all
questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or
the arresting agents without advising the arrest (sic) of his Miranda rights.” Id. Here, the agents
instead used the opportunity to conduct a thorough debriefing of Mr. Tsarnaev, with no regard
Some courts have extended the Quarles exception to situations lacking the immediacy
presented in Quarles itself. See, e.g., Trice v. United States, 662 A.2d 891 (D.C. App. 1995)
- 13-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page14
14ofof21
162
(questioning regarding presence of gun in apartment where defendant was arrested four days
after shooting). But undersigned counsel is unaware of any case that has applied the public
safety exception to an interrogation as prolonged, wide-ranging, and remote in time from the
The use of the “public safety” exception in terrorism cases was brought into sharp focus
by the arrest of the so-called “underwear bomber” on Christmas Day in 2009. In that case,
agents questioned the suspect within four hours of his arrival at the hospital. See Abdulmutallab,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105462 at *3. The agents gave Abdulmutallab Miranda warnings after
questioning him for 50 minutes. Id. at *4. The pre-Miranda questions “sought to identify any
other attackers or other potentially imminent attacks[.]” Id. at *17. The suspect told the agents
that he was not in pain and expressed no reluctance to answer questions. Id. at *4. In that case,
the agents knew that Abdulmutallab “claimed to be acting on behalf of al-Qaeda,” id. at *3, a
circumstance which made the threat of other attacks far more grave. Cf. Khalil, 214 F.3d at 121
(brief questioning of suspected terrorist at hospital immediately after bombs were discovered and
before they were disarmed produced admissible statements). These cases illustrate the narrow
scope of the Quarles exception to Miranda and provide no support for the radical expansion of
Quarles that would be required to uphold admission of the statements obtained here.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the First Circuit have decided whether Quarles provides a
public safety exception to the rules requiring police to cease interrogation when a suspect
invokes his right to counsel under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) and right to remain
silent under Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975). Those cases held that once a suspect
- 14-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page15
15ofof21
162
asserts his rights to counsel or against self-incrimination, questioning must stop and can only
begin again if initiated by the suspect. As the Mosley court put it: “Through the exercise of his
option to terminate questioning he can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects
That is precisely the option that Mr. Tsarnaev sought to exercise, by pleading with the
agents to let him rest and to allow him to see a lawyer. The entreaties were ignored.
The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that the public safety exception permits police to
override a suspect’s request for a lawyer. United States v. Mobley, 40 F.3d 688, 693 (4th Cir.
1990); United States v. DeSantis, 870 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1989). We submit that these cases
were wrongly decided, and are, in any event, factually distinguishable. First, Mobley recognized
that “the reasoning of Quarles is not on all points with the situation in which the accused has
claimed his right to counsel[.]” Id. at 692. After all, Quarles permits police to forego a
prophylactic warning about a defendant’s right to remain silent; it does not permit police to
Second, the Mobley court found that the facts of that case did not support the application
the [Quarles] “public safety” exception applies only where there is “an
objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate
danger associated with [a] weapon.” Id. at 659 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. at 2633 n. 8. Absent
such circumstances posing an objective danger to the public or police, the need
for the exception is not apparent, and the suspicion that the questioner is on a
fishing expedition outweighs the belief that public safety motivated the
questioning that all understand is otherwise improper.”
Id. at 693. In Mobley, officers executing a search warrant asked the defendant, after he had
invoked his right to counsel and they were preparing to leave his apartment with him in custody,
if there were any guns or weapons in the apartment. Id. at 690-91. The Fourth Circuit concluded
- 15-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page16
16ofof21
162
that his response — informing police of the presence of a gun — was not covered by the public
safety exception, where officers had already conducted a sweep of the apartment, determined
that no one else was present or resided there, and had arrested the defendant. Id. at 693.
United States v. DeSantis, 870 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1989) also concluded that the Quarles
exception can be applied to a claimed violation of Edwards. Id. at 541. In that case, officers
arresting the defendant on a warrant asked him whether there were any weapons in his bedroom
before allowing him to enter the room to get dressed. “The inspectors lawfully were entitled to
question DeSantis for the purpose of securing their safety, even after he had asserted his desire to
speak with counsel.” Id. No such compelling, immediate threat to safety was present here,
where Mr. Tsarnaev was in custody, gravely injured, and heavily guarded. Even assuming
arguendo that some limited questioning was permissible, it should have ceased after Mr.
Tsarnaev assured the agents that no other bombs existed and there were no accomplices who
The government may argue that the interrogation that began on the afternoon of April 21
does not suffer from the same flaws as the first one. It is unclear whether Mr. Tsarnaev repeated
his request for a lawyer during the second night of interrogation. But neither a failure to do so
nor the lapse of time between the morning and afternoon of the April 21 constitute a “break”
sufficient to permit renewed questioning despite Mr. Tsarnaev’s earlier request for counsel. See
Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85 (once defendant asserts right to counsel, police may not further
interrogate him unless he initiates further contact with them); Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 (police
It is undisputed that Mr. Tsarnaev was not provided with Miranda warnings before this
second session, either. The argument that these statements fall within the public safety exception
- 16-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page17
17ofof21
162
is even weaker, since any danger to the public was further diminished by the passage of time and
Even before suspects were identified in the Boston Marathon bombing, lawyers with the
Federal Public Defender Office notified officials in the U.S. Attorney’s office that they were
available on a 24-hour basis to represent any suspect taken into custody. While thousands of
officers searched for Mr. Tsarnaev in Watertown, this offer was repeated.
Mr. Tsarnaev was arrested on the night of April 19 and rushed to Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, where he arrived in critical condition. During the press conference that
immediately followed his capture, government officials announced that agents would not read
the suspect his rights and were invoking “the public safety exception.” Lawyers from the
Federal Public Defender Office contacted prosecutors and court officials in an effort to provide
representation. Two of the lawyers went to the hospital in the early morning hours of April 20.
McGinty Aff. They were turned away. The agent with whom they spoke refused to accept a
letter to him from the lawyers, although she did take a business card, on which a cell phone
A lawyer assigned by the state public defender agency also went to the hospital on the
night of April 19 and again in the afternoon on April 20, in an attempt to see Mr. Tsarnaev. He,
too, was turned away and a law enforcement officer refused to accept a letter from him to Mr.
Tsarnaev. The lawyer sent two emails to a federal prosecutor, asking to be permitted to see Mr.
Tsarnaev and to have Mr. Tsarnaev informed of his availability and of his advice that Mr.
Tsarnaev remain silent until he could speak to counsel. The prosecutor did not respond.
- 17-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page18
18ofof21
162
Throughout April 20 and 21, the Federal Public Defender and other lawyers from her
office contacted court officials, asking to be appointed. Court personnel informed the lawyers
that they would be appointed as soon as a complaint was filed. McGinty Aff.
This turned out to be incorrect. A complaint was signed at 6:47 pm on April 21, DE 3,
and filed under seal. Interrogation continued through the night and well into the morning of
April 22. The government’s motion to seal, DE 1, explained that “public disclosure of these
materials might jeopardize the ongoing investigation of this case.” This baffling assertion
ignores the fact, well-known to anyone with access to a television, radio, newspaper, smartphone
or computer, that Mr. Tsarnaev was in custody. Nothing in the application for the complaint
revealed information that had not already been reported by media around the world. It thus
appears that the sole reason to seal the complaint was to allow the interrogation to continue by
delaying the defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer and the appointment of
counsel.
Here, as in Haynes v. Washington, “the only fair inference to be drawn under all the
circumstances is that” the defendant would not be charged and brought to court “until the police
had secured the additional evidence they desired[.]” Haynes, 373 U.S. at 512. In Haynes,
decided before Miranda, the Supreme Court held that the confession was involuntary and its use
Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A) requires that an arresting officer “must take the defendant
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge.” The Supreme Court has held that even a
voluntary confession must be suppressed if this rule is violated. See Mallory v. United States,
354 U.S. 449 (1957) (holding that delay for purpose of interrogation is, by definition,
unnecessary delay).
- 18-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page19
19ofof21
162
delayed presentment, if the statement was made within six hours of arrest. In Corley v. United
States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009), the Supreme Court interpreted this statute in light of the McNabb-
Mallory line of cases, noting, “In a world without McNabb-Mallory, federal agents would be
free to question suspects for extended periods before bringing them out in the open, and we have
always known what custodial secrecy leads to.” Id. at 320. As a result, the Supreme Court held,
statements made more than six hours after arrest are admissible only if the delay in presentment s
Here, the delay meets neither requirement. The government cannot contend that
presentment was delayed due to the unavailability of the magistrate-judge. On April 21, the
magistrate-judge approved five search warrant applications in connection with the investigation
of the bombing.
Furthermore, the complaint and arrest warrant issued on the evening of April 21, shortly
after the second round of interrogation began. Nevertheless, appointment of counsel and the
initial appearance were delayed until the following morning, despite the fact that counsel were
ready, willing, and available to immediately represent Mr. Tsarnaev. During that time, agents
The 2010 Department of Justice policy regarding interrogation of terrorism suspects who
are under arrest but not yet indicted specifically warns, “Presentment of an arrestee may not be
delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt
- 19-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page20
20ofof21
162
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court should suppress the statements made by Mr.
Tsarnaev to FBI agents at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center on April 20 through 22.
Respectfully submitted,
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
by his attorneys
- 20-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295 Filed
Filed05/07/14
10/21/18 Page
Page21
21ofof21
162
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on May 7, 2014.
- 21-
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-1 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page22
1 of 162
2
UNITED STATES )
)
) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO
v. )
)
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
perjury:
Federal Public Defender Timothy G. Watkins and I went to Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center (“BIDMC”) to see Mr. Tsarnaev. We arrived shortly after midnight on
April 20. We spoke with FBI Special Agent Kristin O’Neill, who told us that 1) Mr.
Tsarnaev was not in custody; 2) he had not been given his Miranda warnings, and agents
did not intend to do so; and 3) because he had not yet been formally charged, we did not
U.S.Atttorney, head of the USAO counter-terrorism, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Aloke
• Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to
your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit
www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
F.B.I. Memorandum
Below is the text of an unsigned, internal F.B.I. memorandum, obtained by The New York
Times, that provides guidance to agents about when, in the course of interrogating a
terrorism suspect, they should advise the suspect of his so-called Miranda rights to remain
silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
1. If applicable, agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an
immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents without advising the
arrestee of his Miranda rights. [3]
2. After all applicable public safety questions have been exhausted, agents should advise the
arrestee of his Miranda rights and seek a waiver of those rights before any further
interrogation occurs, absent exceptional circumstances described below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html?pagewanted=print 04/04/2014
F.B.I. Memo Instructs Delayed Miranda Warning for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 3
Case
Case1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document1744-1
295-3 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page312 of 162
3
3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions
have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is
necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and
that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of
proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC
approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is
concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and
Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may
not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived
prompt presentment.
The determination whether particular unwarned questions are justified on public safety
grounds must always be made on a case-by-case basis based on all the facts and
circumstances. In light of the magnitude and complexity of the threat often posed by
terrorist organizations, particularly international terrorist organizations, and the nature of
their attacks, the circumstances surrounding an arrest of an operational terrorist may
warrant significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings
than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case. Depending on the facts, such
interrogation might include, for example, questions about possible impending or
coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature, and threat posed by weapons that might
post an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or
intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks.
As noted above, if there is time to consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of
Justice attorneys regarding the interrogation strategy to be followed prior to reading the
defendant his Miranda rights, the field office should endeavor to do so. Nevertheless, the
agents on the scene who are interacting with the arrestee are in the best position to assess
what questions are necessary to secure their safety and the safety of the public, and how long
the post-arrest interview can practically be delayed while interrogation strategy is being
discussed.
[1] This guidance applies only to arrestees who have not been indicted and who are not
known to be represented by an attorney. For policy on interrogation of indicted defendants,
see Legal Handbook for Special Agents (LHBSA) Section 7-3.2 For policy on contact with
represented persons, see LHBSA Sections 7-4.1 and 8-3.2.2.
[2] For these purposes, an operational terrorist is an arrestee who is reasonably believed to
be either a high-level member of an international terrorist group; or an operative who has
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html?pagewanted=print 04/04/2014
F.B.I. Memo Instructs Delayed Miranda Warning for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com Page 3 of 3
Case
Case1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document1744-1
295-3 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page323 of 162
3
personally conducted or attempted to conduct a terrorist operation that involved risk to life;
or an individual knowledgeable about operational details of a pending terrorist operation.
[3] The Supreme Court held in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), that if law
enforcement officials engage in custodial interrogation of an individual that is "reasonable
prompted by a concern for the public safety," any statements the individual provides in the
course of such interrogation shall not be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding on the
basis that the warnings described in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were not
provided. The court noted that this exception to the Miranda rule is a narrow one and that
"in each case it will be circumscribed by the [public safety] exigency which justifies it." 467
U.S. at 657.
[4]The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda
warnings, but instead may be violated only if and when the government introduces an
unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant. See Chavez v. Martinez,
538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003) (plurality op.); id. at 789 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part); cf. also id. at 778-79 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment); see also
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 641 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("[V]iolations [of the
Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] occur, if at all, only upon the admission
of unwarned statements into evidence at trial."); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494
U.S. 259, 264 (1990) ("[A] violation [of the Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination] occurs only at trial.")
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html?pagewanted=print 04/04/2014
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-4 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page33
1 of 162
1
SEALED DOCUMENT
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 34 of 162
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV, date of birth July 22, 1993, was interviewed at Beth
Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02215. Immediately prlor to the intervlew, Julie Dian, RN,
lnformed the lnterviewing agents an interview of JAHAR would not pose a
medical risk to him, she was not aware of any brain injury suffered by
JAHAR, and that his only medications were an antibiotic and phenatyl,
neither of which, at their current dose, would inhibit his mental
faculties. After being informed of the identities of the interviewing
agents, JAHAR confirmed he could hear and understand the interviewing
agents, could respond to the interviewing agents, and was not experiencing
overwhelming pain, and provided the following information:
On the day of the Boston Marathon, JAHAR and his older brother, TAMERLAN,
drove from Cambridge to Boston in JAHAR's car around 2:30p.m. JAHAR and
his brother were the only lndividuals in the vehicle. Both JAHAR and his
brother had a backpack containing an explosive device. JAHAR carried a
brown backpack while his brother's backpack was black. After parking, they
walked approximately five minutes to spots very close to the Marathon
finish line. Each of them decided on their own where they would stop near
the finish line and place the backpack containing the explosive device.
JAHAR could not remember whether he or his brother was closer to the finish
line. Just before detonating his device, JAHAR placed a call to his
brother with the other device to try to synchronize the two detonations.
After JAHAR put his backpack down, he walked away and detonated the device
using a button. He used a trigger mechanism built according to the
instructions in the Inspire Magazine articles.
JAHAR stated that there were no other attacks planned, there were no
unaccounted devices, and the only individuals involved in the attack
planning and executlon were JAHAR and TAMERLAN.
Datedrafted 04/21/2013
~ Gregory T. Hughes, Matthew T Dowd
This document contams neither recommendatiOns nor conclusions of the FBI It IS the property of the FBI and IS loaned to your agency, 1t and Its contents are not
to be d1stnbuted outside your agency
DT-0008225
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 35 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
TAMERLAN's Wlfe had no ldea about the attack. She generally works from 7
a.m.-10 p.m., and, as a result, she was not ln the house very much. She
dld not know about the flreworks or anythlng else related to the attacks.
She lS an Amerlcan Wlth an Amerlcan famlly and lS an lnnocent woman.
JAHAR and hls brother dld not look for others to ]OlD them after the Monday
attack. Slnce they knew lt would take a few days, or less, before they got
caught, they told no one about what had happened, ln part because they dld
not thlnk anyone lD thelr rlght mlnd would agree to JOln them. Jolnlng
Wlth them at that polnt they would have been lnvltlng someone to elther dle
or go to J all.
JAHAR stated no one had any knowledge of thelr plan before the attack, nor
dld they tell anyone after the attack had occurred. JAHAR and hls brother
dld not lnclude others ln thelr plan before the attack because they could
not trust anyone else.
JAHAR's brother had been careful not bulld the devlces too far ahead of
tlme so that he could keep the attack plan a secret from hls Wlfe. JAHAR
stated he and hls brother bullt JUSt two devlces and used the two devlces
at the marathon, but he provlded dlfferent verslons as to when the devlces
were assembled. In one verslon, they walted to assemble the two devlces
that Monday mornlng because lt was not hard to assemble. In another
verslon, TAMERLAN constructed the devlces on hls own.
JAHAR's brother dld not talk about any addltlonal devlces slmllar to the
two used at the marathon.
When asked about other attacks that JAHAR and hls brother were preparlng
for, JAHAR relayed that he thought he was golng to dle on Monday, so there
were no other attack plans. JAHAR wore hls hat backwards Wlthout a hoodle
because he thought he was golng to dle. JAHAR and hls brother dld not plan
to dle, they JUst thought lt was somethlng that mlght happen. They dld not
conduct the attack to glorlfy themselves but they thought they may dle
regardless.
JAHAR sald that the next lDCldent he and hls brother had was the standoff
Wlth the pollee on Thursday. After the Aslan lndlvldual got away on
Thursday nlght, lt became clear to JAHAR that the end was near.
DT-0008226
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 36 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-1 0)
JAHAR and hls brother knew there were cameras at the marathon and they knew
they were golng to get caught, so they declded to act on Thursday. They
dld not have anythlng planned; at that polnt lt became lrnprovlsatlon for
them.
JAHAR dld not warn any of hls frlends to stay away from the Marathon
because he dldn't care lf they got hurt. JAHAR only reached out to Baudy
to see what people thought of the bornblngs. JAHAR used the lMessage
feature of hls phone to contact Baudy.
JAHAR's brother traveled horne about one year ago to see farnlly but dldn't
talk much about what he dld whlle he was there. The brother's travel was
not for tralnlng.
Prevlous to thls trlp, JAHAR's brother had not been horne for a long tlrne,
and, as far as JAHAR knew, the trlp was JUSt a VlSlt. After JAHAR's
brother left, thelr father, growlng tlred of llVlng ln the Unlted States,
returned horne. JAHAR's brother eventually returned to Massachusetts after
SlX months, but a few months later, ln September 2012, thelr mother, also
tlred of the Unlted States, returned horne as well. JAHAR's brother never
talked about any people he may have met overseas.
JAHAR stated that he and hls brother constructed two exploslve devlces ln
hls brother's horne at 410 Norfolk, Apartment 3, Carnbrldge, Massachusetts.
The devlces were easy to bulld, because lnstructlons were avallable ln a
copy of Insplre rnagazlne the two downloaded from the Internet. JAHAR and
hls brother used powder to bulld the bombs. The powder carne from flreworks
purchased about one year ago ln New Harnpshlre. Both JAHAR and hls brother
traveled to New Harnpshlre to purchase the flreworks. JAHAR dld not know
why hls brother purchased the flreworks, but lndlcated that they dld not
buy many flreworks durlng thelr trlp to New Harnpshlre.
Inltlally, JAHAR stated he and hls brother, TAMERLAN, dlsposed of the two
devlces they bullt by throwlng them ln a rlver. Later, however, JAHAR
explalned how he and hls brother detonated them on Monday at the Boston
Marathon. JAHAR was amused by the reports he and hls brother planted four
devlces on the day of the Marathon when, ln fact, the brothers constructed
only the two bombs that exploded. No one else partlclpated ln the attacks
- JAHAR and hls brother bullt the two devlces and planned the attack
alone.
In addltlon to the pressure cooker devlces, JAHAR and hls brother also made
rnlnl-bornbs to cause more damage to people, mostly pollee offlcers who
served ln the Army. They made the rnlnl-bornbs because they dld not have any
addltlonal pressure cookers to make the larger devlces. The rnlnl-bornbs had
a fuse whlch would be llt to detonate the devlce. JAHAR and hls brother
DT-0008227
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 37 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
JAHAR and hls brother dld not test the ltems at any polnt prlor to uslng
them. They used the mlnl-bombs they made agalnst pollee. If they had not
been caught, they probably would have made more bombs and commltted more
attacks
After the exploslon, JAHAR and hls brother returned to the brother's house
and stayed there for the evenlng. JAHAR had the new T-Moblle lPhone wlth
hlm the whole tlme. JAHAR lnltlally lndlcated that he could not remember
who he texted from hls lPhone after the exploslon. JAHAR later lndlcated
that he sent lMessages to hls frlend, Baudy, who attends Boston Unlverslty.
JAHAR stated that nelther he nor hls brother told anyone about what they
had done.
The text messages between JAHAR and Baudy were casual texts because JAHAR
wanted to make lt appear llke lt was a normal day. The messages asked how
Baudy was dolng, lf he was safe, and knew what had happened. Glven that
the bomblngs were already on the news by then, Baudy had heard about them.
Even though JAHAR's cell servlce was shut off because he had a famlly
share plan Wlth hls college frlends but had not pald the blll, JAHAR could
stlll send and recelve lMessages when Wlfl was avallable.
On Thursday (Aprll 18) JAHAR and hls brother were not golng to
Massachusetts Instltute of Technology to plant a devlce. They were trylng
to go to New York, though JAHAR does not know why they were plannlng on New
York because lt was hls brother's ldea. The attack on the MIT pollee
offlcer happened Slmply because the offlcer happened to be where JAHAR and
hls brother were located.
In the car the two of them had a handgun, some food, and a couple of
mlnl-bombs. JAHAR made the mlnl-bombs Wlth hls brother, JUSt as he had
made the larger devlces wlth hls brother. The mlnl-bombs were easler to
make than the larger devlces. The blgger devlces took a few days to make
whlle the mlnl-bombs they had Wlth them were all made on Thursday.
DT-0008228
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 38 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08- I0)
Contmuatwn ot FD-302 of 04/21/2 013 Intervlew of DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ,On 04/21/2013 Page 5 of 7
When asked about what trlggered JAHAR and hls brother to act on Monday,
JAHAR lnltlally stated he dld not want to answer that questlon. He Slmply
stated "what's done lS done." He then asked agaln, "Are we not at war?"
After repeatlng the questlon, JAHAR explalned he and hls brother were
lnsplred by the promlse of heaven and that JAHAR also found Anwar
al-Aulaql's teachlngs to be very persuaslve. JAHAR acknowledged that the
tlme had come when he was flnally ready to act. He explalned that not
every Musllm lS lnsplred, but those that are lnsplred are able to protect
the Musllm people and the Musllm rellglon. Mu]ahldeen are promlsed the
hlghest levels, and when they dle, they dle wlth smlles on thelr faces.
When pressed agaln on who lnstructed or convlnced JAHAR and hls brother to
act, JAHAR lndlcated lt was onllne speakers llke Aulaql and magazlnes llke
Insplre that convlnced them. JAHAR's brother was convlnced by no one else
other than those onllne artlcles, and he got the plans for the devlces from
Insplre. Wlth God's help, JAHAR's brother was able to lmprove the
lnstructlons and deslgns provlded by Insplre. No one else but JAHAR and
Allah provlded asslstance.
JAHAR also repeatedly lndlcated that the reason he and hls brother
conducted the attack lS because Amerlca lS at war and lS kllllng lnnocents
ln Afghanlstan and other countrles. The attack was thelr way of dolng
thelr part to protect thelr people. JAHAR explalned that Amerlca needed to
feel that same paln. Other than because the Marathon had a lot of people,
they dld not have a partlcular reason for selectlng lt as the target.
JAHAR lndlcated that they really dld not know what was golng to happen
after they conducted the attack.
JAHAR's brother lntended to carry out the Marathon attacks Wlth or Wlthout
JAHAR, and he offered JAHAR to follow hlm on that day. JAHAR very much
wanted to follow hlm.
JAHAR dld not know who convlnced hls brother to act, and suggested only
Allah knew the answer to that questlon. JAHAR lndlcated that glven that
hls brother was happlly marrled and had a beautlful daughter, hls brother
would have to have very strong bellefs to glve that up.
DT-0008229
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 39 of 162
I D-302a (Rev O'i-08-10)
JAHAR's brother had prevlously talked about the events taklng place ln Iraq
and Afghanlstan, and the dlscusslons would make both JAHAR and hls brother
angry. They had been havlng these dlscusslons for a long tlme - ever Slnce
Amerlca flrst lnvaded. JAHAR lS from Chechnya and people are dylng there
too, JUSt as they are ln Iraq, Afghanlstan, and Syrla.
JAHAR does not know what changed Wlth hls brother to cause the Monday of
the Marathon to be the day hls brother declded to carry out the attack.
JAHAR polnted out that hls brother was happlly marrled and has a beautlful
daughter.
For the past two years, JAHAR has been attendlng UMass-Dartmouth where he
was studylng to posslbly become a doctor. Eventually, lf JAHAR dld
practlce medlclne, he wanted to practlce ln hls home country, not the
Unlted States. Whlle he llved on the UMass-Dartmouth campus durlng the
school year, he llved ln Cambrldge durlng the summers. JAHAR has had a
dlfferent roommate each year at UMass-Dartmouth.
JAHAR repeatedly lnqulred about that status of hls brother. When asked
what he remembered about the last tlme he saw hls brother, JAHAR lndlcated
that he dld not remember much about that nlght other than a gun flght Wlth
the pollee. Durlng the gunflght, JAHAR drove at the pollee. That was the
last tlme he saw hlm.
Durlng the second sesslon, when belng asked about the type of detonator
used ln the devlce JAHAR detonated, JAHAR asked to speak to a lawyer on
multlple occaslons. JAHAR was told that he flrst needed to answer
questlons to ensure that the publlc safety was no longer ln danger from
other lndlvlduals, devlces, or otherwlse.
DT-0008230
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 40 of 162
FD-302a (Rev. 05-08-1 0)
20:05 - Break
21:05 - Break
23:20 - Break
02:47 - Break
DT-0008231
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-5 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page41
1 of 162
1
SEALED DOCUMENT
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 42 of 162
/.< . . . . """")
// .' /(
......
..._ ______
·::·- -~//
'·!
..-:; ..,...··.
'-·'
······· ·······r·t··
-+·
;".
j
[,.-.)!
;.
(~---·: .. :·:.
' . .l
·::··
DT-0008078
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 43 of 162
·, '
il:l[.',,'
·.. ::.:·:.~-·
·····/
;:::·
{--·
-~--- ./·
.···-
. :-//::··
.·_.-·-
.-··
DT-0008079
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 44 of 162
.. t .. :.........
--~·., '•. ~ "-: :)· ··: ..··.
'··
~--~p.J:,.L.. .. ~·.·..c:+=t':"' ...... 4
(: ..· .J
...........
-~~·
v
,... .~.
:)-:>.-'t:(t...,. >-·····.···
..7 f
/
4 .... -~;:. 1" <~ ..-·.,t-··-. ·c
.....,
(:· ./-
~>~·~·.·~,.
.·~."'· · ~ '<"'·. C:--{J;, ;·..:;r-···~·~' ... 1':•''::
.,. ............ .
{'/'· ...~···.
···•·.
l.
.. ~......... r ...... )
·· ....:· ·.·::·
'7 .. <)
l
+-<>~)::
,
DT-0008080
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 45 of 162
·~····
\. .·
l
(.+.::·· :···.. <
•.;-··
::·;- ?
\.I
.::_~)·t·:::·): :l Lr-·...~3.:/"~ .. . 1(:/·:·:---:·.:. ;.. .. d.c:::.
: -~
·--~·· /~
.. •.• ~
:.···. .;:.:: .. _·) ···:·
/
/''·:./ ·:) ....·· ·~· ·:·.
i.
!/ ·. . .•, ., : .~
···.• :'.>
DT-0008081
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 46 of 162
. .(.: ..
,,
/'
f-:.> "y·v'i:~,Jo~·J .,,? .!
.
.-_
...{.
-
~.......--·· ......~..... -··
/.:-. -~.: ..:./··-.-: ;·
.. ~ .....-:":1.'
.-,
.{
_:·:-..
.. _.-:•
\...~)
DT-0008082
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 47 of 162
/ I
/~) :~ .t:~.C. ...
!
,)_·:< ........._; //....;
. ---~
l ~
r7 ~:.3._.:--/
,.. -"~)
..
• -...·_{\.,(. {.
("'"',I"
_j.f-\) .::): .......... .
/
!? .;:?::.-:~-_.:
-: ..
. . ;;.-··--<--
'
i"' ..·... 9.
tl.
<f-47~< ._;;,:·-·
' /
_./.t/"·/
__ . .;:. J
-?~:::. § (; .) (~:\?:'~~~
/
__ /
<::.,.:3
(-/~:;.... -'"-~ _.:;-· .(.:-_·. /:::. .. -~
'it"-..! ;j ...~t..;.,~ ::~-:~~
·/
(>:}/.._·_""":·;_/-~./ .-·:
C)
I >
/r1 v·--
/......-.-...:~ ~-----~
.. -~ . . . .:f! -~-!-_?'. .../
/'':
/":-
r:.·r.~:.r-~~~(p_~._~f>- · · i)i
/ ....':
.:~~~-l•)"N
•.:..,t./
-~ .? t . . (.}...-.. . . ...$. {:-·
! ;.-"--... ::..:<
./i
,.
...f.<t;/'-";. . ~-!'·· .••..•.-,.A.l -·-·r
~
DT-0008083
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 48 of 162
.. (. )
~~:~l~ /~: :r>~·~~·
--~·-....,/'
;:.-·"!. ...:: .........._
~;..Q..~-l
~·>·
~/..-/
( ...,
~~~.-.... •...,_·. ,;;:·............( ...'......·--.-
:···{
! .t
.~·:·:·.<:; '·h· _:.•
<~\ !
i)o
..... J---~·c.~:-· : .... .
._ ~ .
:·.:.. - ·-: ........ _.::.
:.f -:··.
.-~- .•.• "
cJ).
······-:::-·····
.· ~- .. '·-· -:··.
,.·-')
(<·~·,.··;? . ··--!,""....
. :---:_·
_....._,
th'\j <.:..
DT-0008084
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 49 of 162
;· .
;'
-:.·
\./
i' .f!i'··
~---}
' :~_-:.~
/.-~
;-~·
·f~
·"
.... :;;i.IJ. /~: ..:-:·.-
\.J
(··r·
::.x-. /· /-. ::/~
····-
:.... /-\... /'''':,..
: -.._,
1, I
..:..--q
·...
('\ .. ;:
···············································~-{~:
. ·\...... _:~(
'
.··_; __ :_,_'.·.: ~---.
\\':rr~_·,,
~-, J:?.,
DT-0008085
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 50 of 162
·>-.. -;- .\
.___..."/ ./
(':
- ?) __
. .
;;~·-·"'"~-~:·.· -·:.:· -'.;. ..'·~·-·~· ...,.,·....
../,"..:.,.
-·~
/
:: ..
.-:· --r··-·
/:~0.-:.:~~ .:.:?~-:·( . ::::.. r .. t
"~ (V}J'"'
,•'
-~
_)
"'~··'•\.",
:•• :.<'•
.. ,., s
DT-0008086
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 51 of 162
.·;.
i
.
A~ ---i :-~ . .{.~·__ .{.(.':<-~.-:-~-::~-.... 0. ....... J?f:~::(i." f.. '' .. ',... - ·~--
v
....~.:_;_'_·,~..
v .: . . . . . v. ~. . . .I .(>
~ .. ~·--0 .• :.......'·:.• ............
..:)....
./..":'....
-~--- .. l ...
.>..J.'--:":'! )--~/ {.~. ,./ }.:--·..::·_:··.. :=·
._...
+.-... f'£'f'";_;·~-.~~"fd\) ;..,,, c ~':·.. .......................... :,::;. .... :... :....... ,,,.
' ; •'
~::_}"-· ....·····-· ..-: ' ..-/
f :~_, ...... ,. ·--~)· ··Z.:·<
(i
pv--:~.-'-- ......:-.--).
(}
i
.... /'/ ·0:
..;. .. _:: ~--···
-:~·>: ..-;· ........ .
I (~ ! /
f)~:~~ ........ /-.~-~--··· (~?... .:_:
\; ...... --:-"
{__.·
. ,...-._;?
/ ~...,-. ....,<.. ··: ()\r7 ..(·~- ..
.l
,:.:._..;
>-.): :-. . .::.
. ·. >1 . . .
..........«.';:..../ .._...........,
-;"""·:~ .( ..... . .
.....·; !·
/·
((}
DT-0008087
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 52 of 162
{\ i
t~>•. i)·. :)
{ ....• .. :..:-
_
--""1 I I
I t••••
,..,...,_,...
.... /.f~{::..
>·/
·_l
J
( ............-~
_·,~·-f-!( :,.}./V ..·:;:; :;,,./ ,:!}.~ ·.
';~-) / / .,
y ·r£-~ ( / -{... )-.-. ---)1
s-i_,) _/,..., __ y~....... -:_··
i
/ ('..!.:-.\:..:~."-/ ,:·) l ..
.-.-:- ·::
--~
"/.-f
. ....,::_.
~.--
/
~-)
1f
:c. .···-.--:.~"·
::.~
DT-0008088
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-6 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page53
1 of 162
1
SEALED DOCUMENT
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 54 of 162
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV, also known as JAHAR, date of birth July 22, 1993, was
interviewed at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookllne Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02215. Immediately prior to the interview, Taylor
Wright, RN, informed the interviewlng agents an lnterview of JAHAR would
not pose a medical risk to him, she was not aware of any brain injury
suffered by JAHAR, and that his only medications were an antibiotic and
phenatyl, neither of which, at their current dose, would inhibit his mental
faculties. After being informed of the identities of the interviewing
agents, JAHAR confirmed he could hear and understand the interviewing
agents, could respond to the interviewing agents, and was not experiencing
overwhelming pain, and verbally provided the following information:
JAHAR and TAMERLAN wanted to target some event that would have the most
impact on America. They both felt America had been killing innocent people
("lnnocents") for a long time. The articles they read in Inspire Magazlne
motivated them to act. JAHAR hoped their actions would motivate other
Muslims to conduct attacks in the future.
Two of the devices used detonators made from the remote control unit of a
remote control car. It was JAHAR's idea to use the remote control assembly
from a toy car, and TAMERLAN was able to improve upon it by modifying the
control assembly so that it would fit in one's pocket. The third device
used a pressure cooker with a fuse as the ignitor instead of a remote
control detonator.
Thts document contams neither recommendatiOns nor conclusions of the FBI It IS the property of the 1- Bland ts loaned to your agency, tt and tts contents are not
to be dtstnbuted out~tde your agency
DT-0008232
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 55 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
Each fully constructed devlce was contalned entlrely Wlthln the pressure
cooker. The devlces used ln the marathon attack were placed ln backpacks
solely for concealment, and one dld not have to rely on any components ln
the backpack to detonate the devlce.
JAHAR purchased the remote control car components ln the two pressure
cooker devlces used at the marathon onllne about one month before the
attack. It took a llttle blt of tlme to get used to adJUStlng the remote
control's conflguratlon, and both JAHAR and TAMERLAN tested the lgnltlon
system to ensure the Chrlstmas llght came on.
The powder came from $200 worth of flreworks JAHAR and TAMERLAN purchased
ln New Hampshlre. They recelved a two-for-one dlscount from the store
because of the slze of thelr purchase. The flreworks klts they purchased
fllled the back seat and trunk of JAHAR's car. TAMERLAN made a separate
trlp to purchase addltlonal flreworks after the flrst purchase dld not
yleld enough powder. The lnltlal purchase lncluded dlfferent types of
flreworks whlle the second purchase was all the same klnd.
TAMERLAN purchased the pressure cookers, and bought the other components
for the plpe bombs from Home Depot.
Worklng the powder from the flreworks was very tlme lntenslve. For a tlme,
the two of them would crush flreworks nearly everyday, usually at the
house, and lt took them a couple of weeks to gather enough powder for the
devlces. JAHAR and TAMERLAN would hlde the materlals for the devlces under
JAHAR's bed. When Khadlma was at home, the two would work on the flreworks
ln the van or JAHAR's car. JAHAR and TAMERLAN dld not mlx the powder from
the flreworks Wlth anythlng else.
Slnce he had a roommate and llttle prlvacy, JAHAR dld not construct any
exploslve devlces ln hls college dorm room. However, he dld leave behlnd
one flrework that he clalmed was Just to have some fun wlth by llghtlng off
at some polnt.
TAMERLAN dld most of the work on the devlces whlle JAHAR was at school.
JAHAR dld not see TAMERLAN use any lnstructlons as he constructed the
devlces. TAMERLAN was able to do lt from memory as he lS very smart.
DT-0008233
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 56 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
On Frlday (Aprll 12), JAHAR and TAMERLAN conducted Slte surveys of posslble
targets, lncludlng pollee statlons ln Cambrldge and Boston. No one helped
them ldentlfy or select posslble locatlons to attack. Around 3pm or 4pm on
Frlday afternoon whlle drlvlng around and explorlng posslble targets, the
brothers learned that the Boston Marathon was scheduled for Monday.
On Saturday (Aprll 13), TAMERLAN came to the declSlOD to target the Boston
Marathon.
On Sunday (Aprll 14), JAHAR and TAMERLAN began constructlng plpe bombs
("mlnl-bombs'') at 410 Norfolk Street. The brothers fllled the plpes Wlth
powder and BB's but dld not drlll the ends for the fuses on that day.
JAHAR worked on one plpe bomb whlle TAMERLAN made three or four of them.
They put all the unflnlshed plpe bombs ln a bag ln JAHAR's closet.
The next mornlng, Monday (Aprll 15), TAMERLAN flnlshed assembllng the two
pressure cooker devlces to be used for the marathon. The process took
about two hours. JAHAR watched whlle TAMERLAN dld the actual assembly.
TAMERLAN dld not refer to any lnstructlons or web Sltes whlle completlng
the assembly. It was all from memory. After flnlshlng, TAMERLAN placed
each devlce ln a backpack.
TAMERLAN drove the two of them ln JAHAR's Honda ClVlC from Cambrldge to
Boston that Monday afternoon. They transported the backpacks ln the trunk
of the car. They found street parklng ln a ''permlt parklng" slgned area
near the marathon route. As they had done no Slte survey, they dld not
have a speclflc place ln mlnd where they wanted to set off the bombs. As a
result, they walked around for about flfteen to twenty mlnutes before
TAMERLAN settled on thelr flnal spots. They had to move at least once when
a pollee offlcer appeared to be lnterested ln them. TAMERLAN dld not have
a deflnltlve plan to detonate the bombs by the flnlsh llne - lt JUSt worked
out that way.
After detonatlng hls devlce, JAHAR took the detonator (the modlfled remote
control car controller) Wlth hlm as he left the scene. He made sure he
threw lt lnto a trash can he passed on hls way back to hls car so no one
would be able to flnd lt.
It took about flfteen mlnutes for JAHAR to get back to the car. He arrlved
flrst, and TAMERLAN, who had the car keys, arrlved about flve rnlnutes
later. On the way back to Cambrldge, they stopped at a Whole Foods for
JAHAR to buy some mllk. They were observlng the Musllm tradltlon of
fastlng on Mondays and Thursdays and needed mllk to break the fast. They
were almost home when TAMERLAN remembered that he needed a cardboard box to
complete the assembly of the thlrd pressure cooker devlce. JAHAR and
TAMERLAN then drove the four mlnutes to Yayla's to get the cardboard box.
DT-0008234
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 57 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
Contmuatwn ot FD-302 of 04/22/2 013 Intervlew of DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ,On _0_4_/_2_2_/_2_0_1_3_, Page 4 of 9
The two then returned home to Norfolk Street and stayed there untll they
met Manatov for dlnner.
JAHAR stayed at the Norfolk Street resldence Monday n1ght, but he left for
UMass Dartmouth late ln the mornlng on Tuesday (Aprll 16). Prlor to
leavlng the house, he moved the bag wlth the unflnlshed plpe bombs from hls
closet to a better hldlng spot under hls bed. He told TAMERLAN he moved
them before headlng to school.
JAHAR stayed at UMass on Tuesday and Wednesday nlght. He dld not attend
any classes on those days, but he may have attended one class on Thursday.
JAHAR made many calls and sent many texts durlng thls perlod, but they were
to soc1al contacts only. He was s1mply check1ng up on frlends or maklng
arrangements to grab lunch or dlnner. None of the people he contacted were
lnvolved ln or aware of what he and TAMERLAN had done. On Thursday nlght,
he contacted some of these same people to glve away hls laptop and other
1tems 1n h1s dorm room as he d1d not expect to surv1ve.
When JAHAR saw news coverage contalnlng thelr photographs at around Spm or
6pm on Thursday (Aprll 18), he knew "1t was the end" and declded he wanted
to "cause some damage" before they got caught. After seelng the news,
JAHAR called to warn TAMERLAN, and he told JAHAR to leave school and come
back to Cambrldge. JAHAR thought Khadlma and the baby were also home at
thls tlme. Durlng a subsequent conversatlon, TAMERLAN told JAHAR to meet
hlm at Yayla's. When JAHAR met up w1th TAMERLAN at Yayla's an hour or two
later, the two came up Wlth a qulck plan to gather up the rest of the bombs
and drlve around. Both JAHAR and TAMERLAN then drove ln separate cars to
the 410 Norfolk address.
TAMERLAN wa1ted downsta1rs wh1le JAHAR entered the res1dence at around 8pm.
The televlslon was not on, and Khadlma was ln the kltchen cooklng. The two
exchanged a qulck greetlng, and JAHAR then retrleved a duffel bag loaded
Wlth the now-completed plpe bombs from under hls bed before returnlng to
hls car. JAHAR dld not know where or when TAMERLAN flnlshed the plpe
bombs.
DT-0008235
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 58 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-1 0)
JAHAR dld not know where TAMERLAN kept the thlrd pressure cooker devlce nor
where he kept hls handgun. At the tlme of thelr meetlng at Yayla's,
TAMERLAN had already collected the now-completed thlrd pressure cooker
devlce and hls handgun. JAHAR dld not know where or when TAMERLAN flnlshed
the thlrd devlce. When JAHAR returned to the vehlcles Wlth the duffel bag
of plpe bombs, TAMERLAN had already transferred the pressure cooker and
handgun from hls to JAHAR's car. At some polnt, JAHAR retrleved hls BB
gun, as well.
After JAHAR came back down from the apartment, TAMERLAN went up to the
resldence to retrleve the tltle to hls car. He had declded, slnce he
expected to dle that nlght, that he would glve away hls car to hls frlend,
Vlskhan Vakhobov. They planned to drlve to Chelsea to drop off TAMERLAN's
gray car, but Vlskhan told TAMERLAN he could not meet at that tlme.
After leavlng the resldence, the two rode around Cambrldge Wlthout any sort
of plan. TAMERLAN drove. JAHAR kept hls T-Moblle phone on, but, slnce,
only TAMERLAN had the number, no one called hlm. TAMERLAN turned hls phone
off.
They declded that thelr flrst prlOrlty was to get a gun for JAHAR. As they
drove around, they happened to Wlnd up ln the same area as a Massachusetts
Instltute of Technology (MIT) pollee offlcer, so they kllled hlm to get hls
handgun. However, JAHAR was unable to get the handgun from the offlcer's
holster, and when the area started to get crowded, the brothers moved on,
drlvlng toward Brlghton or Watertown.
After kllllng the MIT offlcer, they carJacked a Mercedes SUV and forced the
car's Aslan drlver to rlde wlth them. The Aslan lndlvldual drove hls car
whlle TAMERLAN sat ln the back seat. JAHAR followed ln hls own car.
TAMERLAN turned hls phone back on so he and JAHAR, who had kept hls phone
on, could communlcate whlle ln separate vehlcles. JAHAR dld not know lf
Khadlma ever trled to or successfully reached out for TAMERLAN.
The two cars made thelr way to Watertown, and TAMERLAN declded to leave
JAHAR's car parked on Dexter Street. They parked JAHAR's car and moved the
bags Wlth the bombs to the Mercedes. JAHAR noted he had a few Chechnyan
frlends ln Watertown (and other places), but none of them were lnvolved.
It was TAMERLAN's declslon to go to Dexter Street. They dld not stop at
any partlcular locatlon on Dexter Street; they were slmply looklng for a
qulet street on whlch to leave JAHAR's car.
The three of them drove around for a whlle longer as JAHAR and TAMERLAN
were trylng to flgure out what to do. They drove the Aslan lndlvldual to
dlfferent ATMs to Wlthdraw money out of the hls bank account. They had hlm
Wlthdraw around $700 ln total. They planned to use the money to pay for
DT-0008236
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 59 of 162
fD-302a (Rev 05-08-1 0)
gas as an 1dea developed to dr1ve to New York C1ty to bomb T1mes Square.
Both JAHAR and TAMERLAN had been to New York C1ty a few t1mes, but ne1ther
had spent much t1me there. They d1d not contact anyone 1n New York nor d1d
they plan to meet anyone 1n New York.
JAHAR d1d not know from where TAMERLAN obta1ned h1s handgun but thought he
bought 1t a few months ago.
JAHAR loved both of h1s parents, but he loved h1s mother more.
DT-0008237
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 60 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
Contmuatwn ofFD-302 of 04/22/2 013 Intervlew of DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ,On 04/22/2013 Page 7 of 9
TAMERLAN traveled to Russla ln 2012 to see extended famlly and study Islam.
Hls Wlfe and daughter stayed ln the US durlng the trlp. Although lt was a
long tlme to be apart, JAHAR dld not know why TAMERLAN's Wlfe and daughter
dld not travel Wlth hlm. Durlng hls trlp, TAMERLAN traveled to Chechnya,
maybe Groznl, Dagestan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. TAMERLAN's Islamlc
studles on the trlp were not through a partlcular school and took place ln
Chechnya.
TAMERLAN VlSlted Wlth famlly whlle travellng, lncludlng wlth the ex-husband
of JAHAR and TAMERLAN's slster. The ex-husband, Ramzan (phonetlc),
traveled for a tlme Wlth TAMERLAN durlng hls trlp. Ramzan had remalned
close Wlth TAMERLAN and JAHAR. TAMERLAN would sometlmes communlcate Wlth
Ramzan Vla Skype but Ramzan never sent money to TAMERLAN and TAMERLAN never
sent any money to Ramzan.
RAMZAN was a "cool guy." He llved near JAHAR and TAMERLAN's mother. JAHAR
and TAMERLAN's mother was also close to RAMZAN. JAHAR had been plannlng to
DT-0008238
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 61 of 162
FD-302a (Rev 05-08-10)
travel to Russla thls summer to see hls mother and other famlly. He
expected to meet up Wlth RAMZAN durlng hls planned trlp.
JAHAR dld not know who else TAMERLAN traveled or VlSlted wlth durlng hls
trlp because they each have thelr own set of frlends. JAHAR's relatlons
Wlth hls brother were generally good. TAMERLAN was usually rlght about
thlngs, and JAHAR looked up to hlm.
TAMERLAN spoke to JAHAR about hls trlp, telllng hlm that lt was a good
trlp. TAMERLAN told JAHAR that the authorltles watch out for terrorlsts
and Wlll klll you lf you are a dedlcated Musllm.
JAHAR has a Twltter account the tweets of whlch appears under the username
@] tsar. JAHAR recognlzed a prlntout of a postlng he made ln August 2012
regardlng the marathon. It dld not mean anythlng as JAHAR had not declded
to target the marathon untll shortly before the attack.
JAHAR dld not recognlze the name Barry Malmone, Dlllon Mess, or anyone
named Zubat.
18:35 - Break
21:18 -Break
22:30 -Break
DT-0008239
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 62 of 162
FD-302a(Rev 05-08-10)
23:20 - Break
02:15 - Break
02:45 - Break
05:20 - Break
08:05 - Break
DT-0008240
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-7 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page63
1 of 162
1
SEALED DOCUMENT
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 64 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 65 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 66 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 67 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 68 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 69 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 70 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 71 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 72 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 73 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 74 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 75 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 76 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 77 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 78 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 79 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 80 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 81 of 162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 82 of 162
Case
Case
1:13-cr-10200-GAO
1:13-cr-10200-GAODocument
Document
1744-1
295-8 Filed
Filed10/21/18
05/07/14 Page
Page83
1 of 162
1
SEALED DOCUMENT
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 84 of 162
·•
J - ~ _._ -· - -
' . '
DT-0008091
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 85 of 162
l.
I ·..
• .
..
DT-0008092
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 86 of 162
DT-0008093
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 87 of 162
DT-0008094
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 88 of 162
·~ . --
DT-0008095
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 89 of 162
~·. I 0:.
. . . o;.' - -
DT-0008096
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 90 of 162
- -- - -· -- - - - - -----·---
DT-0008097
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 91 of 162
~-
. . .. \.·, ~
• I.
DT-0008098
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 92 of 162
(Q .
~
1,
;( ~
<;. cz:. ~
0 ~ ~
.. .
DT-0008099
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 93 of 162
-------- --·----
DT-0008100
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 94 of 162
DT-0008101
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 95 of 162
DT-0008102
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 96 of 162
-----
DT-0008103
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 97 of 162
\.
DT-0008104
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 98 of 162
----~~~~·~~~~~-~~~~~0~~
~~-
U+ ~
\
DT-0008105
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 99 of 162
e<
..
DT-0008106
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 100 of 162
'
Je~~
\'JR. • ,~ 1)1\ ~I
_ 1, •
DT-0008107
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 101 of 162
Nn t \~ ~~ ~(}1Jf)l~
--- ~ • - lr •
DT-0008108
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 102 of 162
t.
DT-0008109
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 103 of 162
. - ·---·----
.- •'
DT-0008110
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 104 of 162
-- - - - - - - -'-- -
~ \urrL. ,.~
bru P •
•\ - •
DT-0008111
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 105 of 162
DT-0008112
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 106 of 162
DT-0008113
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 107 of 162
DT 0 008114
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 108 of 162
DT-0008115
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 109 of 162
E I - l
- - - - - -- -- - - · ---~~~~-----------
/
. ~ ..... -. .
DT-0008116
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 110 of 162
DT-0008117
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 111 of 162
....r- '
:.
DT-0008118
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 112 of 162
,z.,
'
DT-0008119
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 113 of 162
DT-0008120
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 114 of 162
r.; ',
~--- - -· - -· - - - - t -- - - -----
,.
1] "''"" \'" t. -ti GA.. fn t' ~ db r .»'l.L-
DT-0008121
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 115 of 162
·-·-------
DT-0008122
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 116 of 162
DT-0008123
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 117 of 162
---------· ----------.---
DT-0008124
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 118 of 162
DT-0008125
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 119 of 162
--------------------------- -------------
DT-0008126
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 120 of 162
. \
-====.!:.._ ' trJ e, \ fJ I f 1N ~ Gt.l\
,; {&~ l1'lt\t>~f\+
'
<s~a U, ~ n' ~ \ n~
~~t ~ ~b ~~ CVb
~~~' ~) ~"\)'"(\~
DT-0008127
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 121 of 162
~~~~\_
DT-0008128
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 122 of 162
-·----J----~-+---------·------
_ _ __j
~I
l
~\u, ~cM14
~VuL ~~\J.J~~ C>l M~~
~~ ~
~tt\,L~U.Vf\
~~-J
DT-0008129
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 123 of 162
~~
' ~ ~~)r (;(,..~~ \ ~~~ 5 \\\<1~
.
~~~ ~~ ~.f\ ~ ~~ 0~~
~.c\~C, ~~ - \\'\K., ~'('\ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ \>\.\. ~~~ ~
~~~~ ~
DT-0008130
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 124 of 162
h<A.f . c
-· - -- ,2
DT-0008131
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 125 of 162
DT-0008132
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 126 of 162
. - ·-- ·--·---
f 0- TV\ \l ~ pkvn )
.\I )<L (A} tA!(l..& ~ ~ ~ f-L.
DT-0008133
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 127 of 162
---
DT-0008134
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 128 of 162
()l\~ ~(\ s t)
DT-0008135
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 129 of 162
~,'J.-1\ -) ~ 0 l($- ~ A,
~~ ~~~(\_D
~ '
- ; \- \1.!) w<.:> ~ 0\ ~ l j. J~
~~~~
DT-0008136
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 130 of 162
-- -- - ----------~-
•
~
DT-0008137
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 131 of 162
•
~~~f\~~
'v..~~ ~J\~ ~ v~
~
DT-0008138
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 132 of 162
DT-0008139
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 133 of 162
- _ _ _ _! _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~ ~/
~ ~Jdt . W#\t ~Vb
~ ~/ +~ / ~~
. (~-1' ~ .
(JD~ "'' ~
v&- J
~1\~ ~ ·~ · ~ ~~ hnu.J
W~
<Q(1) J
DT-0008140
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 134 of 162
. - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - l
~ ~M\J.J ~~
~~\~~
'),s ~ -~\{\{\.1 /(}nt
CAll\ ~V\ ~
DT-0008141
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 135 of 162
L, --
DT-0008142
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 136 of 162
~ ' I
"
DT-0008143
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 137 of 162
~~~ ) fA Cf5
J
~ t:j\'I'JL ) {/0
'
.¥M>?L- rv\ -..'n ., ) ~
DT-0008144
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 138 of 162
DT-0008145
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 139 of 162
DT-0008146
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 140 of 162
--------;---
~~4- \~ ~~~
i s ~ ~~ ) ~~ )611D--t.O
DT-0008148
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 142 of 162
',n
I
-"
DT-0008149
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 143 of 162
~'0~ '
~
>~ ~ >
~\)'h l ;~ ~~~
\ .
DT-0008150
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 144 of 162
DT-0008151
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 145 of 162
---· ------------· - - - - - - ·
- - - - ---- ----------
DT-0008152
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 146 of 162
r; ~{\/\ -
~ > \)D~ ~ ___ ,
DT-0008153
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 147 of 162
•
·-----~-----·- -----------~
· · -
--- --
DT-0008154
: ", J J J J J JCase f J J .! J JDocument
J 1:13-cr-10200-GAO J ~ Filed
J J1744-1 J ~ JPage
IJ. 10/21/18 J. ofJ162J J J
J 148 ~ J s. f
- •
--(h.Q ~ \()tv\, ~~ (J ~
1) ) ~~S-R
~()~ ~ )(\'J); o~r
~\}-J ) '+\t\\ I ()..,n '\ U\ \
~\~~~ \~ ~~~~ Vt'~~
~"'~ ~~ \ 'oe, 5~
Sk:~\\A)\\~ ~ 4 &l!eA.'~
~ ~ \ <:> \ftSij''
DT-0008155
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 149 of 162
~v<\ ~ ~
~~ o..te I ~ 04t avVlL J..a rn~
o~ ~~\)J ~ DVvf re1 ,L~ ,t 0-11 ,
~f\(4 ~-
"):. wh~~ jo ~ t.L
DT-0008156
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 150 of 162
\\ '(JJ
"'~\Le., ~ .. ~~ ~~ )~ ~
~~ f'IVtV() '
DT-0008158
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 152 of 162
•
~------- ·-
~
I
~rTV
I ' '="
!pi~ h/a--.......-
1
~~
~ ~~
I
. . . 1.
'
1.
' ' . ' ' . ' I
I :
. 1 '
I i I I
DT-0008160
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 154 of 162
~ ~ I ~B-V\
I
I I
I I
I
I -
I
I\ ~
~ · ~~-,
!> Il w
I I
~
~
I
DT-0008161
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 155 of 162
: i !: I I I I I l \ I I I 1 I I I I !
DT-0008162
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 156 of 162
I I
I_ I i 0 .' I I 1
I ' I I I I I I .I I I I I I I f I I r' '
DT-0008163
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 157 of 162
I
I
~I
!\N I
tJ IJ 11-a
w~ .
I
I !
J-fP,·; + I I
I I
I 1
I '• .' 1 l I I
DT-0008164
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 158 of 162
I I
~~ l
I
I
I \ <f~
i ~~ .o
I I
I : I
I I
..1 ,1 I f I I I I I I I
I J I I f I
DT-0008165
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 159 of 162
DT-0008166
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 160 of 162
I
I , ~V'A-/
I I I
.1 ~1
I
i I I
I
I I
I
I
i t~~
I I -
\J\ ~h
~ ~ ~
I I
I I
II ~
I I }\"
\1l ~ I r\
" ~"P l. r
,\ Di(
I
I
I 1
I I
I I
DT-0008167
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 161 of 162
\ \
\ I I
1 ~-r \
lS
I
\
\ \ \
\\'VJ., ~ I \ I II
I \
I \ I
'
I \ \
I \ I I\ I : ' I
I I I I ·, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
DT-0008168
I - '
i i I I
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-1 Filed 10/21/18 Page 162 of 162
I I
I
~
I I
c~ 0
I >
I
I I
I I
DT-0008169
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-2 Filed 10/21/18 Page 1 of 4
Defense counsel further asks that before each juror’s voir dire examination is
concluded, the Court afford counsel a reasonable opportunity to submit specific follow-
up voir dire requests based on the juror’s initial responses, or to ask brief follow-up
questions themselves.
PUBLICITY
1. What stands out in your mind from everything you have heard, read or seen about
the Boston Marathon bombing and the events that followed it? 1
[If juror has difficulty responding, prompt with: Do you recall anything . . . .]
a. About how the bombings occurred?
b. About the people who are supposed to have carried it out?
c. About any of the bombing victims who died?
d. About any of the victims who were hurt but survived?
e. About the MIT police officer who was killed several days later?
1
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 371 (2010) (noting that jurors were asked on
questionnaire “to report on ‘what st[ood] out in [their] mind[s]’ of ‘all the things [they]
ha[d] seen, heard or read about Enron.’”
1
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-2 Filed 10/21/18 Page 2 of 4
2. Despite what you have heard, read or seen about this case and this defendant, can
you presume him to be innocent of all of the charges against him?
3. If you were the defendant on trial in this case, would you want someone on your
jury who thinks about you the way you think about Mr. Tsarnaev? 2
4. Have you heard or read anything about the very recent attacks in Paris? (If yes)
5. Do you want to be on this jury? [If juror hesitates or is evasive, follow up with:]
a. If I just left it up to you whether you are seated or excused from this jury,
which would you choose? Would you rather be on the jury that will decide
this case, or would you rather be excused?
6. The defendant is charged, as you know, with intentionally setting off bombs at the
Boston Marathon that resulted in the deaths of three people. If you found the
defendant guilty of this crime, would you automatically sentence him to death no
matter what the facts are? 3
7. [Alternative formulation:] Do you believe that the death penalty is the only
appropriate punishment for a person who deliberately uses a weapon of mass
destruction to cause the deaths of several victims? Or could there be cases in
which, after considering mitigating factors about the crime or the defendant, you
2
Irvin v. Dowd, 356 US 717, 727 (1961) (“A number [of veniremen] admitted that if they
were in the accused’s place in the dock and he in theirs in the jury with their opinions,
they would not want him in the jury.”)
3
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 723 (1993).
2
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-2 Filed 10/21/18 Page 3 of 4
would favor life imprisonment — rather than the death penalty — for someone
guilty of such a crime?
9. If you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed a child
by deliberately using a weapon of mass destruction, would you automatically vote
for the death penalty without regard to any mitigating circumstances (such as, for
example, the defendant’s youth, or his family background and relationships)?
10. Understanding that you do not support the death penalty, could you meaningfully
consider both life imprisonment without possibility of release and the death
penalty, and not be committed in advance to voting against the death penalty no
matter what the evidence might turn out to be?
11. Please understand that I am not asking you whether you would impose the death
penalty in this case. Rather, I am asking only this: Could there ever be a case —
involving especially horrible murders, for example, or a very dangerous defendant
— in which you would be able to fairly consider voting for the death penalty as a
member of a jury?
a. (If yes): In other words, if I understand you correctly, are you telling me
that while you do not support the death penalty and would be very reluctant
to impose it, you could still consider both sentences that are provided by
law — life imprisonment without release and the death penalty — and
choose between them based on the evidence presented in court about the
crime and the convicted murderer?
Respectfully submitted,
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
by his attorneys
3
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-2 Filed 10/21/18 Page 4 of 4
__________________________________
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this document was personally served upon counsel for the
government on January 16, 2015.
_____________________________________
4
Page 1 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 1 of 57
Released Juror
Exhibit Identified Admitted Description
to Jurors Restrictions
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-1 Boylston Street crowds near finish line Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-2 Boylston Street photo with Jumbotron Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-3 Boyston Street photo Race Scene Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-4 Boylston Street photo Finish Line - aerial view Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-5 BAA video from Photo Bridge Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-6 Oharra pre-blast photo Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-8 Scene A post-blast photo Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-9 Scene A post-blast photo Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-12 Scene A post-blast photo Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-13 Post blast photo Sydney Corcoran Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-14 Post blast movie Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-15 Pre blast photo of Krystle and Karen Rand Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-16 Blast photo Karen and Krystle Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Pre blast photo of Krystle and Karen Rand crowd
Gov-18 Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM shot Jessica and Patrick Downes
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
Gov-19 Post-blast photo First responders-Jessica Yes
5:10 PM 5:10 PM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-20 Photo Post Blast Scene A Jeff Bauman Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-23 Forum complete video with sound Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-24 Photo Scene B post blast Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-25 Photo Scene B Post blast Roseanne Sdoia Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-26 Post blast Roseanne Sdoia Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-27 Photo post blast debris in street Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-28 Photo Scene B post blast Hern family Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-29 Photo Scene B Pre-blast Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-30 Photo Scene B post blast Leo with Barrett Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-32 Scene B post blast Richard and Barrett Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-34 Scene B post blast Barrett Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-36 Scene B Video Blast Forum Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-37 Photo pre blast Richard Family Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-40 Photo Patterson with J Richard Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-41 Video Post-Blast Matt Patterson Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-42 Cell Phone Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-43 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-44 Insulated wire Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-45 Battery Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-46 Materials Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-47 Material Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-48 Piece of metal Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-49 Round metal object Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-50 Backpack Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-51 Metal pieces Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-52 Metal fragment Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-53 Metal piece Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-54 Metal piece Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-55 Metal piece Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-56 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-57 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-58 Pellets Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-59 Pellets Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-60 Pellet Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-61 Metal nails Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-62 Wires and circuit board Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-63 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-64 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-66 Electrical components Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-67 Device component and battery Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-68 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-69 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-70 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-71 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-72 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-73 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-74 Metal device component Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-75 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-76 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-77 Plastic debris Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-78 Battery Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-79 Battery Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-80 Materials Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-81 Wires and connector Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-82 Insulated wire Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-83 Electrical components Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-84 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-85 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-86 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-87 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-88 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-89 Metal plate Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-90 Tape Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-92 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-93 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-94 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-95 Scraping from seat of blast Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-96 Vacuum canister Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-97 Vacuum canister Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-98 Swab Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
4/3/2015 4/3/2015
Gov-99 Metal pieces Yes
9:09 AM 9:09 AM
Cardboard Yes
Page 6 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 6 of 57
Tape Yes
Page 7 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 7 of 57
Fabric Yes
Page 11 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 11 of 57
Fabric Yes
Page 12 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 12 of 57
Wire Yes
Page 13 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 13 of 57
Tape Yes
Page 15 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 15 of 57
Fabric Yes
Page 17 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 17 of 57
BBs Yes
Page 18 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 18 of 57
BBs Yes
Page 19 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 19 of 57
BBs Yes
Page 21 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 21 of 57
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 BBs with unknown material nails and pieces of
Yes
564 9:09 AM 9:09 AM metal
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 BBs with unknown material nails white caulk
Yes
580 9:09 AM 9:09 AM material and other fragmentation
BBs Yes
Page 24 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 24 of 57
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Photo rear passenger floor board close up radio
Yes
714 9:09 AM 9:09 AM face plate
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Photo River Street showing Shell and Mobil
Yes
744 9:09 AM 9:09 AM stations
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Lab photo Mercedes - plastic container top with
Yes
856 9:09 AM 9:09 AM fuse
Plastic Yes
Page 36 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 36 of 57
Metal Yes
Page 37 of 57
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-4 Filed 10/21/18 Page 37 of 57
Gov- 4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Photo Scene 2 blast site Photo of bomb parts with
Yes
1582 9:09 AM 9:09 AM grate
Def- 4/27/2015
Angelo Pizza photo No
3223 12:11 PM
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3301- file_ownership_chart_LaurelHDD_1W16 Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
001
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3302- device_attachment_chart_LaurelHDD_1W16 Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
004
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3303- Internet History - Samsung 1W3 Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
005
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- samsung-1W3_searches_excerpt Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
006a
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- samsung-1W3_searches_excerpt Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
006b
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- samsung-1W3_searches_excerpt Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
006c
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- samsung-1W3_searches_excerpt Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
006d
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3303- Norfolk MacBook Pro searches excerpt Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
007A
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3303- Norfolk MacBook Pro searches excerpt Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
007B
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3303- Internet History Visits By Host - Samsung 1W3 Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
009
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- sony-1R6_internet_history_graph Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
010
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3303- samsung-1W3_searches_excerpt Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
06e
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3306- Samsung 1W3 Windows Desktop Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015 Samsung 1W3 - Document TrueCrypt Volume User
3306- Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM View
005Sa
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015 Samsung 1W3 - Documents 11 TrueCrypt Volume
3306- Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM User View
006
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015 Samsung 1W3 - Documents TrueCrypt Volume
3306- Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM User View
008
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3306- Samsung 1W3 - Downloads Folder User View Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
009
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3306- Samsung 1W3 - New Folder Folder User View Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
010
Def-
3306-
012
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3310- journal_rus_original_docx Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
001
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3310- journal_eng_trans Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
001A
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3310- in_the_name_of_allah_rus_original_docx Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
002
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3310- in_the_name_of_allah_eng_trans Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
002A
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3312- complete_inspire_creation_chart Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
001
Def-
4/2/2015 4/2/2015
3312- complete_inspire_jan21_2012_chart Yes
12:39 PM 12:39 PM
002
Def-
3313-
003
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3314- Kavkazcenter Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3314- Life plan of Muslim - Kavkazcenter Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001A
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3314- Kavkazcenter Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
003
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015 Chechen Emir Abu Abdurrahman martyred in Syria
3314- Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM - Kavkazcenter
003A
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3315- home Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001TT
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3315- playlists Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
002TT
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3315- subscriptions Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
003TT
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3316- all Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001TT
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3316- sub_screen Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
002em
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317- 1B1_audio_files Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
1-1
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317- 1B1_call_log Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
1-2
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317- 1B1_contacts Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
1-3
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317- 1B1_video Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
1-4
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317-1- web_history Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
51B
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3317- VID_20121203_153705 Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
1-6
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3318- Selected Skype Conversations Karima1 Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
001
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3318- Selected Skype Conversations Karima3 Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
003
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3501- Family photos Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
120
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3501- Family photos Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
121
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Zubeidat as child Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
007
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Anzor and Zubeidat Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
012
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Anzor, Zubeidat, Tamerlan Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
013
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Anzor and Zubeidat Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
014
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Lizas old house in Tokmok Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
016
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Jahar 2 yrs in chair Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
021
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Jahar 2nd grade class Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
025
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Jahar doing homework Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
027
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Zubeidat and Tamerlan on couch Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
047
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- photo of TT Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
053a
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Zubeidat in Hijab Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
058
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Elmirza and Ailina Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
059
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Elmirza on couch with Zubeidat Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
060
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Jahar and Ziyaudy Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
066
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Jahar with Best Buddies Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
068
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Chiri Yurt House Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
077
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
079
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
081
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
083
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
084
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
085
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
086
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
090
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
091
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
092
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
107
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
109
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
111
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
112
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
113
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
115
Def-
5/12/2015 5/12/2015
3507- Photo - Family Yes
4:38 PM 4:38 PM
117
1
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 2 of 36
2
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 3 of 36
3
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 4 of 36
4
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 5 of 36
5
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 6 of 36
6
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 7 of 36
7
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 8 of 36
8
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 9 of 36
9
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 10 of 36
10
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 11 of 36
11
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 12 of 36
12
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 13 of 36
948-99
948-100
948-101
948-102 Photos (99) 55 and 57 Laurel Street;
948-103 (100) Close up of -99;
948-104 (101) damage to upper level of house;
3/18/15
948-307 (102) Marker flag on house;
Day 35
948-308 (103) House with ladder;
948-309 (104) Locking mechanism on cooker;
948-310 (307) Residence at intersection of Laurel and Dexter Streets;
948-416 (308) Lawn with placard 1;
Government (309) Close up of -308;
948-417
948-38 (310) Piece of metal from blast;
948-39 (416) Intersection of Dexter and Laurel;
948-210 (417) Close up of -416;
948-211 (38) Close up of metal in lawn;
948-552 (39) Piece of metal in lawn marked 24;
948-553 (210-211) Address on Laurel St.;
948-33 (552) Photo w placard #58, 54;
948-34 (553) Close up of -552;
948-40 (33) & (34) End cap with damage to lower thread;
948-41 (40) Paper with BBs stuck to it;
(41) Paper with BBs stuck to it. p. 184
Defense 3040-3044 Photos of Mercedes p. 59
Defense 3046-3049 Photos of Mercedes p.59
Defense 3058 Photo of Adidas sweatshirt p. 130
Defense 3061 Adidas Sweatshirt p. 130
13
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 14 of 36
14
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 15 of 36
15
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 16 of 36
16
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 17 of 36
1385
3/23/15 1386
Day 37 Government 1387
1388
1389 Mobilsync backup data - texts and tweets p. 9
17
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 18 of 36
1393
1395
948-433
948-212
948-230
948-231
948-268
948-270
3/24/15 948-271
Government
Day 38 948-259 Photos of crime scene
948-277 (433) Laurel Street; (212) Driveway at 55 Laurel Street; (230)
948-293 Close up of placard #59; (231) Close up of placard #59; (268) Two
948-244 backpacks; (270) Image of box between backpacks; (271) Dif
948-264 angle of box; (259) Another angle of box; (277) Laurel St.; (293)
948-261 Cruiser; (244) Cruiser, pressure cooker, pieces of bomb; (264) Dif
948-265 angle; (261) Laurel St.; (265) Dif angle of Laurel St. p. 45
Government p. 66
(only Lt.
1567 Lieutenant's report dated 8/22/13 saw)
Government 702 Photo of front seat of Collier's cruiser p. 70
Government 704 Photo of discharged cartridge in car p. 70
Government 726 9 mm Luger caliber discharged from cartridge 13-08091 p. 77
Government 934 Pellet gun p. 78
Government
943-01
Photo of microscopic comparison from MIT shooting p. 88 Chalk
18
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 19 of 36
19
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 20 of 36
Government
1180A,
1180B,
1180C,
1180E, 1180J
Umass Dartmouth records re DT p. 184
3/24/15 Government
Day 38 620 Interactive diagram of DT's dorm room. Only the part titled
"Dartmouth Dorm Room" is admitted. p. 202
Government 1109 Box containing bag of BBs p. 205
Government 1110 Bag containing BBs (Q741) p. 205
Government 1244 Packaging for BB gun p. 208
Government 1241 Receipt from Dick's Sporting Goods p. 209
Government 1232 Black jacket from dorm room (Q747) p. 211
Government 1247 Thumb drive taken from dorm p. 211
Government 1248 Samsung phone from dorm room p. 213
Government 1251 iPhone from dorm room p. 213
Government 1231 White hat from dorm (A744a) p. 214
20
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 21 of 36
Government 1187 HP computer from 410 Norfolk St marked as 2R14 (not data) p. 50
Government 1186 Flag from 410 Norfolk p. 50
Government 1200 Pages from notebook from Norfolk p. 55
Government 1077 Tube of silicon caulking from bunkbed room (Q679) p. 57
Government 1078 Roll of silver tape from 410 Norfolk p. 57
Government 1205 Collection of rolls of tape from 410 p. 57
Government 1094 Set of tools from 410 Norfolk (Q725) p. 57
3/25/15
Government 1096 Section of hobby fuse (Q725i) p. 57
Day 39
Government 1098 Top of a soup can (Q725.4) p. 57
Government 1099 Roll of Teflon Tape (Q725.4c) p. 57
Government 1101 Black roll of Gorilla tape from Norfolk (Q725e) p. 57
Government 1189 BB gun from 410 Norfolk (Q677) p. 57
Government 1191 BB gun targets from 410 Norfolk p. 57
Government Battery charger for remote controlled car from 410 Norfolk
1193
(Q694) p. 57
Government 1195 Gun cleaning kit from bunkbed room p. 57
Government 1199 Blue and white notebook from bunkbed room p. 57
Government 1200 Dual Language Prayer Card p. 57
Government 1203 Wire strippers from Norfolk (Q725.10b) p. 57
Government 1208 2 Rolls of wire from Norfolk (Q725.3b) p. 57
Government 1210 Certificate of Naturalization p. 57
Government 1214 White flag w/ black lettering from 410 p. 57
Government 1216 BBs and pellets (Q727) p. 57
Government 1217 A 2012 Tax Return p. 57
Government 1218 String of Xmas lights with box (Q726) p. 57
Government 1197 Two bottles Gorilla glue p. 57
Government 1198 Soldering gun from kitchen 410 Norfolk p. 57
Government 1185-11 Photo of DT's room p. 64 MC
Government 1152-06 GPS plots p. 96
Government 1159 Excel Spreadsheet - Macy's purchases p. 103
21
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 22 of 36
22
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 23 of 36
23
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 24 of 36
Government p. 127
1570
Inert Explosive Materials published
Government 1571 Pressure cooker bomb at Watertown p. 123
Government 1572 Two pipe bomb exemplars p. 132
Government 652 Campbell autopsy photo p. 167
3/26/15
Day 40 Government 655 Campbell autopsy photo p. 169
Government 654 Campbell autopsy photo p. 171
Government 651 Photo of foreign objects recovered during Campbell autopsy p. 172
Government
656 Photo of foreign objects recovered during Campbell autopsy -
from back of leg p. 172
Government
659 Photo of foreign objects recovered during Campbell autopsy -
three larger flat pieces of metal p. 172
Government 661 Photo of pellets p. 174
Government
657-A
658-A
659-A
660-A
661-A Swabs and foreign material collected at Campbell autopsy
(physical) p. 178
Defense 3093 Photo of destroyed cardboard p. 145
24
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 25 of 36
25
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 26 of 36
3126A
3126B
3/30/15 3126C
Day 41 Defense 3126D Tweets with time verifications
3126E
3126F
3126H p. 130
Defense 3125 Log entry indicating swipe at Maple Ridge Hall on 4/16/12 p. 135
Defense 1167-01 Subscriber info AT&T p. 138
Defense 3127 Map prepared by Grant re Square One Mall p. 147
Defense 3130 Page 4 of patron history meal card p. 149
Defense 3128 Map plotting Walmart stores p. 152
Defense 3128 Map plotting Wal-Mart stores p. 152
26
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 27 of 36
Defense 3310-1
3310-1A
3/31/15 3310-2
Day 42 33102A Copies of files from Laurel St hard drive p. 32
Defense 3312-1 Summary of file and folder listings p. 37
Defense 3312-2 Summary of events re Complete Inspire p. 40
Defense
3313-03
Summary of Inspire files on Sony VAIO computer p. 43
Defense 3303-02 Parsed web search from Sony VAIO computer p. 51
Defense 3302-04 Chart re removal devices p. 56
Defense 3300-07 Summary of MFT for 1W16 p. 57
Defense 3303-06E Thirteen pages of Samsung history p. 73
Government 1076 Photo from laboratory p. 83
Defense 3152 Photo of caulk gun p. 84
Defense 3153 Photo of wires, instruction manual and soldering gun p. 86
Defense 3154 Photo of various tools including hammer, scissors, wrench p. 90
Defense 3156 Photo of packaging Govt's Exh. 1195 p. 94
Defense 3090 Remains of a backpack
3091 Piece of paper (Q11.1) p. 98
Penalty Phase:
27
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 28 of 36
1601
1601-03
4/21/15 Government 1601-04
Day 47 1601-15
1601-17
1601-19
1601-21
1601-24
1601-28 Photos of Campbell family p. 101
Government
1601-01
1601-02
1601-07
1601-08
1601-09
1601-12 Photos of Campbell family p. 114
Government
1601-10 Replacing Exh. No 1601-14 p. 119
Government 1619 Photo showing Michael Gross p. 123
Government 1620 Photo of Mrs. Gross on stretcher p. 128
Government 19 Photo of Mrs. Gross' leg and sister p. 133
Government 1602-8
4/22/15 1602-10
Day 48 1602-14
1602-25
1602-30 Photos of Collier family p. 7
Government 1602-05
1602-12
1602-16
1602-17
1602-18
1602-21
1602-26
1602-28 Photos of Collier family p. 25
28
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 29 of 36
4/23/15 1608
Day 49 Government 1609
1610 Photos of Marc Fucarile's X Rays p. 17
29
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 30 of 36
30
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 31 of 36
31
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 32 of 36
32
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 33 of 36
33
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 34 of 36
34
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 35 of 36
Defense
3418 Photo: TT and Karima in 2007 p. 8
Defense 3507-053A Photo of Tamerlan in 2007 p. 9
5/5/15
Defense p. 21
Day 55
3238 shown to
Email Amanda Ransom sent lawyer witness
Defense 3509E Redacted medical records of Dr. Niss [3521] p. 60
Defense 3205-1 Caucasus Mountains p. 77 Chalk
Defense 3205-5
3205-6
3205-7 Topography of Chechnya p. 79 Chalk
Defense 3205-13 Photo from First Chechen War p. 92 Chalk
Defense 3205-20 Photo of Amir Khuttab p. 93 Chalk
35
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-5 Filed 10/21/18 Page 36 of 36
Defense 3314-001
3314-001A Photos of links found on Tamerlan's computer p. 112
Defense 3314-003
3314-003A Article found on Tamerlan's computer p. 113
5/5/15 Government Article from Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia,
1671
Day 55 “The Northern Caucasus, the Tsarnaevs, and us” p. 134
Defense 3285 Photo of Jahar and Henry Alvarez p. 166
Defense 3281 Photo of Roy Howard, Henry Alvarez, Jahar and Coach Payak p. 172
Defense 3284 Photo of Henry Alvarez wrestling p. 173
Defense 3280 Photo montage including Jahar p. 182
36
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-6 Filed 10/21/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-6 Filed 10/21/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1744-7 Filed 10/21/18 Page 1 of 1