Tsarnaev Brief 06-27-19

Case: 16-6001 Document: 00117457031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2019 Entry ID: 6263968
No. 16-6001
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,
v.
DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV,
Defendant–Appellant.
_________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Massachusetts, No. 1:13-CR-10200
(Hon. George A. O’Toole)
_________________________
REDACTED BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE UNITED STATES

_________________________
ANDREW E. LELLING BRIAN A. BENCZKOWSKI

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
NADINE PELLEGRINI MATTHEW S. MINER

Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Assistant Attorney General
District of Massachusetts
WILLIAM A. GLASER
JOHN C. DEMERS Attorney, Appellate Section
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division
National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
JOSEPH F. PALMER Washington, DC 20530
Attorney (202) 532-4495
National Security Division [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ xii
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................. 2
ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... 5
A. Procedural History .......................................................................................... 5
B. Relevant Facts .................................................................................................. 6
1. While a student at the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, Tsarnaev quietly adopted a radical Islamic
ideology. ................................................................................................ 7
2. Sometime in late 2012 or early 2013, Tsarnaev and his
brother hatched a plot to commit an act of terrorism. ................. 10
3. On April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev and his brother detonated two
bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three people—
Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard—and
wounding hundreds. .......................................................................... 13
4. After the bombing, Tsarnaev returned to college and acted
as if nothing happened. ..................................................................... 25
5. After authorities released their pictures, Tsarnaev and his
brother killed Sean Collier, a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology policeman, in an attempt to steal his gun. ................. 27
6. Tsarnaev and his brother carjacked a sport utility vehicle
and kidnapped the owner at gunpoint. ........................................... 29
7. Police tracked Tsarnaev and his brother to a residential
street in Watertown, where they engaged in a gun battle
with police and detonated several improvised bombs. ................. 32
i
8. Tsarnaev hid for 18 hours in a shrink-wrapped boat, where

he wrote a jihadist justification of the attacks. ............................... 37
9. Authorities arrested Tsarnaev on April 19, four days after
the bombing........................................................................................ 39
10. A jury convicted Tsarnaev on 30 counts and recommended
the death penalty on six counts. ....................................................... 40
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 44
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 56
I. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Tsarnaev’s
Motions for Change of Venue. ............................................................................... 56
A. Background .................................................................................................... 57
B. Standard of review......................................................................................... 63
C. Tsarnaev was tried by an impartial jury. ..................................................... 63
1. Tsarnaev cannot establish a presumption of prejudice. ................ 64
a. The extent of the venire’s exposure to media
coverage does not support a presumption of
prejudice. ................................................................................. 67
b. Statements by excused venire members do not
establish a presumption of prejudice. .................................. 80
c. The Skilling factors indicate that prejudice should not
be presumed. ........................................................................... 84
i. Large and diverse jury pool ....................................... 84
ii. Lack of confession or blatantly prejudicial
information .................................................................. 88
iii. Lapse of nearly two years between crime and
trial ................................................................................ 94
iv. Jury’s decision not to impose death on 11 of
17 eligible counts......................................................... 96
ii
d. Even if Tsarnaev could establish a presumption of

prejudice, the government could rebut it. ........................... 97
2. The record does not demonstrate actual prejudice. ...................... 97
a. Excluded venire members’ views do not establish
actual prejudice. ...................................................................... 98
b. The seated jurors’ views do not show actual
prejudice. ............................................................................... 100
D. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 and this Court’s supervisory
powers do not justify reversal. ................................................................... 106
E. The Eighth Amendment does not independently require reversal. ...... 108
II. Tsarnaev is Not Entitled to a New Trial or Remand Based on Alleged
Juror Dishonesty. .................................................................................................... 109
A. Background .................................................................................................. 109
1. Juror 286 ........................................................................................... 109
2. Juror 138 ........................................................................................... 112
3. Defense motions to strike............................................................... 116
B. Standard of review....................................................................................... 118
C. The jurors did not make material false statements that would support
challenges for cause. .................................................................................... 118
1. Juror 286’s voir dire statements do not justify a new trial. ......... 122
a. Juror 286 was not dishonest. .......................................................... 122
b. Juror 286’s tweets and sheltering in place would not have
justified a for-cause strike. .............................................................. 125
2. Juror 138 was not dishonest during voir dire, and his
Facebook postings did not justify a for-cause strike. .................. 128
3. The jurors’ post-trial social media comments do not
indicate dishonesty or prejudice. .................................................... 131
iii
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err by failing to
conduct a more extensive inquiry. ............................................................. 132
III. The District Court Acted Within Its Discretion by Dismissing
Prospective Juror 355. ............................................................................................ 136
A. Background .................................................................................................. 136
C. The district court reasonably concluded that Juror 355 was substantially
impaired by his views regarding the death penalty. ................................. 140
1. The deferential standard applies. ................................................... 143
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion. ............................. 148
3. Tsarnaev’s other assertions have no merit. ................................... 152
IV. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Limiting
the Questions Asked on Voir Dire. ...................................................................... 154
A. Background .................................................................................................. 154
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion under Morgan v. Illinois by
not allowing case-specific voir dire questions. ......................................... 159
1. Morgan does not require case-specific questions like those
Tsarnaev requested. ......................................................................... 160
2. Even if Morgan required jurors to be informed of certain
case-specific facts, the veniremembers in this case were so
informed. ........................................................................................... 162
3. The district court did not commit any legal error that
would constitute an abuse of discretion........................................ 165
a. Characterizing Tsarnaev’s questions as “stakeout”
questions was not legal error............................................... 166
b. Considering prospective jurors’ awareness of the key
facts was not legal error. ...................................................... 171
iv
4. The voir dire adequately ensured that the seated jurors were
qualified under Morgan. .................................................................... 173
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying inquiry into the
specifics of what each prospective juror had read, heard, or seen about
the case before trial. .................................................................................... 177
1. Patriarca does not require district courts to ask about the
specific contents of media coverage. ............................................. 177
2. The voir dire was adequate to determine whether jurors
were impartial. .................................................................................. 183
3. Any error was harmless. .................................................................. 184
V. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Excluding
Evidence That Tsarnaev’s Brother May Have Committed an Unrelated
Triple Murder and by Protecting an Interview Report From Disclosure. ....... 185
A. Background .................................................................................................. 186
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of
the Waltham murders from the penalty phase......................................... 194
1. The evidence was not relevant. ...................................................... 195
a. Tamerlan’s violent history is not automatically
relevant merely because he was a co-conspirator. ............ 196
b. The evidence was not relevant to show fear or
intimidation. .......................................................................... 199
c. The evidence was not relevant to show Tsarnaev’s
lesser role. .............................................................................. 204
2. Even if the evidence was minimally relevant, its probative
value was outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues
and misleading the jury.................................................................... 209
D. Even if the district court abused its discretion by excluding the Waltham
murder evidence, the error was harmless. ................................................ 214
v
1. Tsarnaev’s first motion in limine ..................................................... 255

2. Rebekah Gregory, Sydney Corcoran, and Karen Rand............... 256
3. Tsarnaev’s renewed motion. ........................................................... 258
4. Jeffrey Bauman, Roseann Sdoia, and Jessica Kensky .................. 259
5. Celeste Corcoran’s testimony and the district court’s denial
of Tsarnaev’s mistrial motion and request for a continuing
objection............................................................................................ 261
6. Nicole Gross’s testimony and the district court’s denial of
Tsarnaev’s renewed request for a continuing objection.............. 263
7. Eric Whalley, Adrianne Haslet-Davis, and Stephen
Woolfenden ...................................................................................... 264
C. The district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion by
concluding that surviving victims’ testimony was relevant and
admissible to establish the existence and the weight of other
aggravating factors....................................................................................... 266
1. Tsarnaev failed to preserve his challenge to surviving victim
testimony. .......................................................................................... 266
2. The district court correctly concluded that the surviving
victims’ testimony was relevant to aggravating factors other
than victim impact. .......................................................................... 269
a. Victims’ reactions to facing death ...................................... 270
b. Witnesses’ uncertainty about what happened to their
family members .................................................................... 273
c. Feelings of helplessness watching an injured child or
partner suffer ........................................................................ 275
d. Long-term implications of becoming an amputee ........... 276
D. The Federal Death Penalty Act does not prohibit testimony about the
effects of a capital crime on surviving victims. ........................................ 278
vii
1. Payne and the FDPA authorize victim-impact evidence. ............ 279

2. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a) does not limit the types of relevant
evidence that may be admitted to prove properly-noticed
aggravating factors. .......................................................................... 281
3. Section 3593(a)’s use of the word “victim” is not limited to
victims who have died. .................................................................... 283
4. Evidence of a capital crime’s impact on surviving victims is
relevant to the sentencing determination. ..................................... 286
E. Any error did not prejudice Tsarnaev. ...................................................... 290
VIII. The District Court Properly Rejected Tsarnaev’s Untimely Request for
Information to Support a Potential Motion to Suppress the Whole
Foods Video. ........................................................................................................... 293
A. Background .................................................................................................. 294
1. Agents obtained the Whole Foods video following a tip
from Katherine Russell. .................................................................. 294
2. Agents interviewed Tsarnaev at the hospital. ............................... 295
3. Tsarnaev moved to suppress his confession. ............................... 296
4. The district court admitted the Whole Foods video without
objection............................................................................................ 298
C. Tsarnaev is not entitled to a remand. ........................................................ 302
1. Tsarnaev waived his challenge to the Whole Foods video. ........ 302
2. The district court properly declined to order the
government to produce additional evidence about the
source of the tip. .............................................................................. 305
3. Katherine Russell, not Tsarnaev, provided the tip that led
the agents to Whole Foods. ............................................................ 307
4. Any error was harmless. .................................................................. 309
viii
a. The Whole Foods video was harmless because

overwhelming evidence showed that Tsarnaev lacked
remorse after the bombing. ................................................. 310
b. The video was harmless because Tsarnaev conceded
that he lacked remorse immediately after the
bombing................................................................................. 311
IX. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Admitting
Evidence of Tsarnaev’s Terrorist Ideology, and the Government
Committed No Misconduct in the Audio and Visual Presentations It
Used During Opening and Closing Arguments. ................................................. 312
A. The district court properly admitted expert testimony regarding the
global jihadist movement............................................................................ 313
1. Background ....................................................................................... 313
2. Standard of Review .......................................................................... 316
3. Dr. Levitt’s testimony was admissible. .......................................... 316
4. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless. ................... 321
B. The government’s audiovisual presentation at the guilt-phase closing
argument was proper................................................................................... 323
1. Background ....................................................................................... 323
2. Standard of Review .......................................................................... 326
3. The PowerPoint presentation was proper. ................................... 326
4. The presentation did not affect the trial’s outcome. ................... 331
C. The government did not plainly commit prosecutorial misconduct in
penalty-phase opening statements by displaying images of the deceased
victims alongside an image of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger at a
security camera............................................................................................. 333
1. Background ....................................................................................... 333
2. Standard of review ........................................................................... 336
ix
3. The display was proper. .................................................................. 337

4. The display did not affect the trial’s outcome. ............................. 339
X. The Constitution Does Not Require the Government to Prove That the
Aggravating Factors Outweigh the Mitigating Factors Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt in Order to Justify a Death Sentence. ................................. 342
A. Background .................................................................................................. 343
C. The jury instruction was correct. ............................................................... 346
1. Hurst did not expand Ring. .............................................................. 347
2. Kansas v. Carr confirms that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
standard does not apply to the weighing determination. ............ 350
3. Lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected Tsarnaev’s
reading of Hurst. ............................................................................... 351
XI. The Jury Instructions Regarding Deadlock Did Not Unconstitutionally
Coerce the Jury into Recommending the Death Penalty. .................................. 354
A. Background .................................................................................................. 355
1. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones .......................................... 355
2. Proceedings below ........................................................................... 357
C. Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate plain error ................................................ 363
1. Tsarnaev cannot show a reasonable likelihood that jurors
drew a misleading inference from earlier instructions................. 363
2. Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
the instructions had an unconstitutionally coercive effect.......... 367
3. Tsarnaev cannot show prejudice .................................................... 370
XII. The Cumulative Error Doctrine Does Not Justify Reversal. ............................ 372
x
XIII. The District Court’s Use of Ex Parte Proceedings to Address Sensitive

and Classified Matters Did Not Violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. ...... 373
A. Background .................................................................................................. 373
C. The district court’s in camera and ex parte review of classified and other
sensitive information did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.............................................................................................. 375
D. The ex parte proceedings did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel. ......................................................................................................... 380
E. Because the withheld information was not favorable or material to his
defense, Tsarnaev suffered no prejudice. ................................................. 382
XIV. The Grand and Petit Jury Wheels Did Not Underrepresent African-
Americans. ............................................................................................................... 383
A. Background .................................................................................................. 383
C. Tsarnaev concedes that he cannot prevail under the absolute disparity
analysis required by this Court’s precedent. ............................................. 385
XV. The Death Penalty Is Not Plainly Cruel and Unusual Punishment as
Applied to Tsarnaev Based on His Age (19) at the Time of His Offenses. .... 390
A. Standard of review....................................................................................... 391
B. Because the Supreme Court has specifically held that the death penalty is
permissible for those 18 or older at the time of their offense, it was not
plain error to apply the death penalty to Tsarnaev.................................. 391
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 398
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ 399
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................... 400
xi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amato v. United States, 450 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2006) .......................................................... 240
Amirault v. Fair, 968 F.2d 1404 (1st Cir. 1992) ................................................................ 120
Antwine v. Delo, 54 F.3d 1357 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 147
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) .............................................................. 342, 350
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ...................................................... 214, 215, 240
Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2000) ............................................................... 203
Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (1962) ...................................................................... 88, 104
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ........................................................................................ 380
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) ....................................................................... 232
Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).............................................................................. 279
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990) ..................................................................... 363, 365
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ........................................................ 48, 185, 222, 224
Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005) ................................................................................. 365
Bryson v. Ward, 187 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1999) ............................................................... 217
Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) ........................................................................ 343
Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) ........................................................................ 242
Buttrum v. Black, 721 F. Supp. 1268 (N.D. Ga. 1989) ............................................. 207, 208
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)........................................................................ 108
Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) ..................................................................... 107
Carter v. Gibson, 27 F. App’x 934 (10th Cir. 2001) .......................................................... 208
xii
Cauthern v. Colson, 736 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 208
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ........................................................ 214, 217, 240
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) .................................................................... 242, 245
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) ....................................................... 283
Clagett v. Commonwealth, 472 S.E.2d 263 (Va. 1996)......................................................... 162
Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 370
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States, 490 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) ...... 226, 227, 228
Cooper v. Dugger, 526 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1988) ............................................................. 198, 207
Cooper v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 646 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................. 207, 208
Dixon v. Houk, 737 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 217
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)................................................................... 338
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) ..................................................... 386, 387, 388, 390
Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) ................................................ 121
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)........................................................ 194, 195, 196
Ellington v. State, 735 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. 2012) ............................................................ 161, 166
Ellsworth v. Warden, 333 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) ............................................... 223, 224, 225
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)............................................................................. 197
Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988)........ 283
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 464 (1981) .................................................................. 241, 250
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) ...................................................................................... 65
Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1989) ............................................................. 370
Ex Parte Taylor, 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995) ....................................................................... 162

xiii
Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) .................................................. 119
Fuller v. Dretke, 161 F. App’x 413 (5th Cir. 2006) ........................................................... 208
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) ............................................................................ 350
Garcia v. Davis, 704 F. App’x 316 (5th Cir. 2017)............................................................ 352
Garcia v. Ryan, No. cv-15-0025, 2017 WL 1550419 (D. Ariz. May 1, 2017) ................ 353
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) ........................................................................ 215
Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) ........................... 141, 142, 143, 144, 148, 152, 153
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ................................................................................. 209
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) ........................................................................... 245
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ..................................................................... 284
Haller v. Robbins, 409 F.2d 857 (1st Cir. 1969) ................................................................. 379
Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973) .............................................................. 171, 172
Henderson v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1309 (11th Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 89
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) .................................................................... 153
Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (1989) ............................................................................. 348
Hitchcock v. Duggar, 481 U.S. 393 (1987) ........................................................................... 216
Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2013) ......................................................... 160, 168
Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) ................................................................... 243
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...................................................... 313
Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) .............................................................................. 153
Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999) .............................................. 160, 200, 268
Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 339
xiv
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) ........................................................................... 308
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) ............................... 53, 342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351
In re Abdur’Raham, 392 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 145
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.
2008) ............................................................................................................................... 378
In re Tsarnaev, 775 F.3d 457 (1st Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 59
In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2015) ................................................ 45, 59, 61, 62, 67,
................................................................................................ 78, 85-88, 95, 100, 101, 104
In re United States, 426 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 389
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) ............................ 66, 69, 79, 84, 99, 101, 108, 181, 185
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) ..................................................................... 363
Jones v. State, 539 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 2000)........................................................................... 209
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) ....... 54, 216, 217, 266, 290, 292, 309, 321, 322,
................................................................................... 354, 356, 362- 64, 366-67, 369, 371
Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633 (2016) ......................................................................... 350, 351
Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (2013) ....................................... 241, 243, 244, 250, 251, 252
Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) ................................................................................ 350
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) .................................................................................. 222
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012)......................................................... 130
Lawrence v. State, 846 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2003) .................................................................... 208
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) .............................................................................. 243
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)....................................................................... 132
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) ......................................................... 194, 195, 196, 212
xv
Los Angeles County, Cal. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010) ............................................... 392
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) ........................................................................... 369
Lyons v. Lee, 316 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 370
Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992)........................................................... 207, 208
Maness v. Meyer, 419 U.S. 449 (1975) ................................................................................. 243
McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984)..............118- 20, 122, 125
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) .......................................................................... 215
McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) .............................................. 217
McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302 (6th Cir. 1996) ............................................................. 145
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).............................................................................. 297
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ............................................................................. 95
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999)..................................................................... 244
Morales v. Mitchell, 507 F.3d 916 (6th Cir. 2007) ............................................. 145, 149, 151
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) ...................... 46, 154, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 183
Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) .........47, 63, 98, 100, 108, 154, 159, 179, 180-84
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975) ......................................................... 65, 99, 104, 107
Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778 (9th Cir.)............................................................................ 89
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) .................................................... 307, 308, 309
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)............................................................ 94
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) ..................................................... 97, 214, 215, 240
Nelson v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (en banc) ........................................ 217
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) ......................................................................... 297

xvi
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................... 86
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)................................................................................. 309
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017)............................................................. 365
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) .................................................................. 316
One Wisconsin Now v. Kremer, 354 F. Supp. 3d 940 (W.D. Wis. 2019) ........................... 110
Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1968).............................. 47, 177, 178, 179
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) ........................................ 85, 90, 95, 98, 99, 100, 179
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) ............................ 272, 275, 279, 280, 288, 289, 342
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987)......................................................... 376, 377, 381
People v. Brown, 665 N.E.2d 1290 (Ill. 1996) ..................................................................... 162
People v. Cash, 50 P.3d 332 (Cal. 2002) .............................................................................. 161
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) ............................................................................... 380
Ramseur v. Beyer, 983 F.2d 1215 (3d Cir. 1992) (en banc) ............................................... 388
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)..........................................................66, 79, 101
Rhoades v. Davis, 914 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 217
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) .................................................................. 291, 369
Richmond v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2004) ............................................... 156, 160, 168
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) .................................................. 61, 64, 65, 89, 107
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ................................................................................. 342
Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (1976).................................................................................. 172
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) ............................... 393
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)...................... 56, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 396, 397
xvii
Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981) ........................................................... 172
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) ..................................................................................... 215
Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988) ............................................................... 108, 141, 142
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) ....................................................................... 226
Runyon v. United States, No. 4:08-CR-1603,

2017 WL 253963 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2017) ................................................................ 353
Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) ................................................................................. 242
Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150 (1st Cir. 2013) ................... 119, 121, 122, 125, 134
Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988) ........................................................................... 216
Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 369
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001)....................................................................... 351
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) ...................................................................... 65, 89
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ................................. 58, 63-67, 78, 81, 85, 88,
........................................................................... 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 100, 105-08, 180, 183
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) ............................................. 195, 196, 215, 216
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) ......................................................................... 119, 120
Smith v. Pineda, No. 1:12-CV-196,

2017 WL 631410 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2017)............................................................. 353
Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984) ............................................................................ 348
Spivey v. Head, 207 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) ................................................................ 145
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (2008)................................... 316
State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) ..................................................................... 393, 397
State v. Clark, 981 S.W.2d 143 (Mo. 1998) ............................................................... 161, 164
xviii
State v. Goode, 461 S.E.2d 631 (N.C. 1995)....................................................................... 209
State v. Jackson, 836 N.E.2d 1173 (Ohio 2005) ........................................................ 161, 164
State v. Lynch, 459 S.E.2d 679 (N.C. 1995) ....................................................................... 162
State v. Turner, 263 So. 3d 337 (La. 2018) ......................................................................... 161
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ................................................................... 380
Strong v. Roper, 737 F.3d 506 (8th Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 339
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993).......................................................................... 215
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) .................................................................... 386, 390
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) .............................................................................. 195
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) ................................................................................ 197
Troedel v. Wainwright, 667 F. Supp. 1456 (S.D. Fla. 1986) .............................. 198, 207, 208
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927).................................................................................... 215
Underwood v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2018) ................................................ 351, 352
United States v. Abu Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................. 318
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) ......................................................................... 224
United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................. 321
United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169 (1st Cir. 1990) ................................................ 88, 99
United States v. Aref, 285 F. App’x 784 (2d Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 378
United States v. Arias-Izuierdo, 449 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2006) ....................................... 328
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) ....................................................................... 222
United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.) .................................................................. 387
United States v. Barletta, 644 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1981)......................................................... 305

xix
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 283, 345
United States v. Bashorun, 225 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2000) ........................................................ 304
United States v. Bazemore, 839 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2016) ................................................... 352
United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ........................... 289, 290
United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1990) ............................... 133, 360, 361, 362
United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 1994) ........................................................ 199
United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2014) .......................................................... 375
United States v. Buford, 889 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1989)...................................................... 193
United States v. Bulger, 816 F.3d 137 (1st Cir. 2016) ........................................ 194, 375, 378
United States v. Burgos Montes, 2012 WL 1190191 (D.P.R. Apr. 7, 2012) ....................... 161
United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ..................................................... 252
United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 378
United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 2010) .......................................................... 145
United States v. Caro-Muniz, 406 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005).................................................. 231
United States v. Cartagena-Carrasquillo, 70 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 1995) ................................. 241
United States v. Casanova, 886 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2018) ...................................................... 159
United States v. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d 380 (1st Cir. 2015) .......... 63, 79, 88, 95, 96, 97, 99
United States v. Castro-Vazquez, 802 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2015) ........................................... 305
United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1993) ............................... 119, 370, 371
United States v. Christensen, No. 17-cr-20037,

2019 WL 1976442 (C.D. Ill. May 3, 2019)................................................................. 352
United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980 (1st Cir. 1987)........................................................ 226
xx
United States v. Claudio, 44 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1995) ................................................... 378, 379
United States v. Con-ui, No. 3:13-cr-123,

2017 WL 1393485 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2017)............................................................. 353
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) ....................................................................... 380
United States v. Crooker, 688 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) .......................................................... 301
United States v. Cruz-Feliciano, 786 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2015) .............................................. 222
United States v. De Peri, 778 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1985)........................................................ 327
United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 673 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................... 336
United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014)......................................... 372
United States v. Duval, 496 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2007) ........................................................... 326
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) ................................ 313, 318, 330
United States v. Elshinawy, 2018 WL 1521876 (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2018) .......................... 318
United States v. Fell, 2017 WL 10809985 (D. Vt. February 15, 2017) ............................ 353
United States v. Fell, 372 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Vt. 2005) .................................................. 161
United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 145, 151
United States v. Felton, 417 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2005) .......................................... 319, 330, 333
United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2007) ................................................. 344, 345
United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2008) ...................................... 145, 151, 344
United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2018) ................................................ 134, 135
United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011) .......................................................... 131
United States v. Gabrion, 719 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc) ................... 197, 344, 345
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) ..................................................................... 349
xxi
United States v. Glantz, 810 F.2d 316 (1st Cir. 1987)........................................................ 326
United States v. Goguen, 723 F.2d 1012 (1st Cir. 1983) ..................................................... 254
United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1985) ................................................ 306, 307
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) ....................................................................... 286
United States v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 136 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998)......................................... 327
United States v. Gooch, 2006 WL 3780781 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2006) ................................ 264
United States v. Green, 389 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D. Mass. 2005)..................................... 389, 390
United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 1996).......................................................... 370
United States v. Hafen, 726 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1984) .......................................... 386, 387, 388
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983)..................................................................... 107
United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (1st Cir. 1993) .................................................. 375
United States v. Johnson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 822 (N.D. Iowa 2005).................... 160, 166, 167
United States v. Joost, 94 F.3d 640, 1996 WL 480215 (1st Cir. 1996) .............................. 387
United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2003) .................................................... 376
United States v. Kasenge, 660 F.3d 537 (1st Cir. 2011) ............................................... 326, 339
United States v. Kithcart, 218 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2000) ....................................................... 307
United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 286
United States v. LeCroy, 441 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2006) .................................................... 247
United States v. Leung, 40 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1994) ............................................................ 231
United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 217
United States v. López-Díaz, 794 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 2015) ................................................ 194
United States v. Luce, 469 U.S. 38 (1984)................................................... 245, 246, 247, 248
xxii
United States v. Lustyik, 833 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2016).......................................... 375, 381
United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702 (1st Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 301
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) ............................................................. 106, 392
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000)...................................................... 142
United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1980) ........................................................ 272
United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996)................................................. 311
United States v. McGhee, 532 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2008) ............................................. 328, 329
United States v. McVeigh,

153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998) ........................ 160, 168, 184, 200, 268, 269, 277, 289
United States v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467 (W.D. Okla. 1996) ...................................... 86
United States v. McVeigh, 944 F. Supp. 1478 (D. Colo. 1996) ......................................... 287
United States v. Medina, 761 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1985) ................................................. 179, 180
United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013) ............ 316, 317, 320, 321, 330, 378
United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 2006)....................................................... 378
United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2018).................................... 192, 194, 332
United States v. Minsky, 963 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1992) ...................................................... 379
United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................... 212, 344, 345
United States v. Mitchell, 690 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2012) ....................................................... 119
United States v. Monell, 801 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015) .......................................................... 247
United States v. Montas, 41 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 1994) ......................................................... 336
United States v. Moore, 149 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 145
United States v. Moreno Morales, 815 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1987) ............................................ 97
xxiii
United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981) ................................................................... 380
United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) .................................................. 381
United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2003) .................................. 228, 326
United States v. O’Reilly, 2010 WL 653188 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2010) ......................... 253
United States v. Ofomata, No. 17-cr-201,

2019 WL 527696 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 2019)................................................................ 352
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) ....................................................................... 366
United States v. Oquendo-Rivas, 750 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2014) ..................................... 301, 302
United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2006) ..................................................... 388
United States v. Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000) .......................................... 180
United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242 (1st Cir. 2001) ................................. 133, 135
United States v. Peña-Santo, 809 F.3d 686 (1st Cir. 2015) ................................................. 336
United States v. Pion, 25 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1994) ................................................................ 389
United States v. Pringle, 751 F.2d 419 (1st Cir. 1984) ................................................ 377, 378
United States v. Prochilo, 629 F.3d 264 (1st Cir. 2011)....................................................... 230
United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) ............................................... 212, 345
United States v. Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d 177 (1st Cir. 2012)....................... 63, 64, 94, 97, 103
United States v. Ranney, 719 F.2d 1183 (1st Cir. 1983) ..................................................... 223
United States v. Reifsteck, 535 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir. 1976) .................................................. 244
United States v. Richards, 456 F.3d 260 (1st Cir. 2006) ..................................................... 393
United States v. Rivera-Hernández, 497 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2007) ......................................... 240
United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073 (1st Cir. 1989) ........................................ 268
xxiv
United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) ........................................... 145, 151
United States v. Rodriguez, 675 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2012)...................................................... 133
United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d 1148 (1st Cir. 1991) ..................................... 63
United States v. Rodríguez-De Jesús, 202 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 2000) ..................................... 327
United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1989) ...................................... 327
United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................................ 320
United States v. Roof, 225 F. Supp. 3d 413 (D.S.C. 2016)................................................. 353
United States v. Rosario-Peralta, 175 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 1999) ..................................... 193, 233
United States v. Rose, 802 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2015)............................................................ 307
United States v. Royal, 174 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) ............................ 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................... 344
United States v. Salameh, 1993 WL 364486 (S.D.N.Y Sep. 15, 1993) ............................... 79
United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Mass. 2004) .............................. 235, 264
United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) ...... 53, 140, 192, 210, 213, 265, 271,
.........................................................................278, 282, 337, 342, 344-46, 349, 360, 391
United States v. Sanabria, 645 F.3d 505 (1st Cir. 2011) ..................................................... 372
United States v. Sanchez, No. 1:12-CR-155,

2016 WL 4769722 (D. Idaho Sept. 12, 2016)............................................................ 353
United States v. Santos-Rivera, 726 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2013)................................................ 326
United States v. Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 241
United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................... 381
United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) .................................................... 372
United States v. Shinderman, 515 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 320
xxv
United States v. Smith, 727 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1984) .......................................................... 320
United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 226
United States v. Stokes, 124 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 372
United States v. Taylor, 320 F. Supp. 2d 790 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ........................................ 253
United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) ....................................... 213, 339, 370
United States v. Troy, 618 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2010).............................................................. 265
United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................. 217, 252
United States v. Vanvliet, 542 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 328
United States v. Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 2015)..................... 326, 331, 339
United States v. Vest, 842 F.2d 1319 (1st Cir. 1988) ......................................................... 180
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) .......................................................................... 365
United States v. Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) .................................. 301, 305
United States v. Wall, 130 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 328
United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................... 362
United States v. Williams, 731 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Haw. 2010) .................................... 253
United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) ........................................................................ 119
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) ........................................................................... 327
United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .................................................... 378
United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1993) ...................................................... 327
United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252 (3d Cir. 1995) ..................................................... 331
United States v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2017)................................................. 118, 133
Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) ........................................... 141, 143, 144, 147, 149, 152
xxvi
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) ............................................................................. 215
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) ................................................................................ 367
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ........................................................... 140, 141, 152
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) ................................................................................. 215
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) ...................................................................... 215
Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc) ............................................ 365
Williams v. Chrans, 945 F.2d 926 (7th Cir. 1991) ............................................................. 277
Williams v. Norris, 612 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 217
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) ....................................................... 140, 142, 153
Ybarra v. Filson, 869 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 352
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) ................................................................................. 343
Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181 (6th Cir. 1995) .................................................................... 125
Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 370
Zicarelli v. N.J. State Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (1972) .................................... 243
Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions
18 U.S.C. § 1001 ................................................................................................................. 349
18 U.S.C. § 1201 ................................................................................................................. 285
18 U.S.C. § 1951 ............................................................................................................... 6, 42
18 U.S.C. § 2119 ............................................................................................................... 6, 42
18 U.S.C. § 2332a....................................................................................... 5, 6, 40, 41, 42, 43
18 U.S.C. § 2332f ......................................................................................................5, 41, 270
18 U.S.C. § 3231 ..................................................................................................................... 2

xxvii
18 U.S.C. § 3500 ................................................................................................................. 226
18 U.S.C. § 3510 ................................................................................................................. 285
18 U.S.C. § 3591 .......................................................................................... 43, 281, 284, 343
18 U.S.C. § 3592 ................................................................ 196-97, 199, 212, 262, 267, 270,

................................................................................. 272, 274, 280-81, 284, 316, 343, 358
18 U.S.C. § 3593 ............................................................43, 44, 50, 169, 195, 209, 210, 213,
...................................................................... 269, 271, 280-87, 290, 332, 343-44, 358-59
18 U.S.C. § 3594 .................................................................................................. 44, 355, 364
18 U.S.C. § 3595 ................................................................... 2, 214, 265, 266, 290, 309, 321
18 U.S.C. § 3663A .............................................................................................................. 283
18 U.S.C. § 3771 ................................................................................................................. 283
18 U.S.C. § 844................................................................................................... 5, 41, 42, 270
18 U.S.C. § 924................................................................................................. 5, 6, 41, 42, 43
21 U.S.C. § 848.................................................................................................................... 345
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ..................................................................................................................... 2
28 U.S.C. § 1861 .................................................................................................. 55, 383, 386
28 U.S.C. § 1863 ......................................................................................................... 383, 384
28 U.S.C. § 1867 ................................................................................................................. 384
34 U.S.C. § 20141 ............................................................................................................... 285
D. Mass. Local Rule 40.1 ..................................................................................................... 85
Fed. R. App. P. 4 .................................................................................................................... 2
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 ...................................................................................... 51, 301, 302, 305
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 ........................................................ 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 253, 254
xxviii
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 ..................................................................................................... 226, 375
Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 ............................................................................................................. 106
Fed. R. Crim. P. 24 ............................................................................................................... 62
Fed. R. Crim. P. 30 ..................................................................................................... 360, 361
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 .................................................................................... 106, 118, 355, 391
Fed. R. Evid. 401 ................................................................................................................ 269
Fed. R. Evid. 403 ......................................................................................... 51, 213, 313, 316
Fla. Stat. § 921.141.............................................................................................................. 349
U.S. Const. amend. V ......................................................................................................... 241
U.S. Const. amend. VI ................................................................................................... 55, 63
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3................................................................................................ 63
Other Authorities
1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence, § 4:2 (4th

ed.) .......................................................................................................................... 199, 200
ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press, § 3.4 (Tentative Draft,
Dec. 1966)...................................................................................................................... 178
Am. Bar Ass’n Resolution 111 (2018), available at

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/mym2
018res/111.pdf .............................................................................................................. 394
Andrew Michaels, A Decent Proposal: Exempting Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds from

the Death Penalty, 40 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 139 (2016).............................. 395
Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ........................................................................... 123
Brian Eschels, Data & the Death Penalty: Exploring the Question of National
Consensus Against Executing Emerging Adults in Conversation with Andrew
Michaels’s A Decent Proposal: Exempting Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds From the
xxix
Death Penalty, 40 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change Harbinger 147 (2016),
available at https://socialchangenyu.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/eschels-compliment-piece_clean-copy_6-14-
16.pdf............................................................................................................. 395, 396, 397
Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, H. Doc. No. 102-58

(Mar. 12, 1991) .............................................................................................................. 286
Howard N. Snyder, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Arrest in

the United States, 1990-2010 (2012),
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf .............................................. 396
Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. 2014)........................................................................ 123
Report on the Death of Ibragim Todashev, Civil Rights Division, U.S.

Department of Justice (Mar. 25, 2014), available at,
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1096593-civil-rights-
division-todashev-report.html ..................................................................................... 232
U.S. Census Bureau, New Census Bureau Population Estimates Show Dallas-
Fort-Worth-Arlington Has Largest Growth in the United States,
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/popest-metro-
county.html#popest-tab6 (March 22, 2018) ............................................................... 84
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, 48 Fed.
Reg. 33,774-02, 33,775 ................................................................................................. 283
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Jury Plan for
Random Selection of Jurors (Mar. 3, 2009), available at
http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/pdf/general/030309%20Gen%2
0Ord%2009-2,%20with%20Jury%20Plan.pdf .................................................. 384, 389
United States Sentencing Commission, “Youthful

Offenders in the Federal System,” https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/fil
es/pdf/research-and-publications/research-
publications/2017/20170525_youthful-offenders.pdf .................................... 393, 394
xxx
INTRODUCTION
In April 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother set off two bombs near the
finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three spectators and injuring hundreds.
Three days later, they shot a police officer who was sitting in his car and then engaged
in a shootout during which Tsarnaev threw bombs at police officers and ran over his
brother to escape. Police finally located Tsarnaev hiding in a boat where he had
written a jihadist justification for his actions. After the district court and this Court
denied his requests to transfer his trial out of the District of Massachusetts, a jury
convicted him on 30 counts, including numerous counts of using firearms and
weapons of mass destruction to kill his victims. The jury subsequently recommended
that Tsarnaev receive the death penalty on six counts, and the district court imposed
that sentence. The court also sentenced Tsarnaev to multiple concurrent and
consecutive life sentences on other counts.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s claims, his convictions and sentences were lawful.
Tsarnaev received a fair trial in Boston, and the district court did not abuse its
discretion by refusing to move the trial elsewhere. The jury was selected after a
careful and searching voir dire, and the jurors who tried and sentenced Tsarnaev were
unbiased. The district court’s evidentiary rulings were well within its discretion, the
court’s jury instructions fully complied with Supreme Court and circuit law, and the
government committed no misconduct. Tsarnaev’s challenges to the death penalty
1
and the capital sentencing process—which have been rejected by many other courts—
are groundless. The district court’s judgment should be affirmed.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Defendant–Appellant Tsarnaev appeals from a final judgment of conviction in
a criminal case. The district court (O’Toole, J.) had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231 and entered judgment on June 25, 2015. Add.99-106.1 The district court
denied Tsarnaev’s motion for a new trial on January 15, 2016, Add.483-505, and
Tsarnaev filed a timely notice of appeal on January 29, 2016, 1.App.152-53. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(3)(A)(ii). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
18 U.S.C. § 3595(a).
1
This brief uses the following citation format:
Appellant’s Addendum Add.[page #]

Appellant’s Appendix [volume #].App.[page #]
Appellant’s Sealed Addendum Sealed.Add.[page #]
Appellant’s Sealed Special Appendix [volume #].SPA.[page #]
Appellant’s Supplemental Sealed Addendum Supp.Sealed.Add.[page #]
Appellant’s 12.2 Addendum 12.2.Add.[page #]
Appellant’s 12.2 Appendix 12.2.App.[page #]
Appellee’s Supplemental Appendix [volume #].Supp.App.[page #]
District court docket entries Doc.
Trial Exhibits [Gov’t or Def.] Exh. #
Video and audio exhibits cited in this brief are available on a disc enclosed with the
government’s supplemental appendix. All the trial exhibits, including those not cited
in the parties’ briefs, are available to the Court on flash drives provided by the
government.
2
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Tsarnaev’s motions
for change of venue based on pretrial publicity.
II. Whether Tsarnaev is entitled to a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on
alleged voir dire dishonesty by two jurors.
III. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Juror 355
based on his opposition to the death penalty.
IV. Whether the district court abused its discretion by not allowing Tsarnaev to ask
prospective jurors (a) whether they could consider a life sentence under the
particular facts of this case, and (b) what specific media coverage of this case
they had seen.
V. Whether the district court abused its discretion by (a) excluding from the
penalty phase evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother may have been involved
in an unrelated triple murder in 2011, and (b) denying disclosure of an
interview report relating to the murder.
VI.
VII. Whether the admission of testimony about the bombing’s effect on surviving
victims violated the Federal Death Penalty Act.

3
VIII. Whether Tsarnaev is entitled to a hearing on his claim that video of him buying
milk at a Whole Foods was the fruit of his allegedly coerced confession.
IX. Whether (a) the district court reversibly erred by allowing expert testimony that
mentioned the Islamic State (ISIS) and whether the government committed
misconduct by (b) using a slideshow presentation during closing argument that
juxtaposed the audio of an Islamic nasheed with pictures of Tsarnaev and the
bombing, and (c) using a poster display during the penalty-phase opening of
the four homicide victims beside a poster of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger
to a security camera in a detention cell.
X. Whether the district court reversibly erred by not instructing the jury that, to
recommend a death sentence, the jury must find that the aggravating factors
outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.
XI. Whether the district court reversibly erred by failing to inform the jury that, if
the jury did not unanimously recommend a death sentence, Tsarnaev would be
sentenced to life without the possibility of release.
XII. Whether cumulative error justifies reversal of Tsarnaev’s death sentences.
XIII. Whether the use of ex parte proceedings in which the government sought in
camera review of its discovery determinations violated Tsarnaev’s rights to due
process and the assistance of counsel.
4
XIV. Whether this Court should overrule its precedent applying an absolute-disparity
analysis to claims that the grand and petit jury wheels in the District of
Massachusetts underrepresented African-Americans.
XV. Whether the district court plainly erred by not holding that the death penalty is
unconstitutional for a defendant who was under 21 years old at the time of his
offense.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Procedural History
After 21 days of jury selection and a 17-day guilt phase trial, a jury convicted
Tsarnaev on 30 counts: conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in
death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2) (Count 1); two counts of using a weapon
of mass destruction resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2) (Counts
2 and 4); conspiracy to bomb a place of public use resulting in death, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2332f(a)(1), (a)(2), and (c) (Count 6); two counts of bombing a place of
public use resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332f(a)(1) and (c) (Counts 7
and 9); conspiracy to maliciously destroy property resulting in personal injury and
death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and (n) (Count 11); two counts of malicious
destruction of property resulting in personal injury and death, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 844(i) (Counts 12 and 14); nine counts of possessing and using a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence resulting in death, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) (Counts 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18); carjacking resulting
5
in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2) (Count 19); six counts of
possessing and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30); interference with
commerce by threats and violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count 21); and
four counts of using a weapon of mass destruction, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332a(a)(2) (Counts 23, 25, 27, and 29). Add.99-102.
After a 12-day penalty phase trial, the jury recommended that Tsarnaev be
sentenced to death on Counts 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15, and the district court imposed
death sentences on those counts. Add.95-96, 103. The court also sentenced Tsarnaev
to concurrent terms of life imprisonment on Counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 12; concurrent
terms of life imprisonment on Counts 11, 23, 25, 27, and 29, to be served
consecutively to the other sentences; consecutive terms of life imprisonment on
Counts 3, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 28, and 30; concurrent terms of 25 years on Count
19 and 20 years on Count 21, to be served consecutively to other sentences; and
consecutive terms of seven years on Count 20 and 25 years on Count 22. Add.104.
B. Relevant Facts
On April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan set off two bombs near
the Boston Marathon’s finish line, killing three spectators and injuring hundreds.
Three days later, after police released pictures of the suspects (whose identity was not
yet known), they killed a police officer, carjacked an SUV, and engaged in a lengthy
shoot-out with police in a Boston suburb during which Tsarnaev threw bombs at
6
police officers. Tsarnaev escaped the scene after running over his brother with the
stolen SUV. After several communities were on lockdown for most of a day, a
homeowner found Tsarnaev hiding in a winterized boat. While in the boat, Tsarnaev
wrote a manifesto defending his actions and characterizing his brother as a martyr.
1. While a student at the University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth, Tsarnaev quietly adopted a radical Islamic
ideology.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was born in July 1993 in Kyrgyzstan, and came to the
United States with his parents at age eight. 14.App.6198; 17.App.7855; Gov’t Exh.
1210 (physical exhibit (passport)). He attended public and charter schools in the
Cambridge, Massachusetts area, where he got good grades and related well to his
fellow students. See 17.App.7912-15, 7919-23, 7929-31, 7945-46; 18.App.8152-53,
8290, 8306-07.
In 2011, Tsarnaev began attending the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
17.App.7960-63; 18.App.8148-49; 1.Supp.App.58 (Gov’t Exh. 1180E). He did poorly
in his classes, failing many of them, and lost his academic scholarship. 14.App.6140-
6142; 1.Supp.App.56-58 (Gov’t Exhs. 1180C and 1180E) (transcripts and academic
progress appeal). He spent his time hanging out with friends, watching TV, playing
video games, drinking alcohol, and smoking marijuana. 12.App.5255; 17.App.7963-
64, 7980, 7983-84, 7990; 18.App.8098-99, 8105. His friends found him “fun,” “laid
back,” and “goofy.” 17.App.7970; 18.App.8106. Although they knew he was a
Muslim, he rarely talked about religion or politics. 17.App.7983; 18.App.8107, 8153.

7
But there was another side of Tsarnaev that his friends did not see. While
projecting an image of a laid-back partier, he was reading and watching radical Islamic
propaganda. For example, in January 2012, he obtained a PDF copy of the first
edition of Inspire magazine, an al-Qaeda publication first printed in 2010.
13.App.5652 (provenance of computer), 5663 (access date), 5684-85 (location on the
computer), 5906-09 (description of magazine). The magazine included an interview
with an al-Qaeda leader who encouraged his “Muslim brothers in the West . . . to
acquire weapons and learn methods of war.” 13.App.5917. It contained an article
entitled “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom,” which said, “If you are sincere
in your intentions to serve the religion of Allāh, then all [t]hat you have to do is enter
your kitchen and make an explosive device that would damage the enemy if you put
your trust in Allāh and then use this explosive device properly.” 2.Supp.App.210
(Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 33) (non-English characters omitted). The article gave
detailed instructions on how to make bombs out of metal pipes and pressure cookers.
2.Supp.App.211-17 (Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 34-40).
At the end of the Inspire magazine was a message from Anwar al-Awlaki, an
American-born imam who was “an extraordinarily effective radicalizer.”
13.App.5907. He told “Muslims in the West” that they had “two choices: either hijra 2
2
“Hijra” in this context means migration to a place where there is a Muslim
majority. 13.App.5924.
8
or jihād. You either leave or you fight. You leave and live among Muslims or you
stay behind and fight with your hand, your wealth and your word.” 1.Supp.App.45
(Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 56, 58).
On the day of the 2012 presidential election, Tsarnaev texted a friend that he
wanted “the lesser of two evils to win[,] which would be Obama[,] but either way
they’re shaytan [Satan] ass niggas, puppets of the system, killing Muslims is the only
promise they will fulfill.” 1.Supp.App.68 (Gov’t Exh. 1385); see 14.App.6341, 6337
(explaining meaning of “shaytan”). In December 2012, when texting a friend about
his future plans, he said, “I wanna bring justice for my people.” 1.Supp.App.72
(Gov’t Exh. 1387); 14.App.6343.
At the end of January 2013, Tsarnaev texted a friend that he was “tryina finish
school” but “[c]ome [M]ay I’m out.” 1.Supp.App.74 (Gov’t Exh. 1395); 14.App.6344.
His friend asked if he was planning to get married, to which Tsarnaev responded,
“[W]e’ll see. . . . I mean there’s 1 other option bro. Highest level of Jannah.”3
1.Supp.App.74. His friend replied, “Jihad? I really am down for that Jihad life
though. I’ve been thinking about that lately.” 1.Supp.App.74. Tsarnaev replied,
“Don’t be hot over the phone.” 1.Supp.App.74. When his friend said that thinking
about jihad was “affecting [his] future plans,” Tsarnaev said, “I’m with you on this
one i[ ] wanna talk to yu in person sometime soon.” 1.Supp.App.75.
3
“Jannah” means “Paradise.” 13.App.5934.
9
In March 2013, Tsarnaev created a twitter account with the username
Al_FirdausiA and the display name “Ghuraba.”4 10.App.4488-90, 4500-01. In his
first tweet, he said, “[D]ear Muslim brothers and sisters follow me for some Islamic
insight.” 1.Supp.App.62 (Gov’t Exh. 1266). Over the next few days, he tweeted
seven more times. 1.Supp.App.61. He said, for example, “I want the highest levels of
Jannah, I want to be able to see Allah every single day for that is the best of
pleasures.” 1.Supp.App.61. He recommended that his followers “[l]isten to Anwar al
Awlaki’s . . . the here after series” in order to “gain an unbelievable amount of
knowledge.” 1.Supp.App.61. Awlaki’s “Hereafter Series” includes lectures that serve
as an introduction to Islam; although they do not call for jihad, they often serve as a
gateway to Awlaki’s more radical lectures. 13.App.5908-09; 14.App.5974-75.
Tsarnaev’s final tweet on this account—one month before the Boston Marathon
bombing—said, “It’s our responsibility my brothers & sisters to ask Allah to ease the
hardships of the oppressed and give us victory over kufr.”5 1.Supp.App.61.
2. Sometime in late 2012 or early 2013, Tsarnaev and his brother

hatched a plot to commit an act of terrorism.
Tsarnaev’s parents left the United States and moved to Dagestan in 2012.
17.App.7830. Tsarnaev’s older brother Tamerlan also traveled to Dagestan between
4
“Firdaus” refers to the highest level of paradise in the teaching of Islam.
11.App.4541; 13.App.5937. “Ghuraba” means “stranger.” 10.App.4500.
5
“Kufar” or “kafir” means “infidel” or “non-believer.” 12.App.5300;
13.App.5934.
10
January and July 2012, hoping to participate in jihad, but Tamerlan found that no
fighting was actually taking place. 14.App.6250; 15.App.6718; 17.App.7861-64;
1.Supp.App.96-97 (Def. Exh. 1433).
Tsarnaev began his sophomore year at the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth in the fall of 2012, and he was naturalized as a United States citizen on
September 11 of that year. Gov’t Exh. 1210 (passport); 17.App.7970-71. He failed
three of his four classes that semester. 1.Supp.App.58 (Gov’t Exh. 1180E). In
December, he spent part of his holiday break with Tamerlan in Cambridge. See
11.App.4713-15 (cell phone records); 14.App.6343-44; 1.Supp.App.73 (Gov’t Exh.
1388) (texting a friend on December 25, “Doing something with Tamerlan”).
Sometime in January 2013, Tsarnaev asked to borrow his friend Stephen Silva’s
Ruger P95 pistol, which had an obliterated serial number. 12.App.5259, 5264, 5267.
See 1.Supp.App.31 (Gov’t Exh. 930) (photo of gun). Tsarnaev told Silva he wanted to
use the gun to “rip [rob] some kids.” 12.App.5264. Silva loaned him the gun, but
never got it back. 12.App.5273. When Silva asked about the gun over the next few
months, Tsarnaev “just kept coming up with excuses” and “beating around the bush.”
12.App.5273-74.
In late January, three days after Tsarnaev had texted his friend about jihad and
two hours after the brothers spoke on the phone, Tamerlan used cash to buy two
Fagor pressure cookers at a Macy’s department store in Saugus, Massachusetts.
11.App.4693, 4697; 14.App.6261-63, 6269-73; 15.App.6686-87. See 1.Supp.App.49,

11
52, 100-101 (Gov’t Exhs. 1152-06, 1159; Def. Exhs. 3002 at 34 (Item 846), 3127). In
March 2013, Tamerlan purchased four boxes of BB-gun ammunition, containing
24,000 BBs, from two different Wal-Mart stores. 14.App.6277-79; 15.App.6688-92.
See 1.Supp.App.50, 54-55, 102 (Gov’t Exh. 1152-07, 1161; Def. Exh. 3128). And
between February and early April 2013, Tamerlan ordered several transmitters and
receivers for radio-controlled cars. 14.App.6280-85.
One or both of the brothers then constructed two pressure cooker bombs.
14.App.6423, 6439, 6443. They lined the bombs on the inside with BBs embedded in
sealant (the second bomb also had nails) and filled them with powder from fireworks.
14.App.6301-02, 6308, 6310-11, 6443, 6481. The bombs could be detonated remotely
using a radio-controlled car receiver attached to a Christmas tree light bulb.
14.App.6430-34 (bomb #1), 39-42 (bomb #2). The bombs closely followed the
pattern in Inspire magazine, which showed how to make a bomb by gluing “shrapnel
to the inside of the pressurized cooker” and suggested using nails or “spherical
shaped” shrapnel. 2.Supp.App.217 (Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 40); 14.App.6479-80.
The magazine showed how to use a Christmas tree light bulb to detonate the bomb,
and recommended using a “timed circuit or . . . a remote controlled circuit.”
2.Supp.App.212-13 (Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 35-36); 14.App.6473-76.
On March 20, 2013, during Tsarnaev’s spring break, he and Tamerlan went to a
gun range in Manchester, New Hampshire. 14.App.6060-67; 17.App.7992. They
rented two 9mm handguns and purchased four boxes of 9mm ammunition.
12
14.App.6064-65. See Gov’t Exh. 1165 (video of Tsarnaev and Tamerlan leaving
range). Tsarnaev and Tamerlan were at the range for about an hour. 14.App.6065.
That evening, Tsarnaev tweeted, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”
10.App.4498; 1.Supp.App.63 (Gov’t Exh. 1307).
3. On April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev and his brother detonated two

bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three people—
Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard—and
wounding hundreds.
The Boston Marathon is held every year on Patriots’ Day, a school holiday in
Massachusetts. 10.App.3990. The day of the 2013 marathon—Monday, April 15—
was “beautiful,” “sunny but a little chilly.” 10.App.4047, 4095, 4139. A “party
atmosphere” pervaded the finish line on Boylston Street in downtown Boston, and
“everyone was having a great time.” 10.App.4046-47. Thousands of spectators
gathered to cheer and to take pictures of family and friends running in the marathon.
10.App.4047, 4064-65, 4076, 4078. See 1.Supp.App.1-2 (Gov’t Exhs. 1, 3) (photos
near the finish line).
Krystle Campbell went to the marathon with her co-worker and “fast friend[ ]”
Karen Rand, whose boyfriend was running.6 10.App.4092-94. The two friends “were
being kind of silly and touristy” and had a passerby take their picture. 10.App.4095-
By the time of trial, Rand had married and become Karen McWatters.
6
10.App.4091-92.
13
96. See 1.Supp.App.7 (Gov’t Exh. 15) (photo of Campbell and Rand). They found a
spot near the finish line as they waited for Rand’s boyfriend to finish. 10.App.4095.
Bill and Denise Richard “made it a ritual” to attend the marathon every year
with their children Henry, Martin, and Jane. 10.App.4266. They went to their usual
place on the corner of Hereford and Newbury Streets, where Martin (eight years old)
and Jane (six), who were “really into watching the runners,” could stand on the metal
fence lining the course. 10.App.4268-71, 4292, 4295. After a stop for ice cream at
Ben and Jerry’s, they decided to “try and find a place closer to the finish line.”
10.App.4272-73. They found a spot along Boylston Street in front of the Forum
restaurant, where Martin and Jane were again able to stand on the railing.
10.App.4273-74; 1.Supp.App.14 (Gov’t Exh. 29) (photo of Martin, Jane, and other
children on railing with Tsarnaev behind).
Lingzi Lu, a Boston University student from China, was near the finish line
with two Chinese friends, including Danling Zhou. 10.App.4340, 4343, 4345-47. The
students knew the Boston Marathon was a “big thing,” and they wanted to “see how
people celebrate [the] marathon.” 10.App.4345. They shopped, ate some lunch, and
walked along Boylston Street near the Forum restaurant. 10.App.4346-49.
***
Around 2:37 p.m., as the race clock neared the four-hour mark, Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan approached the finish line along Boylston Street. 10.App.4417;
15.App.6573-74; Gov’t Exh. 22 at 00:00-00:20. Most of their movements were

14
captured by surveillance cameras from nearby businesses. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 00:00-
2:15 (combined videos). Tsarnaev wore a hooded sweatshirt, a black coat, and a
backward white hat. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 00:25-00:28; 3:13-3:21. Tamerlan wore a
hooded sweatshirt, a black coat, a black hat, and sunglasses. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 1:13.
Each carried a backpack containing a pressure cooker bomb. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 00:20-
00:45; 14.App.6423.
Tsarnaev and Tamerlan split up just before reaching the Forum restaurant.
10.App.4436, 4438. Tamerlan walked to a spot near the finish line in front of
Marathon Sports. 10.App.4020-21, 4031; Gov’t Exh. 22 at 2:20-3:50. See
1.Supp.App.3 (Gov’t Exh. 6). As he was pushing through the crowd, Tamerlan
bumped into Jeffrey Bauman, who was there to watch his girlfriend run.
10.App.4136, 4139-40. Bauman thought Tamerlan looked suspicious. 10.App.4140.
He “wasn’t . . . watching the race,” and “it didn’t look like he was having fun like
everybody else.” 10.App.4140. See 10.App.4153-55; 1.Supp.App.81 (Gov’t Exh.
1473) (photo of Tamerlan next to Bauman). Bauman later looked behind him and
saw an unattended backpack on the ground, but he no longer saw Tamerlan.
10.App.4140-41.
After splitting up with Tamerlan, Tsarnaev waited a few minutes and then
followed Tamerlan’s path up Boylston Street. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 2:17-35. He stopped
in front of the Forum restaurant. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 3:29-3:50. He slipped off his
backpack and placed it on the ground near a tree a few feet from where Martin and
15
Jane Richard and other children stood along the metal railing lining the race course.
10.App.4422-23; 16.App.7418; Gov’t Exh. 22 at 3:40-3:50; 1.Supp.App.14 (Gov’t
Exh. 29) (photo showing Tsarnaev and his backpack behind Martin and Jane).
Tsarnaev watched the runners for several minutes, and then made a 19-second
telephone call to Tamerlan. 10.App.4424-25; Gov’t Exh. 22 at 3:45-7:30 (video of
Tsarnaev watching runners and making call).
About 20 seconds after Tsarnaev hung up, an explosion rocked the crowd in
front of Marathon Sports. Gov’t Exh. 5 at 00:00-00:34; Gov’t Exh. 22 at 7:20-7:45.
The spectators in front of the Forum restaurant all turned and looked toward the
finish line. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 7:43. Tsarnaev glanced that way briefly, then began
quickly edging away from the finish line, leaving his backpack on the ground. Gov’t
Exh. 22 at 7:43-7:54. About 12 seconds after the first blast, Tsarnaev gave one last
look back toward his backpack. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 7:54; 10.App.4251. Then it
exploded. Gov’t Exh. 22 at 7:54-7:55 (video from Forum restaurant); Gov’t Exh. 5 at
00:22-00:28 (video from near finish line).
***
When the first bomb exploded, instantly “[i]t was chaos. It was confusion,
screaming, yelling, smoke.” 10.App.4099. See Gov’t Exh. 5 (video of both bomb
blasts from a distance). There was “blood everywhere,” 10.App.4127, and the ground
was covered with “chunks of metal,” BBs, nails, “shards . . . of glass,” and “body
parts.” 10.App.4051-52, 4066. See 1.Supp.App.4-6 (Gov’t Exhs. 8, 9, 12) (photos

16
after the blast). The air smelled of “smoke . . . , blood, [and] flesh. Just acrid,
disgusting.” 10.App.4051. The wounded screamed in pain and called out things like,
“Help us or we’re going to die,” and “Stay with me, stay with me.” 10.App.4037,
4102, 4313; 16.App.7133, 7182. See Gov’t Exhs. 11b, 11c, 14 (close-up post-blast
videos). A five-year-old whose leg was cut to the bone called out, “‘Mommy,’
‘Mommy,’ ‘Mommy,’ over and over and over again.” 10.App.4065, 4067, 4070.
Sirens and fire alarms added to the chaos. 10.App.4037-38, 4234; Gov’t Exh. 14
(video). Some uninjured bystanders “were running away” while others “jumped in”
and “tried to help.” 10.App.4127. See 10.App.4143-44. Police officers and volunteers
called out directions and used belts and clothing to apply tourniquets to injured limbs.
10.App.4036, 4055, 4143; 16.App.7135; Gov’t Exhs. 11C, 14 (videos).
The scene of the second blast was similarly “brutal.” 10.App.4261. “[I]t . . .
looked like people had just been dropped like puzzle pieces onto the sidewalk . . . .”
10.App.4385. See 1.Supp.App.11, 16-17 (Gov’t Exhs. 24, 32, 34) (photos after the
blast); Gov’t Exhs. 36, 41 (videos after the blast). Blood and “body parts” were
“littered on the sidewalk,” and there was an “overwhelming” smell of “burning tissue
and blood.” 10.App.4384-85, 4389. A doctor helping the injured noticed “a severed
foot . . . on the curb.” 10.App.4385. A police officer accidentally stepped on a
severed leg. 10.App.4261-62. People screamed. 10.App.4316; 16.App.7274, 7352;
Gov’t Exh. 1634C (post-blast video with sound added). A three-year-old with a head
injury yelled, “Mommy, daddy, mommy, daddy.” 16.App.7425, 7430. Police officers,
17
medical professionals, and other volunteers “jump[ed] in” to help the wounded by
applying tourniquets and trying to get them to ambulances. 10.App.4233, 4255-57,
4264, 4373-76; 16.App.7278, 7370-71.
***
After the first bomb exploded, Karen Rand found herself lying on the ground.
10.App.4100. She knew something was wrong with her leg, but she dragged herself
over to Krystle Campbell, burning her hands on hot pieces of metal in the process.
10.App.4100-01. Rand and Campbell put their faces together and held hands.
10.App.4101. A police officer began chest compressions on Campbell, who
“appeared to be in a lot of pain.” 10.App.4131. From her waist down, it was
“complete mutilation.” 10.App.4133. See 1.Supp.App.9 (Gov’t Exh. 17) (photo
showing Campbell and Rand lying together after the blast); 2.Supp.App.201 (Gov’t
Exh. 655) (autopsy photo). Campbell “very slowly” told Rand that her “legs hurt.”
10.App.4101. “And shortly after that her hand went limp in [Rand’s], and she never
spoke again after that.” 10.App.4101. Campbell bled to death on the sidewalk.
14.App.6535.
Jeffrey Bauman had just turned back to the race after noticing the abandoned
backpack when the first bomb exploded. 10.App.4141. He “saw a flash,” heard
“three pops,” and “was on the ground.” 10.App.4141. His “ears were ringing and
everything was muffled.” 10.App.4141-42. When he looked at his legs, “it was just
. . . pure carnage.” 10.App.4142. His right knee was gone, and he “didn’t have any
18
leg beyond” his left fibula, which was exposed. 10.App.4144-45. See 1.Supp.App.10
(Gov’t Exh. 20) (photo of Bauman after the blast). There was “a little stream of
blood shooting out from underneath” that leg, so Bauman “grabbed [his] left leg and
squeezed it and . . . didn’t let go until [he] was . . . into the ambulance.” 10.App.4144.
Lingzi Lu and Danling Zhou were in front of the Forum restaurant when the
second bomb exploded. 10.App.4350-52. Zhou found herself lying on a fence with
“smoke everywhere” and “blood . . . all over the ground.” 10.App.4354. A man in
front of her turned toward her and yelled, and she saw his legs were “not there
anymore.” 10.App.4355. Zhou herself had been cut across the stomach and had to
hold her insides in. 10.App.4262, 4356-58. She saw that Lu still had her arms and
legs, but was injured in her thigh. 10.App.4356.
A doctor who happened to be watching the marathon saw that Lu’s right leg
“had a very deep, long laceration.” 10.App.4385. “[B]asically her leg had been filleted
open down to the bone.” 10.App.4385. See 2.Supp.App.202-04 (Gov’t Exhs. 662,
667, 668) (autopsy photos). The doctor tried to tourniquet Lu’s leg, but “a lot of her
blood was now on the sidewalk” and “there really wasn’t much of a pulse left.”
10.App.4386. When Lu started agonal breathing, the doctor “realized she was dying,”
but asked one of the people at Lu’s head to start CPR “realizing that that was not
going to save her but . . . hoping I was wrong.” 10.App.4386-87.
As a firefighter pumped air into Lu’s mouth with a mask, a Boston Police
officer did chest compressions. 10.App.4221-22. The officer had noticed Lu’s name
19
on her school identification card, so she kept saying, “Lingzi, stay with us. You can
do this. You’re going to be okay. Stay strong.” 10.App.4222. The officer and others
put Lu on a backboard and placed her in the back of a nearby ambulance.
10.App.4223. But a paramedic told them to “take her off because she was gone and
he needed to keep the ambulance available for people who they could save.”
10.App.4223.
***
The second explosion blew Bill Richard into the street. 10.App.4279. He got
back up and, after getting his bearings, returned to his wife and children on the
sidewalk. 10.App.4279, 4281; 1.Supp.App.11 (Gov’t Exh. 24) (photo); Gov’t Exh. 23
at 06:52-7:10 (video). Denise was leaning over her little boy Martin, pleading with
him to stay alive. 10.App.4283; 16.App.7448. Bill found their other son Henry, who
helped him find six-year-old Jane. 10.App.4281. Jane tried to get up, but she fell
because her left leg had been blown off. 10.App.4284-85, 4371-73; Gov’t Exhs. 23 at
07:01-07:07 (video of Jane falling after trying to stand), 39, 40 (photos of Jane after
the blast). Bill picked Jane up and took her and Henry into the middle of Boylston
Street, where an off-duty firefighter ran up and used a belt to form a tourniquet
around Jane’s leg. 10.App.4284-85, 4371-73; Gov’t Exh. 41 (video from across the
street); Gov’t Exh. 23 at 07:43-08:07 (video from Forum restaurant). Bill briefly
returned to Denise and Martin, but when he saw Martin’s condition he “knew that he
wasn’t going to make it.” 10.App.4286.

20
Martin did not make it. The bomb had sent nails, pellets, and a piece of the
pressure cooker tearing through his body. 15.App.6622-26, 6637. See 1.Supp.App.20-
23 (Gov’t Exhs. 648, 649, 650, 651) (photos of debris from Martin’s body);
2.Supp.App.109-200 (Gov’t Exhs. 638, 639) (autopsy photos). His abdomen had a
two- by four-inch laceration; his spinal cord, liver, pancreas, large intestine, and
abdominal aorta were all cut; two of his ribs were broken; and his left forearm was
almost completely severed, with only “soft tissue approximately an inch wide . . .
connecting the two pieces of the forearm together.” 15.App.6619-21, 6623. See
2.Supp.App.200 (Gov’t Exh. 639) (autopsy photo). Martin moved his arms a few
times in the minute or so after the blast, 16.App.7448-50; Gov’t Exh. 1634d at 00:22-
01:15 (video highlighting Martin after the blast), but he bled to death on the sidewalk.
10.App.4389; 16.App.7403.
***
In addition to killing Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard, the
bombs caused devastating injuries to dozens of others. For example, the first bomb
blew newlyweds Jessica Kensky and Patrick Downes through the air “like [they were]
on a rocket.” 10.App.4313. Downes’s “foot and part of his leg w[ere] completely
detached, hanging on . . . by a thin thread.” 10.App.4313. As Kensky, a nurse, tried
to use her purse straps as a tourniquet, a bystander told her, “Ma’am, you’re on fire,”
and pushed her down to the ground to put out the flames, which extended from her
“shoulder blades all the way down [her] pants.” 10.App.4314, 4323. Kensky’s own
21
legs were severely damaged, and doctors amputated her left leg later that day.
10.App.4320. They initially tried to save her right leg, even though the bomb had
blown off her entire Achilles tendon and half of her heel bone, 10.App.4320, 4323,
but that leg had to be amputated in 2015, 10.App.4307-08. Kensky’s burns, which
covered much of her lower body, had to be dressed regularly, causing “[a]bsolutely
horrendous” pain. 10.App.4324. Downes lost his left leg below the knee, and the dirt
from the bomb caused a serious infection. 10.App.4322-23.
Nine people lost one or both of their legs as a result of the first bomb—Jeff
Bauman (both legs), Karen Rand, Jessica Kensky (both legs), Patrick Downes, Celeste
Corcoran (both legs), Mery Daniel, Erika Brannock, Rebekah Gregory, and Bill White.
10.App.4063-64, 4107-08, 4148, 4307-08, 4322; 16.App.7109, 7115, 7186, 7375, 7377.
Eight people lost a leg as a result of the second bomb—Jane Richard, Adrianne
Haslet-Davis, Marc Fucarile, J.P. Norden, Paul Norden, Heather Abbott, Stephen
Woolfenden, and Roseann Sdoia. 10.App.4235-36, 4292; 16.App.7282, 7353-7354,
7362, 7373, 7435. A number of people had their feet or legs blown off entirely on
Boylston Street, while others had to have their legs amputated because they were so
severely mangled. See 10.App.4144-45, 4308, 4325-26, 4371-73, 4387-88;
16.App.7372-73. See 1.Supp.App.12-13 (Gov’t Exhs. 25, 26) (photos of Roseann
Sdoia’s leg); 1.Supp.App.19 (Gov’t Exh. 40) (photo of Jane Richard’s leg), 23 at 14:40-
14:50 (video showing Fucarile’s leg). Marc Fucarile actually handed his severed leg to
22
a firefighter who arrived on the scene. 16.App.7355. In addition, about 90 percent of
Fucarile’s body from the waist down was burned. 16.App.7354.
The bombs caused serious injuries to many others. The first bomb blew a hole
through 17-year-old Sydney Corcoran’s foot and severed her femoral artery.
10.App.4078, 4081, 4090. She almost bled to death on the street. 10.App.4081.
Eighteen-year-old Gillian Reny’s right tibia was “completely snapped in half and was
sticking out of [her] leg[ ],” and the muscle on her left leg was “flapping over . . . [her]
shredded jeans,” but doctors managed to save both legs. 16.App.7129, 7132, 7134,
7141-7142. Nicole Gross’s right quadriceps muscles were blown open, the tibia and
fibula in her left leg were broken, and her right Achilles tendon was three-quarters
severed. 16.App.7181, 7185. Rebekah Gregory’s five-year-old son Noah “had a cut
to [the] bone on his right leg.” 10.App.4044, 4070.
A piece of metal from the second bomb lodged in Denise Richard’s eye,
blinding that eye. 10.App.4292, 4294. Eleven-year-old Aaron Hern, who had been
standing next to Jane Richard, had injuries on both legs that required 62 staples to
close up. 10.App.4184, 4186-87, 4190, 4199-4200; 1.Supp.App.14 (Gov’t Exh. 29)
(photo of Aaron next to Jane). Three-year-old Leo Woolfenden had a fractured skull,
a perforated eardrum, and a laceration on the side of his head. 16.App.7425, 7436.
See 1.Supp.App.15 (Gov’t Exh. 30) (photo of Leo after the blast). Ann Whalley’s
“heel was blown off,” and she had “significant chunks of shrapnel” in her thigh, both
wrists, and her mouth. 16.App.7251-52. Her husband Eric was blinded in his right
23
eye by a ball bearing that passed through the eye and into his brain. 16.App.7253.
Doctors managed to save Eric’s right leg by reconstructing the bones and
transplanting blood vessels from the left leg, but he could not walk for about 16
months. 16.App.7260-61, 7265.
All told, the bombs injured more than 240 people. 10.App.4464. The scene of
the bombing was close to several hospitals, and emergency personnel and private
citizens were able to quickly transport many of the wounded to triage centers.
10.App.4234, 4448-49, 4452-53. The ready availability of critical medical care likely
prevented the death toll from being much higher. See 10.App.4081; 16.App.7279.
Many of the bombing survivors had to undergo multiple surgeries as a result of
their injuries. See, e.g., 10.App.4069 (Rebekah Gregory—18 surgeries), 4323 (Patrick
Downes—about 15 surgeries), 4324 (Jessica Kensky—15 to 20 surgeries);
16.App.7109 (Celeste Corcoran—three surgeries), 7185 (Nicole Gross—ten or 11
surgeries), 7186 (Erika Brannock—more than 20 surgeries), 7255-56 (Eric Whalley—
20 to 25 surgeries), 7256 (Ann Whalley—15 to 20 surgeries), 7362 (Marc Fucarile—
more than 60 surgeries), 7373 (Heather Abbott—five surgeries).
The survivors have dealt with lasting effects from their injuries. For example,
many victims experienced ruptured eardrums that led to permanent hearing loss or
tinnitus (ringing in the ears). 10.App.4051 (Colton Kilgore), 4070 (Rebekah Gregory),
4152 (Jeffrey Bauman), 4198 (Aaron Hern), 4313, 4324-25 (Kensky and Downes),
4363 (Danling Zhou); 16.App.7110-11 (Celeste Corcoran), 7185 (Nicole Gross), 7266
24
(Eric Whalley), 7282 (Adam Davis), 7355 (Marc Fucarile), 7373 (Heather Abbott),
7436 (Leo Woolfenden), 7437 (Stephen Woolfenden). Some of the amputees
experienced phantom pain years afterward. Roseann Sdoia sometimes felt as though
she was being tased in her amputated right foot. 10.App.4237. Patrick Downes and
Jessica Kensky experienced phantom pain that kept them up at night and that felt like
“electric pulses and shocks that just come over you randomly.” 10.App.4321, 4327.
Two years after the bombing, many survivors still had metal or debris in their
bodies that could not be removed. Jessica Kensky had about 30 or 40 BBs “pretty
deep” in her legs. 10.App.4320. Rebekah Gregory had shrapnel in her body that
occasionally would work its way to the surface and have to be removed. 10.App.4070.
Marc Fucarile had plastic, dozens of BBs, and a small nail in his body, as well as a BB
stuck in his heart. 16.App.7359-61; 1.Supp.App.92-94 (Gov’t Exhs. 1608 to 1610) (x-
rays of Fucarile showing shrapnel). In addition to shrapnel in his legs, Eric Whalley
had a ball bearing lodged in his brain. 16.App.7253, 7267. See 1.Supp.App.89 (Gov’t
Exh. 1593) (demonstrative exhibit) (x-ray of Whalley’s brain).
4. After the bombing, Tsarnaev returned to college and acted

as if nothing happened.
After the bombs exploded, Tsarnaev and Tamerlan left Boylston Street along
parallel routes, then met up and drove to Cambridge. 10.App.4418; 11.App.4703-05.
At 3:12 p.m.—less than 25 minutes after the bombing—they stopped at a Whole
Foods in Cambridge. 10.App.4469-70; 11.App.4703-05. Tsarnaev entered the store
25
and purchased a half gallon of milk using cash. 10.App.4471-72; Gov’t Exh. 1456 at
00:08-01:05 (Whole Foods surveillance video). A minute after he left the store, he
returned and exchanged the jug of milk for a different one. Gov’t Exh. 1456 at 01:58-
3:40.
About six hours after the bombing, Tsarnaev tweeted, “Ain’t no love in the
heart of the city, stay safe, people.” 10.App.4493; 1.Supp.App.64 (Gov’t Exh. 1313)
(screenshot). That same evening, he tagged someone’s twitter account and wrote:
“and they what ‘god hates dead people?’ Or victims of tragedies? Lol [laugh out loud]
those people are cooked.” 10.App.4493; 1.Aupp.App.75 (Gov’t Exh. 1314)
(screenshot).
The day after the bombing, when someone posted a false news story about the
bombing on Twitter, Tsarnaev wrote, “fake story.” 10.App.4494-95; 1.Supp.App.99
(Def. Exh. 3000 at 1). That afternoon, he opened up Inspire magazine (the issue that
showed how to build bombs) on his computer. 1.Supp.App.39 (Gov’t Exh. 1142-013
at 5). See 13.App.5671-73, 5772. At about 9:00 p.m. that evening, he and a friend
went to the fitness center at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and worked
out for an hour. 10.App.4476, 4480-82. As he entered and left the fitness center, he
chatted with his friend. Gov’t Exhs. 1181 to 1183 (video of Tsarnaev entering and
leaving gym). At 10:43 p.m. that night, he tweeted, “I’m a stress free kind of guy.”
10.App.4496; 1.Supp.App.66 (Gov’t Exh. 1320) (screenshot).
26
5. After authorities released their pictures, Tsarnaev and his

brother killed Sean Collier, a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology policeman, in an attempt to steal his gun.
Immediately after the bombing, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies
began gathering video from security cameras near the blasts and along possible escape
routes, as well as photographs and videos from bystanders’ cameras and phones.
10.App.4158-63, 4401-03, 4405. After Jeff Bauman woke up from surgery on April
16, he wrote out a description of the suspicious man he had seen, including his build,
black hat, black jacket, hoodie, backpack, and aviator sunglasses. 10.App.4148-50.
From videos and photographs, the FBI eventually pinpointed two suspects (later
identified as Tsarnaev and Tamerlan) whom they referred to as “white hat” and
“black hat.” 10.App.4406.
At 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 18, the FBI held a press conference during
which they released surveillance-camera images of the bombing suspects and asked
the public to help identify them. 11.App.4753-57. See 1.Supp.App.84 (Gov’t Exh.
1510) (television screenshot from press conference). A few hours later, Tsarnaev’s
friend Dias Kadyrbayev texted him and asked, “u saw the news?” 13.App.5752;
1.Supp.App.51 (Gov’t Exh. 1153). Tsarnaev responded, “Yea bro I did . . . I saw the
news.” 1.Supp.App.51. He told Kadyrbayev, “Better not text me my friend . . . Lol.”
27
1.Supp.App.51. He added, “If yu want yu can go to my room and take what’s there :)
. . . .”7 1.Supp.App.51.
At about 10:20 p.m. that night, Officer Sean Collier of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Police Department was parked in his patrol car next to
MIT’s Koch Building. 11.App.4795, 4797-98. Collier, 27, had been an MIT police
officer for just over a year and was well-liked by his fellow officers. 11.App.4768;
16.App.7212, 7238-39. Tsarnaev and Tamerlan approached Collier’s car from the rear
and shot him with the Ruger P95 that Tsarnaev had acquired from Silva.
11.App.4827-29, 4840-42; Gov’t Exhs. 723 & 724 (surveillance videos); 14.App.6039-
43, 6047 (ballistic evidence). They shot him at very close range—twice in the side of
the head, once between the eyes, and three times in the hand. 11.App.4884-86, 4894-
99, 4903-08. See 2.Supp.App.205-07 (Gov’t Exhs. 727, 728, 729) (autopsy photos).
The brothers tried to take Collier’s pistol but were thwarted by his holster’s retention
system. 11.App.4771-73, 4808-10. While they were struggling with the holster, an
MIT student rode past on his bicycle and saw Tsarnaev stand up startled from where
he was leaning into the patrol car. 11.App.4837, 4840-44. After about forty seconds,
7
Kadyrbayev did go to Tsarnaev’s room, along with two friends. They found a
backpack containing fireworks from which some of the powder had been removed,
and they threw the backpack and its contents into a dumpster. 14.App.6301-11, 6314-
15. See United States v. Kadyrbayev, No. 1:13-CR-10238, Doc. 380-1 at 3-5 (D. Mass.
Aug. 21, 2014). They also took Tsarnaev’s computer back to their apartment.
13.App.5609-10, 5652, 5679-82. Investigators later located the backpack by digging
through the landfill where the dumpster’s contents had been taken. 14.App.6302-08.
See 1.Supp.App.59-60 (Gov’t Exhs. 1256-01 and 1256-04) (photos).
28
Tsarnaev and Tamerlan ran away from the patrol car, but then slowed to a walk and
returned to where their Honda Civic was parked. 11.App.4854-63; Gov’t Exh. 723
(surveillance video).
Someone in the Koch Building called 911 to report loud noises, and MIT’s
dispatch officer was unable to contact Collier on the radio. 11.App.4783-85; Gov’t
Exh. 679 (911 audio recording). Another officer arrived about five minutes after the
shooting and found Collier with blood all over his body. 11.App.4800-02. Collier still
had a slight pulse and made a gurgling sound, so officers began CPR. 11.App.4802,
4805, 4817. But Collier was dead. 11.App.4902.
6. Tsarnaev and his brother carjacked a sport utility vehicle

and kidnapped the owner at gunpoint.
A short time after Collier’s murder, a graduate student named Dun Meng
pulled to the curb along Brighton Avenue in Boston to respond to a text message.
11.App.4938-39. A sedan “pull[ed] over to the curb very quickly” behind him, and
Tamerlan got out of the passenger side and knocked on Meng’s passenger window.
11.App.4940-41, 4954. When Meng rolled down the window, Tamerlan reached in,
opened the door, and jumped inside. 11.App.4941. He pointed a gun at Meng’s head
and demanded cash. 11.App.4941. Meng gave Tamerlan his cash (about $40 or $45)
as well as his wallet and told Tamerlan his bank card PIN. 11.App.4941, 4948.
Tamerlan showed Meng that his pistol was loaded and said, “You know I’m
serious, so don’t be stupid.” 11.App.4943. He asked Meng, “Do you know the
29
Boston Marathon explosion?” 11.App.4943. Meng said he did. 11.App.4943.
Tamerlan said, “I did it, and I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.” 11.App.4943.
Tamerlan ordered Meng to drive and directed him where to go. 11.App.4944-45.
They engaged in small talk, during which Tamerlan said he was a Muslim and that
“Muslims hate Americans.” 11.App.4946.
Tamerlan ordered Meng to pull over on Dexter Street in Watertown, and
Tsarnaev pulled up behind them in the sedan. 11.App.4950, 4953-54. Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan loaded some things into Meng’s Mercedes SUV, and Tamerlan made Meng
switch to the passenger seat. 11.App.4950-54. Tsarnaev then got into the back seat,
and Tamerlan drove them to a Bank of America. 11.App.4954-55, 4959. There,
Tsarnaev got out of the car and, after asking Meng for his PIN, withdrew $800 from
the ATM with Meng’s bank card. 11.App.4954-55, 5004; 1.Supp.App.24 (Gov’t Exh.
768) (ATM records); Gov’t Exh. 756 (video of Tsarnaev using ATM). Tsarnaev tried
to withdraw another $800 but could not do so because of the daily withdrawal limit.
11.App.5005.
After Tsarnaev returned with the cash, Tamerlan continued driving toward
Waltham, Massachusetts. 11.App.4959. Tamerlan asked Meng how far his car could
go on a quarter of a tank of gas and (because it was leased) whether it could “go out
of state, like to New York.” 11.App.4937, 4959-60. Tamerlan also asked whether it
had a GPS in it, and Meng told him (falsely) that it did not. 11.App.4960-61.
30
When one of Meng’s roommates called to check on him, Tamerlan pointed the
gun at Meng and said, “You have to answer the phone, but if you say a[ ] single word
in Chinese, I will kill you right now.” 11.App.4968-69. At Tamerlan’s direction,
Meng told his roommate (in English) that he was “very sick” and was “going to stay at
[his] friend’s home.” 11.App.4970.
At one point, Tamerlan drove back to where Tsarnaev’s sedan was parked, and
Tsarnaev quickly retrieved a CD. 11.App.4963-64. He later played the CD in Meng’s
Mercedes, and the music sounded a “bit weird” and “religious” to Meng.
11.App.4964. The CD contained a number of nasheeds—a type of Islamic chant.
13.App.5678, 5715-16; Gov’t Exh. 1148 (audio files from CD).
At about 12:15 a.m., Tamerlan stopped at a Shell gas station on Memorial
Drive in Cambridge. 11.App.4921-22, 4971-72. Tsarnaev tried to purchase gas at the
pump with Meng’s credit card, but the station only accepted cash. 11.App.4972.
Tamerlan told Tsarnaev to put in $50 worth of gas, so Tsarnaev went into the
station’s store. 11.App.4972.
While Tsarnaev was in the store, Tamerlan was focused on his Garmin GPS
device, and the Ruger P95 was in the driver’s door pocket. 11.App.4972-74.
Tamerlan had earlier told Meng he would not kill him but might “drop you off at
someplace” where “you have to walk about five or six miles” to find anyone.
11.App.4974. Meng was unsure whether to trust Tamerlan on this point, and both
brothers claimed to have guns. 11.App.4956, 4975. Meng decided to make a break
31
for it while only Tamerlan was in the car and the doors were unlocked. 11.App.4973-
75. He unbuckled his seat-belt, opened the door, and jumped out. 11.App.4975. As
he did so, Tamerlan yelled “Fuck” and grabbed at him. 11.App.4975. Meng ran to
the Mobil gas station across the street and frantically asked the attendant to call 911.
11.App.4975-76, 4981; Gov’t Exh. 752 at 00:01-00:38 (surveillance video of Meng’s
escape and request). Meng then crawled into a back room, where he hid until the
police arrived. 11.App.4976-77; Gov’t Exh. 752 at 00:40-04:05:29 (video).
Meanwhile, Tsarnaev had been inside the Shell station casually selecting some
drinks and snacks. Gov’t Exh. 748 at 00:33-2:50 (video of Tsarnaev inside store).
After Meng’s escape, Tamerlan ran to the door of the Shell store and called to
Tsarnaev, who dumped his snacks on the counter and ran out. Gov’t Exh. 748 at
2:30-2:51. The two then drove off in Meng’s Mercedes. Gov’t Exh. 748 at 2:51-3:04.
7. Police tracked Tsarnaev and his brother to a residential

street in Watertown, where they engaged in a gun battle with
police and detonated several improvised bombs.
When police arrived at the Mobil station, Meng told them that the carjackers
were the Boston Marathon bombers and that his Mercedes had a built-in tracking
system called Mbrace. 11.App.4984-86, 5016. A Cambridge police dispatcher
contacted Mbrace and learned that Meng’s Mercedes was near 87 Dexter Avenue in
Watertown. 11.App.5023. The dispatcher radioed out this location. 11.App.5023-24.
Officer Joseph Reynolds of the Watertown Police Department was on Arsenal
Street about 100 yards from Dexter Avenue when the dispatch went out.
32
12.App.5036-37. He turned onto Dexter, where he passed a green Honda Civic and a
black Mercedes SUV driving slowly in the other direction. 12.App.5037-38. The
SUV’s license plate matched that of the carjacked vehicle, so he turned around and
began following the SUV, notifying dispatch as he did so. 12.App.5037-39. His
supervisor, Sergeant John MacLellan, radioed Reynolds not to stop the SUV until he
had backup. 12.App.5039, 5066-67.
Reynolds followed the Honda and Mercedes as they sped up and turned left
onto Laurel Street. 12.App.5040. Sergeant MacLellan was approaching Laurel from
the other direction, so he radioed that Reynolds could “light them up.” 12.App.5067.
But before Reynolds could turn on his lights, the two cars stopped in the middle of
Laurel Street and Tamerlan, who was driving the Mercedes, got out and started
shooting at Reynolds’s police cruiser. 12.App.5040. Reynolds ducked down, threw
his car in reverse, and backed up about 30 yards, notifying dispatch that there were
“[s]hots fired.” 12.App.5041, 5072. See Gov’t Exh. 1564 (demonstrative exhibit)
(audio of a later radio transmission). Then, using his driver’s door as cover, he began
shooting back at Tamerlan, who ducked behind the Mercedes’s door. 12.App.5041.
Sergeant MacLellan pulled his Ford Expedition alongside Officer Reynolds’s
cruiser, getting a bullet through his windshield as he did so. 12.App.5042, 5073. See
1.Supp.App.34 (Gov’t Exh. 948-174) (photo of bullet hole). MacLellan left his
Expedition in drive so it would continue rolling toward the Tsarnaevs. 12.App.5042,
5073-74. See 1.Supp.App.25 (Gov’t Exh. 775) (diagram of Laurel Street showing
33
position of police cars). As it rolled, both McLellan and Reynolds used it for cover,
“continuing to fire at the two suspects,” who were now in front of the Mercedes’s
hood. 12.App.5043, 5074. MacLellan and Reynolds ran into a side yard on Laurel
Street and ducked behind a tree. 12.App.5043-44, 5145. Reynolds could see two
men, but he could not distinguish who was shooting. 12.App.5044. See
1.Supp.App.85-87 (Gov’t Exhs. 1522 to 1524) (photos of Tsarnaev and Tamerlan
ducking behind Mercedes during gunfight). In addition to muzzle flashes, he saw a
cigarette lighter and something that looked like a wick burning. 12.App.5044. Then
one of the brothers threw a pipe bomb at the officers, which exploded in the middle
of Laurel Street. 12.App.5044, 5076. After this explosion, Reynolds ran back to get
more cover behind the houses. 12.App.5044.
The Tsarnaev brothers threw a few more pipe bombs, two of which exploded.
12.App.5045, 5090, 5150. Then Tsarnaev threw a “larger-type bomb” that looked
“almost like a big cooking pot.”8 12.App.5045-46, 5077-78, 5151, 5157. See
1.Supp.App.32-33 (Gov’t Exhs. 948-10, 948-11) (showing portion of pressure-cooker
bomb embedded in a car parked on Laurel Street). The noise of this bomb was
“incredible.” 12.App.5078. It “shook [Reynolds] to [his] knees” and made his ears
8
Two witnesses agreed that it was Tsarnaev who threw the pressure-cooker
bomb. 12.App.5077-78, 5151, 5157. Sergeant MacLellan could tell Tamerlan and
Tsarnaev apart by both their size and their throwing styles since Tsarnaev threw the
bombs with “a hook shot, over the head.” 12.App.5077. Tsarnaev also threw at least
one of the pipe bombs. 12.App.5078.
34
ring. 12.App.5046. MacLellan re-holstered his pistol because his “eyes were shaking
violently in [his] head” and he “couldn’t see straight.” 12.App.5078, 5104. Car alarms
went off all along the street, and there was a huge cloud of smoke. 12.App.5046,
5079. Debris rained down on Reynolds and MacLellan. 12.App.5046-47, 5079.
Reynolds ran around the house at the corner of Laurel and Dexter and returned to his
cruiser. 12.App.5047.
Officer Miguel Colon and Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese had arrived on the scene,
and Pugliese decided to run behind the houses along Laurel Street to flank the
Tsarnaevs. 12.App.5049-50, 5121-23. Pugliese got slightly behind and to the side of
the brothers and began shooting at Tamerlan. 12.App.5124-26; 1.Supp.App.85 (Gov’t
Exh. 1522) (photo of Tsarnaev brothers on Laurel Street). Tamerlan left the front of
the SUV and charged Pugliese, shooting as he ran. 12.App.5050-51, 5126-27.
Tamerlan got within six or eight feet of Pugliese but had a problem with his gun—
either “it jammed or he ran out of ammunition”—so he threw the gun at Pugliese,
hitting him in the left bicep.9 12.App.5128-29. Tamerlan turned and started running
toward Officers Reynolds and Colon, who were near Reynolds’s cruiser at the corner
of Dexter and Laurel. 12.App.5050-51, 5129. See 1.Supp.App.25 (Gov’t Exh. 775)
(diagram). Pugliese holstered his gun and chased Tamerlan. 12.App.5129.
9
This was the same Ruger P95 that Tsarnaev had acquired from Silva.
12.App.5267-69; 14.App.6029-30. The Tsarnaevs fired 56 shots from the Ruger on
Laurel Street that night. 14.App.6037.
35
Sergeant MacLellan had his (now-empty) pistol trained on Tamerlan and
ordered him to get on the ground. 12.App.5090. Tamerlan ignored that command,
and Sergeant Pugliese tackled him from behind. 12.App.5051, 5090, 5130. Reynolds,
Pugliese, and MacLellan tried to subdue Tamerlan and to handcuff him, but, although
he was bleeding from several wounds, they “just weren’t able to control him.”
12.App.5051-52, 5130.
While the officers wrestled with Tamerlan, Tsarnaev got back into the
Mercedes. 12.App.5152. Tsarnaev did a three-point turn and “floored” the SUV
right toward the officers, even though there was room on the street to avoid them.
12.App.5052, 5091, 5097-98, 5133, 5137-38, 5152, 5167. See 1.Supp.App.88 (Gov’t
Exh. 1525) (photo of Tsarnaev driving toward the officers). Reynolds yelled a
warning, drew his gun, and shot at Tsarnaev. 12.App.5052, 5131. Although
Reynolds’s shots hit the windshield, Tsarnaev did not stop. 12.App.5052. Sergeant
Pugliese grabbed Tamerlan by the back of the belt and “tr[ied] to drag him out of the
street to prevent him from getting struck.” 12.App.5134. He was only able to drag
Tamerlan about a foot before the Mercedes was “right in [Pugliese’s] face.”
12.App.5134. Pugliese rolled out of the way in the nick of time. 12.App.5134-36.
Tsarnaev ran the Mercedes over Tamerlan, who “kind of bounced up and underneath
the undercarriage a couple of times” and “got hung up in the rear wheels.”
12.App.5053, 5092, 5134-36. The Mercedes dragged Tamerlan for 25 or 30 feet
before striking Officer Reynolds’s cruiser and dislodging Tamerlan. 12.App.5092,

36
5134. Tsarnaev freed the Mercedes from Reynolds’ car and sped away. 12.App.5053-
55, 5092, 5136.
Sergeant Pugliese and Officer Reynolds managed to handcuff Tamerlan, who
was still resisting despite his injuries. 12.App.5055-56, 5136. Paramedics transported
Tamerlan to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where he died. 10.App.3969;
17.App.7892-96.
Paramedics also transported another responding officer, Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority Officer Richard Donohue, who had been hit in the groin by
a stray bullet. 12.App.5056-59, 5171-72. Donohue “bled out almost his entire blood
volume on the street” and was “essentially dead” when he arrived at the hospital—not
breathing and without a heartbeat. 12.App.5172. Doctors managed to restart his
heart and stop the bleeding from his injury, but not until Donohue had received 28
pints of blood. 12.App.5173-75. Donohue recovered only after months in the
hospital. 12.App.5175-76.
8. Tsarnaev hid for 18 hours in a shrink-wrapped boat, where

he wrote a jihadist justification of the attacks.
Tsarnaev abandoned the Mercedes on Spruce Street about two blocks from the
shootout. 12.App.5182. He then fled on foot for a short distance before smashing
his cell phones and hiding them (along with Dun Meng’s debit card) behind a shed on
Franklin Street. 12.App.5344-45, 5349-52; 13.App.5728-33. See 1.Supp.App.80
(Gov’t Exh. 1455) (map showing relative locations of Laurel, Spruce, and Franklin
37
Streets); 1.Supp.App.27 (Gov’t Exh. 810) (photo of smashed phones and debit card).
He then climbed into a shrink-wrapped boat near the shed. 12.App.5191, 5223-25.
See 1.Supp.App.26 (Gov’t Exh. 805) (photo of boat).
Police established a perimeter around the area where they found the Mercedes
and deployed “hasty teams” of officers and dogs. 12.App.5181-83. At about 2:30
a.m. on April 19, authorities stopped the dog searches and began to use tactical teams
to search house to house. 12.App.5183-84. While the manhunt was underway, the
Governor of Massachusetts requested that citizens in six communities shelter in place.
12.App.5187.
While hiding in the boat, Tsarnaev decided to write a manifesto justifying his
actions. In two wooden slats, he carved the words: “Stop killing our innocent people
and we will stop.” 12.App.5237-38, 5335; 1.Supp.App.78-79 (Gov’t Exhs. 1450 &
1451) (photos of slats). And with a pencil he found in the boat, 12.App.5233-34, he
wrote the following message on the boat’s fiberglass hull (portions obscured by bullet
holes are noted by brackets):
I’m jealous of my brother who ha [ ] ceived the reward of jannutul

Firdaus10 (inshallah) 11 before me. I do not mourn because his soul is
very much alive. God has a plan for each person. Mine was to hide in
this boat and shed some light on our actions. I ask Allah to make me a
shahied12 (iA 13) to allow me to return to him and be among all the
10
The highest level of paradise in the teaching of Islam. 13.App.5937.
11
“Insha’Allah” means “God willing.” 13.App.5937.
12
“Shahid” means “martyr.” 13.App.5939.
13
Likely an abbreviation for “Insha’Allah.” 13.App.5938.
38
righteous people in the highest levels of heaven. He who Allah guides

no one can misguide. A [ ] bar!14
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad
is his messenger. [ ] r actions came with [ ] a [ ] ssage and that is [ ] ha
Illalah. 15 The U.S. Government is killing our innocent civilians but most
of you already know that. As a M [ ] I can’t stand to see such evil go
unpunished, we Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all, well
at least that’s how Muhammad (pbuh16) wanted it to be [ ] ever, the
ummah17 is beginning to rise/awa [ ] has awoken the Mujahideen18,
know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see
heaven, now how can you compete with that. We are promised victory
and we will surely get it. Now I don’t like killing innocent people it is
forbidden in Islam but due to said [ ] it is allowed. All credit goes [ ].
11.App.4555-57; 1.Supp.App.28-30 (Gov’t Exhs. 826, 827, 828) (photos of message in
boat).
9. Authorities arrested Tsarnaev on April 19, four days after the

bombing.
On the morning of April 19, David Henneberry woke up at his residence on
Franklin Street and learned about the shelter-in-place order. 12.App.5222-23. He saw
through the window that his winterized boat had some loose shrink-wrap, but he
blamed it on the wind and stayed inside. 12.App.5220-24.
Authorities lifted the shelter-in-place order at about 6:00 p.m., though they had
not located Tsarnaev. 12.App.5187. Henneberry went outside to fix his boat.
Presumably “Allahu Akbar,” which means “God is great.” 13.App.5941.

14
Presumably “Our actions came with a message and that is la ilaha illa’lah
15
[there is no God but Allah].” See 13.App.5941-42.

16
An abbreviation for “peace be upon him.” 13.App.5948.
17
Muslim nation. 13.App.5888, 5945.
18
Jihad fighters. 13.App.5920.
39
12.App.5223-24. As he climbed up a ladder, he noticed blood in the boat and a
person lying inside with a hooded sweatshirt pulled over his head. 12.App.5224-25.
See 1.Supp.App.26 (Gov’t Exh. 805) (photo of boat the next day). Henneberry went
inside and called 911. 12.App.5225.
Police responded to Henneberry’s house and surrounded the area.
12.App.5188, 5190-91. After Tsarnaev failed to respond to “[n]umerous requests” to
surrender, police threw flash-bangs into the boat and, at one point, shot at the boat
multiple times. 12.App.5193, 5198. Police finally arrested Tsarnaev about an hour
and a half after Henneberry’s initial report. 12.App.5192.
An ambulance took Tsarnaev to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
17.App.7904-08. He answered the paramedics’ questions, but he became “mad” and
“[g]ot loud” because a dressing on his leg was tight. 17.App.7907-09. He arrived at
the hospital at about 9:00 p.m. and underwent surgery to treat his wounds, which
included a gunshot wound to the left side of his face and “multiple gunshot wounds
to the extremities,” including his left hand. 20.App.8991-92; Doc. 319 at 5.
10. A jury convicted Tsarnaev on 30 counts and recommended

the death penalty on six counts.
On June 27, 2013, a federal grand jury issued a 30-count indictment, charging
Tsarnaev with the following:
1. Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in the deaths of

Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a.
40
2. Use of a weapon of mass destruction (pressure cooker bomb #1) resulting in

the death of Krystle Campbell, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a.
3. Use of a firearm (pressure cooker bomb #1) during and in relation to a crime
of violence (Count 2) resulting in the murder of Krystle Campbell, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
4. Use of a weapon of mass destruction (pressure cooker bomb #2) resulting in

the deaths of Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332a.
of violence (Count 4) resulting in the murders of Lingzi Lu and Martin
Richard, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
6. Conspiracy to bomb a place of public use resulting in the deaths of Krystle

Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2332f.
7. Bombing of a place of public use (Marathon Sports) resulting in the death of

Krystle Campbell, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332f.
of violence (Count 7) resulting in the murder of Krystle Campbell, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
9. Bombing of a place of public use (Forum restaurant) resulting in the death of

Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332f.
10. Use of a firearm (pressure cooker bomb #2) during and in relation to a
crime of violence (Count 9) resulting in the murders of Lingzi Lu and
Martin Richard, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
11. Conspiracy to maliciously destroy property resulting in the deaths of

Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and (n).
12. Malicious destruction of property (Marathon Sports and other property)

resulting in the death of Krystle Campbell, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
41
crime of violence (Count 12) resulting in the death by murder of Krystle
Campbell, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
14. Malicious destruction of property (Forum restaurant and other property)

resulting in the deaths of Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 844(i).
crime of violence (Count 14) resulting in the murders of Lignzi Lu and
Martin Richard, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
16. Use of a firearm (Ruger 9mm handgun) during and in relation to a crime of
violence (Count 1) resulting in the murder of Sean Collier, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
violence (Count 6) resulting in the murder of Sean Collier, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
violence (Count 11) resulting in the murder of Sean Collier, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
19. Carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury to Richard Donohue, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2).
violence (Count 19), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
21. Interference with commerce by threats or violence (obtaining $800 using

Dun Meng’s ATM card and PIN), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
violence (Count 21), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
23. Use of a weapon of mass destruction (pressure cooker bomb #3), in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a.
24. Use of a firearm (Ruger and pressure cooker bomb #3) during and in
relation to a crime of violence (Count 23), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
42
25. Use of a weapon of mass destruction (pipe bomb #1), in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2332a.
26. Use of a firearm (Ruger and pipe bomb #1) during and in relation to a
crime of violence (Count 25), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

U.S.C. § 2332a.

U.S.C. § 2332a.
Add.1-65.
Consistent with the Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591-3599, the
indictment set forth a number of specific allegations that would support application of
the death penalty. Add.66-71. On January 30, 2014, the government gave Tsarnaev
notice of its intent to seek the death penalty on all 17 death-eligible counts (Counts 1-
10 and 12-18) and listed the aggravating factors that it intended to prove. 1.App.133-
39. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a).
Under the Federal Death Penalty Act, capital trials are divided into two
phases—a guilt phase and a penalty phase. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b). During the 17-
day guilt phase, the government called 92 witnesses and introduced more than 1,200
exhibits. Although Tsarnaev called four witnesses, he did not dispute that he
43
committed the acts charged in the indictment. 10.App.3977. Tsarnaev’s counsel said
in her opening statement, “It was him.” 10.App.3977. Counsel reiterated during her
closing argument that Tsarnaev “stands ready, by your verdict, to be held responsible
for his actions.” 15.App.6936. The jury convicted Tsarnaev on all 30 counts in the
indictment. Add.74a-74ag (verdict form).
The court then conducted a 12-day penalty phase at which the government
called 17 witnesses and Tsarnaev called 46 witnesses. After weighing the aggravating
and mitigating factors alleged by the government and the defense, the jury
recommended the death penalty on six of the death-eligible counts—Counts 4, 5, 9,
10, 14, and 15. Add.75-96. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e). The district court sentenced
Tsarnaev to death on those counts. Add.103. See 18 U.S.C. § 3594. The court
sentenced Tsarnaev to numerous concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment
on the remaining counts, including 20 life sentences. Add.104.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. The district court appropriately exercised its discretion by denying Tsarnaev’s
motions for change of venue. About 56% of the prospective jurors either had not
concluded that Tsarnaev was guilty or indicated they could set aside their opinions
about his guilt and reach a decision based solely on the evidence presented in court;
64% of prospective jurors indicated an ability to keep an open mind about the death
penalty. And all of the jurors who actually sat on the jury confirmed that they could
be impartial. The jury declined to impose death on 11 of the 17 death-eligible counts,

44
indicating that the jurors carefully considered the evidence. This Court has previously
rejected Tsarnaev’s claims that the jury pool—drawn from a district that extended far
beyond Boston, with a population of nearly five million people—was so tainted by
“factual news media accounts” of the bombing as to preclude a fair trial. In re
Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14, 22 (1st Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The fact that Tsarnaev
subsequently received a fair trial confirms the correctness of that ruling.
2. The district court correctly denied Tsarnaev’s motions to strike two jurors
based on alleged dishonesty during voir dire, and it did not abuse its discretion by
declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. Juror 286 failed to disclose in her
questionnaire that she had tweeted or retweeted about the marathon bombing on a
number of occasions. But the juror questionnaire asked only whether she had
“commented on this case,” Add.553 (emphasis added), which Juror 286 could have
understood to refer to Tsarnaev’s criminal trial, not the marathon bombing in general.
And although Juror 286’s negative response to a question about whether she or her
family had “‘shelter[ed] in place’” during the manhunt for Tsarnaev was inaccurate,
Add.554 (emphasis omitted), Juror 286 corrected that misstatement during voir dire.
In any event, the fact that Juror 286 and her family had sheltered in place did not
reveal disqualifying prejudice.
Nor did Juror 138 make any dishonest statements that would have justified a
for-cause dismissal. Juror 138 had posted on Facebook about the fact that he had
been called for jury service in this case. His later negative response to a question
45
about whether he had talked to anyone about “the subject matter of the case,”
3.App.1146, was not dishonest. And even if Juror 138 had fully disclosed his
Facebook posts, they would not have justified a dismissal for cause. The posts
indicated no bias, and they did not violate the district court’s instructions, which
allowed prospective jurors to “tell others that [they] may be a juror in this case.”
1.App.182.
3. The district court appropriately exercised its discretion when it dismissed for
cause Prospective Juror 355 (a criminal defense attorney) based on his opposition to
the death penalty, which would have substantially impaired him in the performance of
his duties as a juror. Although Juror 355 “thought” he could impose the death
penalty, he reached this conclusion only “[a]fter a lot of . . . soul-searching.”
6.App.2448. When asked whether he could impose the death penalty if he found
Tsarnaev guilty and concluded the penalty was appropriate, he repeatedly fought the
hypothetical and said he would not assume Tsarnaev’s guilt. And when asked to
name circumstances in which he thought the death penalty might be appropriate, he
could give no example beyond genocide. His tentative and evasive answers justified
the for-cause strike.
4. The district court appropriately exercised its discretion when imposing limits
on voir dire. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s contention, Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992),
did not entitle him to ask prospective jurors whether they believed the death penalty
was appropriate in light of specific aggravating circumstances. The district court did
46
not commit legal error by concluding that Tsarnaev’s proposed questions were
impermissible “stakeout” questions that effectively asked the jury to prejudge the
appropriateness of the death penalty in this case without consideration of the district
court’s instructions or mitigating factors. In any event, the prospective jurors were
already aware of key facts about this case from the juror questionnaire and the court’s
preliminary instructions, and they could have considered those facts when answering
questions about their views on the death penalty
The district court also acted within its discretion when it disallowed inquiry into
the specific media coverage that prospective jurors had seen, heard, and read.
Although this Court has said in dicta that district courts should question jurors
individually about the “kind and degree” of their media exposure, Patriarca v. United
States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968), it has not suggested that detailed questioning
about the contents of the media coverage is required. And in Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500
U.S. 415 (1991), the Supreme Court subsequently rejected the argument that a trial
court must inquire into the contents of news reports that potential jurors have read.
Here, the questionnaire asked jurors what news sources they consumed, the amount
of media coverage they had seen, and whether, based on this coverage, they had
concluded that Tsarnaev was guilty or should receive the death penalty. This was
sufficient under the circumstances.
5. The district court appropriately exercised its discretion by excluding from the
penalty phase evidence indicating that Tsarnaev’s brother, Tamerlan, may have been
47
involved in killing three people in Waltham, Massachusetts in 2011. The court also
properly denied the defense access to an interview report related to the killings.
The district court correctly concluded that evidence of the Waltham murders,
which arose out of a drug-related robbery and were completely unrelated to the
marathon bombing, was not relevant mitigating evidence. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s
claim, the Waltham evidence did not show that Tamerlan “influenced” or
“intimidated” him into committing the crimes in this case or that Tsarnaev played a
lesser role in the bombing. Rather, the evidence showed that Tsarnaev was
independent, did not follow his brother’s strict religious lifestyle, and was a willing and
eager participant in the marathon bombing. And even if the Waltham evidence had
some minimal relevance, the district court correctly concluded that its probative value
was outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
The district court also appropriately denied Tsarnaev access to reports and
recordings of interviews with Tamerlan’s friend, Ibragim Todashev, who implicated
Tamerlan in the Waltham murders. The reports and recordings were not helpful or
material mitigating information because, as explained above, evidence about
Tamerlan’s alleged commission of unrelated murders did not mitigate Tsarnaev’s role
in this offense. And because Tsarnaev was already aware that Todashev had
implicated Tamerlan, he cannot show that the details contained in the withheld
reports were themselves favorable and material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963). Regardless, even if the statements were discoverable on some other theory,
48
they were protected by the qualified law enforcement privilege because disclosure of
the details of Todashev’s statements would have jeopardized the ongoing
investigation into the Waltham murders by the Middlesex County District Attorney’s
Office.
6.
7. The district court properly admitted testimony from surviving victims.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s contention, their testimony was not improper victim-impact
evidence because it was admitted to prove other aggravating factors, including that
Tsarnaev created a grave risk of death to people other than the deceased victims, that
49
he committed an act of terrorism, and that he participated in additional uncharged
crimes of violence. The victims’ testimony about their immediate reaction to the
bombing was also admissible to provide context to their testimony. And even if the
survivors’ testimony had been offered to prove the victim-impact aggravator (which it
was not), Tsarnaev’s claim would still fail. The Federal Death Penalty Act expressly
allows the government to present a wide variety of information about the effect of a
defendant’s crimes on his “victim[s],” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a), and does not limit the term
“victim” to deceased victims. Both that term’s ordinary meaning and its use
elsewhere in § 3593 include all victims injured by a capital offense, not just those who
were killed.
In any event, any potential error did not prejudice Tsarnaev. The district court
instructed the jury to consider only the aggravating factors that the government had
alleged and to avoid being swayed by passion or prejudice. The jury heard ample
evidence about the effect of Tsarnaev’s crimes on the victims he killed and their
families, as well as undisputed evidence that established other aggravating factors,
including witnesses’ descriptions of losing their legs and video and photographic
evidence of the bombings’ aftermath. In light of that evidence, Tsarnaev cannot
show that excluding the challenged victim evidence would have changed the trial’s
result.
8. Tsarnaev is not entitled to a remand for a hearing on his claim that a video
of him shopping at Whole Foods was derived from his allegedly involuntary
50
statements in the hospital after his arrest. Tsarnaev waived his challenge to the video
by failing to move to suppress it before trial, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 12(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tsarnaev’s
request that the government provide documentary proof of the tip that led to the
video, and in any event, investigative records show that Tamerlan’s wife Katherine
Russell provided the information that led the government to search for Whole Foods
surveillance video. Finally, any error in admitting the Whole Foods video was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other evidence overwhelmingly showed
that Tsarnaev lacked remorse after the bombings, and Tsarnaev’s counsel even
conceded that Tsarnaev was not remorseful at any time before his arrest.
9. The district court did not admit, and the government did not use, improper
or inflammatory evidence or presentations.
a. The district court properly exercised its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 in
admitting testimony from terrorism expert Dr. Matthew Levitt that briefly mentioned
the Islamic State terrorist organization (ISIS). The district court reasonably found
that the testimony helped the jury understand how the global jihad movement
radicalizes home-grown extremists and inspires then to conduct independent terrorist
attacks. The danger of unfair prejudice was slight because the testimony was
objective, academic in tone, and brief. And even if the evidence was improperly
admitted, it was harmless.
51
b. The government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by using during
the guilt-phase closing argument a PowerPoint presentation that played a 19-second
audio clip of a nasheed (a type of Islamic song) over photos of Tsarnaev and the
bombing’s aftermath. The nasheed and the photos were already in evidence. The
presentation was not designed to appeal to anti-Islamic prejudices, but was tied
specifically to the trial evidence regarding Tsarnaev’s inspiration for the bombing. In
any event, the district court instructed the jury not to be swayed by passion or
prejudice or to consider Tsarnaev’s religious beliefs, and the jurors specifically
certified on the verdict form that they had not considered Tsarnaev’s religious beliefs
in reaching a verdict. Any error was therefore harmless.
c. The government did not plainly commit misconduct by displaying during its
penalty-phase opening statement posters of the four homicide victims alongside a still
shot of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger at a security camera. The government
notified Tsarnaev before the penalty phase that it planned to use the photos during its
opening, and the district court reasonably ruled in advance that the photos were
admissible to show Tsarnaev’s lack of remorse. Tsarnaev cannot show, on plain-error
review, that the government committed misconduct by using photographs during its
argument that the court had already ruled were admissible for that purpose.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s claim, the government did not say Tsarnaev’s middle
finger was a message “to his victims.” Rather, the government argued that Tsarnaev’s
gesture was intended to send the same “message” that he had written in a boat before
52
his arrest, when he wrote that the bombings were a “message” to the United States
Government. 16.App.7090. The government properly argued that the photo
suggested that Tsarnaev lacked remorse. And even if Tsarnaev could show
misconduct, he could not show that a single photo of a rude gesture affected the
trial’s outcome. The gesture was far less dramatic than the other evidence in this case,
which included photographs and video of Tsarnaev placing and detonating a bomb
behind a row of children. Tsarnaev had the opportunity to contextualize the still shot
by showing the entire security video and eliciting evidence that he later apologized.
The district court instructed the jury that the parties’ opening statements were not
evidence. And the other evidence overwhelmingly established Tsarnaev’s callous
attitude toward his victims and lack of remorse for his crimes.
10. The district court correctly instructed the jury that, to impose a death
sentence, it must find that the aggravating factors “sufficiently outweigh” the
mitigating factors “to justify imposing a sentence of death.” Contrary to Tsarnaev’s
claim, the jury’s selection of an appropriate penalty is not a factual determination that
must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court specifically rejected that
argument in United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2007) (Sampson I).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), does not call
Sampson I into question.
11. The district court did not plainly err by declining to instruct the jury that, if
the jury could not unanimously agree on whether to recommend the death penalty,
53
the court would automatically sentence Tsarnaev to life without release and no new
penalty phase would occur. Although Tsarnaev asked the district court to issue an
instruction on the consequences of deadlock, he failed to do so on the grounds he
now raises, and thus review is limited to plain error. Tsarnaev cannot show there was
any error, much less reversible plain error. The Supreme Court has specifically held
that capital defendants are not entitled to such an instruction. Jones v. United States, 527
U.S. 373 (1999). And Tsarnaev cannot show that instructions correctly explaining the
consequences of deadlock at earlier stages affirmatively misled the jury into believing
that deadlock on the death sentence would lead to a new penalty phase, or that
(contrary to their instructions) any jurors felt pressure to agree to a death verdict
against their will.
12. The cumulative error doctrine does not support reversal of Tsarnaev’s
death sentences based on the errors alleged in issues V through XI. Because the
district court committed no error, much less multiple errors, the cumulative-error
doctrine does not apply. And even if the court had committed harmless errors, the
cumulative effect of those errors would not call into doubt the verdict’s reliability and
the trial’s fairness.
13. The district court did not violate Tsarnaev’s rights to due process or to
effective assistance of counsel by conducting certain proceedings ex parte and in camera.
Aside from an ex parte motion relating to restitution that the district court never ruled
on, all of the 12 docket entries that remain ex parte on appeal relate to classified or
54
otherwise sensitive material that the government submitted to the district court for in
camera review of whether the material was discoverable. The Supreme Court and this
Court have specifically endorsed such in camera review, which benefitted Tsarnaev by
enabling the district court to independently assess whether the materials were
discoverable. The court determined that the materials were not discoverable, and thus
Tsarnaev had no right to obtain them. Although Tsarnaev has not asked this Court to
do so, the Court can review the in camera materials and confirm that the district court’s
rulings were correct.
14. This Court should reject Tsarnaev’s argument that African-Americans were
underrepresented in the qualified jury wheels from which his grand and petit juries
were drawn, in violation of the fair cross-section requirements of the Jury Selection
and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861, and the Sixth Amendment. Tsarnaev concedes
that he cannot establish a prima facie claim of underrepresentation under the absolute
disparity framework required by this Court’s precedent. He argues that this Court’s
precedent “should be overruled,” Br. 451, but he has neither requested an initial en
banc hearing nor suggested that the relevant precedent has been abrogated. And even
if the en banc Court were to adopt a comparative disparity analysis, the comparative
disparities in this case are well below those that other circuits have found to be
constitutionally permissible. In any event, Tsarnaev could not prevail on his fair
cross-section claim because, in light of the racially neutral methods for constituting
55
the jury wheel, he cannot show that any underrepresentation of African-Americans
resulted from systematic exclusion.
15. The district court did not plainly err in imposing a death sentence on
Tsarnaev for murders he committed when he was 19 years old. In Roper v. Simmons,
543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court drew the line for death eligibility at age 18.
Tsarnaev asks this Court to extend that line to age 21 based on developments in brain
science and claims of a growing national consensus. Tsarnaev’s arguments are
incorrect, but more importantly, this Court lacks the authority to overrule the
Supreme Court or to say, particularly on plain-error review, that Roper should have
adopted a different age limitation.
ARGUMENT
I. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Tsarnaev’s
Motions for Change of Venue.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 45-101) that his trial in the Eastern Division of the
District of Massachusetts violated his right to an impartial jury because “[t]he
community’s exposure to the bombings and ensuing pre-trial publicity . . . warranted a
presumption of prejudice.” Id. at 84. He also argues in the alternative that “the
jurors’ questionnaire and voir dire responses establish actual prejudice.” Id. at 93.
Neither argument is correct. Prejudice should not be presumed in a venue with a
population of almost five million and where more than half of the prospective jurors
had either not prejudged guilt or had stated under oath that they could set aside their
56
view that Tsarnaev was guilty. And nothing in the record suggests that the seated
jurors were actually biased.
A. Background
In June 2014, five months before jury selection was scheduled to begin,
Tsarnaev filed his first motion for change of venue, arguing that “prejudice must be
presumed in the District of Massachusetts” based on pretrial publicity. 23.App.10706.
He cited polling data collected by a defense expert indicating that potential jurors in
the Eastern Division of the District of Massachusetts were more likely to believe that
Tsarnaev was guilty and deserved the death penalty than potential jurors in the
district’s Western Division, the Southern District of New York, and the District of
Columbia. 23.App.10711. Tsarnaev “preliminarily recommend[ed] the District of
Columbia as the venue with the least prejudicial attitudes.” 23.App.10714. In
response, the government argued that Tsarnaev failed to show that “12 fair and
impartial jurors cannot be found” among the Eastern Division’s “large, widespread,
and diverse . . . population.” 23.App.10722. The government also pointed out a
number of problems with the defense expert’s analysis, including the facts that the
expert’s polling data had not been persuasive in other cases and that he
overrepresented the extent of the media coverage of the bombing. 23.App.10726-29;
24.App.11260-84.
The district court denied Tsarnaev’s motion. Add.407-13. The court observed
that the District of Massachusetts’ Eastern Division contained about five million
57
people, including many from cities and communities outside of Boston. Add.409.
“[I]t stretches the imagination to suggest that an impartial jury cannot be successfully
selected from this large pool of potential jurors.” Add.409-10. The court recognized
that “[m]edia coverage of this case . . . has been extensive.” Add.410. But neither the
defense expert’s polling nor his newspaper analysis “persuasively show[ed] that the
media coverage has contained blatantly prejudicial information that prospective jurors
could not reasonably be expected to cabin or ignore.” Add.410. The court “agree[d]
with the government that many of the search terms” in the defense expert’s
newspaper analysis were “overinclusive” and yielded “news articles that are . . .
unrelated to the Marathon bombings.” Add.410. As to the expert’s polling, the court
noted that “the response rate was very low (3%)” and was “not representative of the
demographic distribution of people in the Eastern Division.” Add.410. Moreover,
some of the results were “at odds with [Tsarnaev’s] position” because they showed
that respondents in other jurisdictions were nearly as likely to believe Tsarnaev was
guilty as respondents in the District of Massachusetts’ Eastern Division. Add.410-11.
Although “media coverage ha[d] continued” in the eighteen months since the
bombing, “the ‘decibel level of media attention [had] diminished somewhat.’”
Add.411 (quoting Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 361 (2010)). In short, the
court concluded that Tsarnaev had “not proven that this is one of the rare and
extreme cases for which a presumption of prejudice is warranted.” Add.412.
58
In December 2014, Tsarnaev filed a second motion for change of venue,
24.App.11316-33, arguing that continued pretrial publicity and alleged leaks of
information by law enforcement “require[d] fresh evaluation of all the circumstances
and criteria that inform a venue determination.” 24.App.11316. The district court
denied the motion, concluding that the motion was an inappropriate attempt to
“bolster former, unsuccessful arguments with additional information.” Add.439. In
the alternative, the court determined that the second motion failed on the merits
because it contained nothing “that would persuade [the court] that the denial of the
first motion . . . was wrong.” Add.439, 441.
While his second motion was pending, Tsarnaev sought mandamus relief in
this Court. In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (explaining
sequence). A divided panel of this Court denied his petition, concluding that
Tsarnaev had “not made the extraordinary showing required to justify mandamus
relief.” In re Tsarnaev, 775 F.3d 457, 457 (1st Cir. 2015) (memorandum decision); see id.
at 457-59 (Torruella, J., dissenting).
Jury selection began on January 5, 2015, with the district court summoning
1,373 prospective jurors to the federal courthouse to complete written juror
questionnaires. See 1.App.172-259 (transcripts); Special Appendix vols. 1-68
(completed questionnaires). The questionnaire contained 100 questions that asked
about the prospective jurors’ backgrounds, social media habits, exposure to pretrial
publicity in this case, and views on the death penalty. See, e.g., 26.App.11684-711. The
59
parties agreed to excuse many of these prospective jurors, but the court called back
256 of them for further voir dire. The court and the parties questioned those
prospective jurors individually over the course of 21 days. See 1.App.260-9.App.3910.
While voir dire was ongoing, Tsarnaev filed a third motion for change of
venue. 25.App.11450-70. He argued that the jury questionnaires, which he quoted
extensively, confirmed the existence of prejudice that could not be adequately weeded
out through voir dire. 25.App.11455-69. The district court denied this motion.
Add.463-68. “[C]ontrary to [Tsarnaev’s] assertions,” the court concluded, “the voir
dire process is successfully identifying potential jurors who are capable of serving as
fair and impartial jurors in this case.” Add.463-64. Although the jury questionnaires
remained an “important source of information,” they had limitations when compared
to in-person voir dire. Add.464-66. For example, some jurors who indicated that
they could set aside pre-conceived opinions regarding Tsarnaev’s guilt “backed off
from that position when questioned during voir dire,” while others “confirmed their
answer[s]” and indicated that “they understand and are committed to the principles of
the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Add.465-66.
The court recognized “legitimate concerns” about jurors’ “fixed opinions,”
“emotional connections to events,” and vulnerability to “improper influence from
media coverage,” but noted that “[t]he Court and the parties are diligently addressing
them through the voir dire process.” Add.468.
60
While his third venue motion was pending, Tsarnaev filed a second petition for
a writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 14. This Court denied the
petition in a published opinion, over Judge Torruella’s dissent. Id. at 15, 20. See id. at
29-50 (Torruella, J., dissenting). The Court concluded that Tsarnaev could not show a
clear and indisputable right to a change of venue. Id. at 20-28. Although Tsarnaev
argued that the Court “must presume prejudice for any jury drawn from the Eastern
Division of Massachusetts,” this Court found that Tsarnaev’s “own statistics reveal
that hundreds of members of the venire have not formed an opinion that he is guilty,”
and “[t]he voir dire responses have confirmed this.” Id. at 21.
The Court noted that “Boston . . . is a large, diverse metropolitan area” and
that “Boston-area residents obtain their news from a vast array of sources.” Tsarnaev,
780 F.3d at 21. Although “extensive,” the pretrial publicity consisted primarily “of
factual news media accounts” of the bombings, and the Court determined that those
accounts lacked the “grossly prejudicial character” that could warrant a change of
venue. Id. at 21-22 (citing Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)). Moreover, “[t]he
nearly two years that have passed since the Marathon bombings ha[ve] allowed the
decibel level of publicity about the crimes themselves to drop and community
passions to diminish.” Id. at 22. The Court noted that, although there was “ongoing
media coverage” regarding the upcoming trial, “that would be true wherever trial is
held, and the reporting has largely been factual.” Id.
61
The Court also concluded that the then-ongoing jury selection process did not
indicate pervasive prejudice. Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 24-28. The district court’s process
was “thorough and appropriately calibrated to expose bias, ignorance, and
prevarication.” Id. at 24-25. The Court agreed with the district court that Tsarnaev’s
“selective quotations” from the jury questionnaires were “misleading” because they
were not “fairly representative of . . . the questionnaires generally.” Id. at 28
(quotations omitted). The Court found no “basis for concluding, on mandamus, that
pervasive prejudice taints the entire jury pool.” Id.
After excusing or interviewing about half of the 1,373-person venire, the
district court had provisionally qualified 75 prospective jurors, which was enough for
the parties to exercise their peremptory challenges. 19 See 9.App.3768, 3894 (last
provisionally qualified juror was number 697). Two days before the trial’s guilt phase
began, Tsarnaev filed a fourth motion for change of venue. 25.App.11558-60. The
district court denied this motion orally on the first morning of trial. 10.App.3927.
The parties each had 20 peremptory challenges, plus an additional three
peremptory challenges for the selection of alternate jurors. Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(b)(1),
(c)(4)(C). See 25.App.11411-13 (denying defense request for additional peremptory
Five of these were excused for hardship before the parties exercised their
19
peremptory challenges. See 21.App.9561-62 (excusing prospective juror 60); 9624-26

(excusing prospective jurors 32, 54, 74, and 145).
62
challenges). The parties exercised these challenges to select 12 jurors and six
alternates. 25.App.11572. See Doc. 1122.
B. Standard of review
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for change of venue based on alleged
jury partiality for abuse of discretion. United States v. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d 380, 385
(1st Cir. 2015). That standard applies both to a claim that prejudice should be
presumed and a claim that the jury was actually prejudiced. Id.; United States v. Quiles-
Olivo, 684 F.3d 177, 182 (1st Cir. 2012); United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d
1148, 1158 (1st Cir. 1991). “In reviewing claims of this type, the deference due to
district courts is at its pinnacle . . . .” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 396 (2010).
“A trial court’s findings of juror impartiality may be overturned only for manifest
error.” Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 428 (1991) (quotations omitted).
C. Tsarnaev was tried by an impartial jury.
The Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants the right to a trial “by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
U.S. Const. amend. VI. See also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 (“The Trial of all Crimes
. . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . . .”).
The presumption that venue lies in the crime’s location “do[es] not impede transfer of
the proceeding to a different district at the defendant’s request if extraordinary local
prejudice will prevent a fair trial.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 378.
63
To obtain reversal of a conviction based on pretrial prejudice, a defendant must
show either presumed or actual prejudice. “[A] presumption of prejudice is reserved
for those extreme cases where publicity is both extensive and sensational in nature”
and has “inflamed passions in the host community past the breaking point.” Quiles-
Olivo, 684 F.3d at 182 (quotations omitted). See Skilling, 561 U.S. at 381 (“A
presumption of prejudice . . . attends only the extreme case.”). Where prejudice
cannot be presumed, a reviewing court examines “whether actual prejudice infected
[the defendant’s] jury.” Id. at 385. “Actual prejudice hinges on whether the jurors
seated at trial demonstrated actual partiality that they were incapable of setting aside.”
Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d at 183 (quotations omitted).
1. Tsarnaev cannot establish a presumption of prejudice.
The Supreme Court has presumed juror prejudice based on pretrial publicity in
only one case, Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963). Police filmed Wilbert Rideau’s
uncounseled jailhouse confession to kidnapping and murder. Id. at 724. On three
occasions in the two months before trial, a local television station broadcast the
confession to audiences ranging from 24,000 to 53,000 people. Id. at 724 (majority
opinion), 728-29 (Clark, J., dissenting). Rideau argued that he could not receive a fair
trial in the parish, which had a population around 150,000, but the trial court denied
his motion for change of venue. Id. at 724-25. The Supreme Court reversed Rideau’s
conviction, explaining that the community had seen him on television “in jail, flanked
by the sheriff and two state troopers, admitting in detail the commission of the
64
robbery, kidnapping, and murder.” Id. at 725. “[T]o the tens of thousands of people
who saw and heard it,” this televised interview “in a very real sense was Rideau’s
trial—at which he pleaded guilty.” Id. at 726. Thus, the Court “d[id] not hesitate to
hold, without pausing to examine a particularized transcript of the voir dire,” that
these “kangaroo court proceedings” violated due process. Id. at 726-27.
In the half-century since Rideau, the Supreme Court has presumed jury
prejudice in only two other cases, each of which involved media interference with the
courtroom proceedings themselves, not mere pretrial publicity. See Estes v. Texas, 381
U.S. 532 (1965); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). 20 But although the Court
has presumed prejudice where the “trial atmosphere . . . had been utterly corrupted by
press coverage,” the Court’s decisions “cannot be made to stand for the proposition
that juror exposure to . . . news accounts of the crime . . . alone presumptively
deprives the defendant of due process.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798-99
(1975). Jurors need not be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.” Irvin v.
20
In Estes, a dozen cameramen filled the courtroom during preliminary
hearings, and the news media “bombard[ed] the community with the sights and
sounds” of the hearing, causing “considerable disruption” and depriving the
defendant of the “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled.” Estes, 381
U.S. at 536, 538. In Sheppard, “bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial and
newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom,” thrusting the jurors “into the
role of celebrities” and “expos[ing] them to expressions of opinion from both cranks
and friends.” Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 353, 355. The Court has noted that reliance on
Estes and Sheppard is “misplaced” where the defendant does not claim that “news
coverage reached and influenced his jury after it was empaneled.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at
382 n.14. Tsarnaev has not made that claim here. See 21.App.9848-66 (court
questioned jurors before deliberations to ensure no post-empaneling media exposure).
65
Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961). “[E]very case of public interest is almost, as a matter
of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and
scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or
heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its
merits.” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1879). “It is sufficient if the
juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the
evidence presented in court.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723.
The Supreme Court did not presume prejudice in Skilling, where former Enron
executive Jeffrey Skilling was tried in Houston, Texas (where Enron was
headquartered), even though there had been substantial media coverage of Enron’s
collapse and its effect on the city. Skilling, 561 U.S. at 375-76 & n.8. The Court
concluded that “[i]mportant differences separate[d] Skilling’s prosecution from those
in which [the Court had] presumed juror prejudice.” Id. at 381-82. First, unlike
Rideau, where the murder “was committed in a parish of only 150,000 residents,”
Houston was home to more than 4.5 million people eligible for jury service. Id. at
382. Second, “although news stories about Skilling were not kind, they contained no
confession or other blatantly prejudicial information of the type readers or viewers
could not reasonably be expected to shut from sight.” Id. Third, “over four years
elapsed between Enron’s bankruptcy and Skilling’s trial,” and “the decibel level of
media attention diminished somewhat in the years following Enron’s collapse.” Id. at
66
383. “Finally, and of prime significance, Skilling’s jury acquitted him of nine insider-
trading counts,” which undermined any “supposition of juror bias.” Id.
a. The extent of the venire’s exposure to media coverage

does not support a presumption of prejudice.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to presume prejudice
here. Although the publicity was “extensive,” it primarily “consist[ed] of factual news
media accounts” and did not deprive Tsarnaev of his right “to be adjudged by a fair
and impartial jury.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 21-22.
Tsarnaev argues that this case is similar to Rideau because “[v]irtually every
prospective juror had read publicity about Tsarnaev” and “69% thought he was
guilty.” Br. 90. These numbers do not, however, give the whole picture. Tsarnaev is
correct that 69% of the responding jurors (67% of the total venire) said they had
“formed an opinion . . . that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty.” 1.Supp.App.174. But
38% of those jurors (i.e., 26% of the venire) indicated that they would “be able . . . to
set aside [that] opinion and base [a] decision about guilt . . . solely on the evidence”
that would be “presented to them in court.” 1.Supp.App.175. The prospective
jurors’ opinions were reflected in their responses to Question 77 of the questionnaire,
which asked:
As a result of what you have seen or read in the news media, or what
you have learned or already know about the case from any source, have
you formed an opinion:
(a) that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty?  Yes  No  Unsure

(b) that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not guilty?  Yes  No  Unsure
67
(c) that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty?

 Yes  No  Unsure
(d) that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not receive the death penalty?  Yes
 No  Unsure
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, would you be able or

unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and
punishment solely on the evidence that will be presented to you in court?
 Able  Unable
See Doc. 1178 at 20; Add.525.
Only 37% percent of prospective jurors indicated that they had “formed an
opinion” that Tsarnaev was guilty and were “[u]nable” to set that opinion aside.
1.Supp.App.175. Nearly 5% indicated they had not formed the opinion that Tsarnaev
was guilty, 26% said that they had formed an opinion he was guilty but were “[a]ble”
to set that opinion aside, and another 25% indicated that they were “[u]nsure”
whether he was guilty. 1.Supp.App.175. The following chart shows the venire’s
responses to Question 77:
68
were about five times as likely to have formed an opinion that Tsarnaev was guilty
than those exposed to “a little” coverage (89.1% compared to 18.8%).
Tsarnaev arrives at his inflated number (“42 times more likely”) by comparing
the wrong percentages. He compares the percentage of the entire venire that had been
exposed to “a little” media coverage and had formed the opinion he was guilty (1.4%)
with the percentage of the venire that had been exposed to “a lot” of coverage and
had formed that opinion (59.2%). See Br. 67 (Table 5). These numbers are distorted
by the fact that far more prospective jurors were exposed to “a lot” of media coverage
(540 people) than to “a little” (13 people). A comparison of the absolute number of
prospective jurors in each category does not demonstrate the likely effect of media
exposure on individual prospective jurors.
Tsarnaev uses similarly improper comparisons with respect to the prospective
jurors’ views on the death penalty. Tsarnaev asserts that prospective jurors “who
believed Tsarnaev was guilty[ ] were 105 times more likely to also believe . . . that
Tsarnaev should die if they had been exposed to ‘a lot’ of publicity about the case
than if they had been exposed to ‘a little’ publicity.” Br. 95. The numbers are shown
in the following table (using the assumptions in Tsarnaev’s Table 7, 26.App.12139):
74
formed an opinion as to guilt or punishment, or (b) had formed an opinion but were
able to set it aside.
Nor does the composition of the venire necessarily mirror the composition of
the petit jury, as evidenced by the jury actually selected in this case. Two of the 12
jurors that convicted Tsarnaev had seen “a lot” of media coverage, and both indicated
they were “unsure” about Tsarnaev’s guilt. 26.App.11702-03, 11926-27, 12132. A
third juror had seen “somewhere in between” “a lot” and “a moderate amount” and
indicated that she had formed the opinion that Tsarnaev was guilty, but stated that she
was able to set this opinion aside. 26.App.11842-43. Thus, although the
questionnaires show some correlation between media exposure and a belief in guilt,
the jury selection process was able to weed out those with disqualifying prejudice.
Moreover, not a single seated juror indicated that he or she had formed the opinion
based on media coverage that Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty. Add.506-61;
26.App.11684-12131. So any correlation between media exposure and the opinion
that Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty does not suggest that “12 impartial
individuals could not be empaneled” in Massachusetts. Skilling, 561 U.S. at 382.
Tsarnaev’s argument suffers from another flaw. He cannot show that exposure
to pretrial publicity was substantially lower in other jurisdictions. As this Court noted
before trial, Tsarnaev’s “own polling data shows that, in his preferred venue,
Washington D.C., 96.5% of survey respondents had heard of the bombings at the
Boston Marathon.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 16; see United States v. Salameh, 1993 WL
78
364486, at *1 (S.D.N.Y Sep. 15, 1993) (declining to transfer venue for trial related to
1993 World Trade Center bombing, noting that the publicity “permeates the nation”).
His polling data also showed that 86.1% of respondents in D.C. believed he was
either “definitely” or “probably” guilty, as compared to 92.3% in Boston. Doc. 461-
23 at 5. If the district court had transferred the case to Washington, D.C., that
percentage likely would have increased as a result of additional media coverage
relating to the transfer and trial. This marginal (and likely disappearing) difference in
media exposure did not justify a transfer. Cf. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d at 388-89 (96.6%
of potential jurors were aware of defendant’s murder of his wife, but defendant
“would be relatively unknown outside Puerto Rico”).
Tsarnaev’s bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon was (and was intended to
be) a “case of public interest” for the entire nation. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 155. His
terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon was widely reported on national networks,
cable stations, and the Internet, and publicity was not confined to the District of
Massachusetts. But exposure to high levels of pretrial publicity does not necessarily
render a community unable to convene an impartial jury. Otherwise, no venue would
be acceptable, and no trial possible, in the most nationally significant cases. Tsarnaev
was not entitled to a jury without “any preconceived notion as to [his] guilt or
innocence.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723. The Constitution is satisfied when each juror
actually empaneled can “lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict
79
based on the evidence presented in court.” Id. The voir dire process shows that there
were many such jurors in the District of Massachusetts.
b. Statements by excused venire members do not

establish a presumption of prejudice.
Tsarnaev cites various prospective jurors’ statements that he claims were
“representative” of “the local community’s impressions of Tsarnaev and the charges
against him” and “disclosed connections to the Marathon that were extraordinary in
their number and degree.” Br. 46, 75. See id. at 72-75, 77-78. But of the 49
prospective jurors that he quotes, 19 were excused by agreement of the parties
without being called back for individual voir dire, 23 16 were excused by agreement of
the parties after individual voir dire,24 two were excused on defense motion,25 and 11
were never called back for individual voir dire because the court had already
provisionally qualified a sufficient number. Only one of these 49 (Prospective Juror
245) was provisionally qualified as a juror, and his statements do not show
disqualifying bias. See 4.App.1882. Prospective Juror 245 acknowledged that it could
be “kind of difficult” to “set [media attention] aside and just isolate yourself based on
Prospective jurors 12, 137, 182, 196, 293, 301, 302, 319, 364, 372, 430, 438,
23
442, 495, 511, 522, 610, 615, and 652. See 25.App.11448-49 (dismissing some of these
jurors).
Prospective jurors 4, 14, 20, 50, 61, 85, 115, 158, 208, 248, 306, 343, 391, 529,
24
557 and 612. See 1.App.430; 2.App.629, 810, 949; 3.App.1121, 1332-33; 4.App.1692;
5.App.2057, 2251; 6.App.2487, 2700; 8.App.3338, 3437; 9.App.3623, 3753.
25
Prospective jurors 38 and 605. See 2.App.639; 8.App.3596, 3601.
80
just the evidence.” 4.App.1780. But he also indicated that he would be able to decide
the case “without reference to things outside the trial.” 4.App.1780. Tsarnaev did
not move to strike him for cause. 4.App.1882.
Tsarnaev’s quotations from 49 “representative” prospective jurors (out of the
1,373-person venire) simply show that the voir dire succeeded in excluding those who
had disqualifying biases. As Skilling observed, “[s]tatements by nonjurors do not
themselves call into question the adequacy of the jury-selection process; elimination of
these venire members is indeed one indicator that the process fulfilled its function.”
Skilling, 561 U.S. at 389 n.24.
Tsarnaev’s sampling also overlooks the many prospective jurors who identified
no “connections to the Marathon” (Br. 75) and indicated that they could be impartial.
Twenty-five percent of the prospective jurors indicated that, based on their media
exposure, they were “unsure” about Tsarnaev’s guilt. 1.Supp.App.174. Nearly half
(46%) were “unsure” whether Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty.
1.Supp.App.176. And even among those jurors who had formed the opinion that
Tsarnaev was guilty and should receive the death penalty, 29% indicated that they
would be “able . . . to set aside [their] opinion and base [their] decision about guilt and
punishment solely on the evidence that will be presented . . . in court.” See
26.App.12140 (96 out of 325 prospective jurors).
A number of juror questionnaires specifically noted the ability to be impartial.
81
Many more prospective jurors explained during individual voir dire that they
could set aside any previously held views. See, e.g., 1.App.380 (#21) (“I do know that
media jumps to conclusions and we don’t always have all of the facts.”); 2.App.724
(#69) (“I haven’t really formed an opinion myself. . . . I believe that it’s up to the
justice system to make that determination . . . .”); 2.App.776 (#75) (“I would listen to
the case, both sides, the defense, the prosecution, and form an opinion on what I
would hear and subject to what’s going on in the court. So that’s what I think a juror
is supposed to do. And I think I’m able to do that.”); 2.App.913 (#92) (“Obviously, I
don’t know all the facts. I haven’t paid close attention to it.”); 2.App.926 (#98) (“I
understand . . . the need for evidence, logic and following laws, and I also understand
based on your instructions that if I were to be in this case, I must only accept
whatever evidence is presented within the court. And logically I can do that, or at
least I believe I can.”); 3.App.994 (#113) (“I would be able to separate whatever
personal preconceived notions that I have based on what I was exposed to in the
press . . . .”); 3.App.1078-81 (#129) (explaining that she could set aside “preconceived
ideas,” which she was used to doing in her human resources job); 3.App.1109 (#134)
82
(“I don’t know what all the evidence is which is why I couldn’t say yes [to having
formed an opinion of Tsarnaev’s guilt].”).
Likewise, all 12 seated jurors indicated during voir dire that they could avoid
drawing any conclusions at trial based on media coverage. See 2.App.502 (#35)
(“Should I be drawing a conclusion without all the evidence presented? That’s what
my thought process was . . . .”); 2.App.542 (#41) (“I don’t really have an opinion.
Obviously, I know what happened on that day. I have seen some of it in the media,
but I don’t really follow it.”); 2.App.875 (#83) (“You know, you guys have to do a fair
job in presenting the facts the best you can. . . . I think it would be wrong to . . . have
any preconceived notion as to what he deserves or doesn’t deserve otherwise until
that happens.”); 2.App.937-38 (#102) (“I can’t make a decision whether he’s guilty or
not until I hear evidence. I don’t know really much about it, so I can’t tell you one
way or the other . . . . I don’t know.”); 3.App.1151 (#138) (“I wasn’t going to make
any decisions until I’d seen everything that was presented, basically, in front of me.”);
4.App.1663 (#229) (“I’m a little bit jaded with the media . . . . I just know what the
media tells us, there’s always more.”); 5.App.2009 (#286) (“I wasn’t comfortable with
the information I knew to make an accurate decision.”); 6.App.2351 (#349) (“I can’t
know that he’s guilty, because I don’t know what the charges are or what the evidence
is and all of that.”); 6.App.2633 (#395) (“I have formed an opinion . . . based on what
I did read and had seen in the media, but I realize that that’s not all the information
that would be available to me. So . . . once I had more information, I believe that . . .
83
I could change my mind. . . .”); 7.App.2880 (#441) (indicating he would “[n]eed to see
more evidence” and had not concluded that “yes, he’s guilty or, no, he’s not guilty”);
7.App.3050 (#480) (“[W]hen it did happen, it was all over the media. Everyone
comes up with their own opinion. Mine is I don’t know whether he was involved or
not. . . . I mean, I need to sit and look at evidence that would be provided and make
my decision from that.”); 7.App.3075-76 (#487) (admitting that from “the little bit
that I knew of the case, . . . it seemed he played a role in it,” but saying “I would be
able to put that aside until I see all the evidence”). These responses show that
Tsarnaev’s “representative” quotations do not reflect the views of the entire venire.
c. The Skilling factors indicate that prejudice should not

be presumed.
The factors that Skilling considered further support the district court’s
conclusion that an impartial jury could be found in Massachusetts.
i. Large and diverse jury pool
First, although not as large as Houston, the Boston metropolitan area is the
tenth most populous metropolitan area in the nation, with nearly five million people.
See U.S. Census Bureau, New Census Bureau Population Estimates Show Dallas-Fort-
Worth-Arlington Has Largest Growth in the United States,
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/popest-metro-
county.html#popest-tab6 (March 22, 2018). Compare Irvin, 366 U.S. at 719 (venue was
a rural county of 30,000 inhabitants). Moreover, the Eastern Division of the District
84
of Massachusetts includes more than just Greater Boston. It embraces “suburban,
rural, and coastal communities” scattered over the state’s entire eastern seaboard and
Cape Cod. Add.409. See D. Mass. Local Rule 40.1(c)(1) (listing counties in the
Eastern Division).
Tsarnaev tries to minimize this factor by pointing out that “the [media]
coverage was universal” and that “99.7% of the venire was exposed to the negative
publicity.” Br. 91. But “[p]rominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and
juror impartiality . . . does not require ignorance.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 381. For example,
in Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1029 (1984), all but two members of a 163-person
venire (or 98.8%) had heard of the case, which involved a re-trial of the same
defendant for a brutal murder, yet the Supreme Court held that prejudice could not be
presumed. Moreover, the widespread media coverage in this case was not limited to
Massachusetts. Tsarnaev’s “own polling data show[ed] that, in his preferred venue,
Washington D.C., 96.5% of survey respondents had heard of the bombings.”
Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 16. So the mere fact that nearly all members of the venire had
been exposed to pre-trial publicity does not support a presumption of prejudice. This
is especially true considering that “the reporting has largely been factual.” Id. at 22.
Tsarnaev also argues that, “despite the large population, everyone in this
community was affected by the crime and coalesced in the Boston Strong movement
85
in a show of solidarity.” 26 Br. 91. But the district court took great care to exclude
potential jurors who were significantly “affected by the crime.” Id. And although the
Boston Strong movement received significant support—including from some of the
provisionally qualified jurors, see Tsarnaev Br. 81—only 52% of the prospective jurors
(or their family members) had contributed to the One Fund or purchased or worn
“Boston Strong” merchandise. 1.Supp.App.180 (Question 82). Thus, not “everyone”
in the Eastern Division had “coalesced in the Boston Strong movement.” Br. 91.
Tsarnaev compares this case to the trial of Timothy McVeigh, whose trial for
bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City was transferred to Denver. Br. 91
(citing United States v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467, 1471 (W.D. Okla. 1996)). In
McVeigh, however, the issue was not whether the trial should be moved out of
Oklahoma City, upon which both parties agreed. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. at 1470. The
bombing had killed 169 people, caused “massive damage” to the federal courthouse,
and resulted in the recusal of Oklahoma’s federal district judges. Nichols v. Alley, 71
F.3d 347, 349 (10th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Instead, the issue was “whether to move
the trial elsewhere in Oklahoma or out of the state entirely.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 23.
And, “[i]nsofar as the cases are similar, the McVeigh judge’s decision to move the trial
The “Boston Strong” slogan “appears to have arisen in the aftermath of the
26
marathon bombings,” Add.495 n.11, and was, at least initially, “about civic resilience
and recovery,” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 25 n.13. The One Fund was a foundation set up
to help the marathon bombing victims. 23.App.10795.
86
to Denver does not suggest that a decision to keep [Tsarnaev’s] trial in Boston is an
abuse of discretion.” Id.
Tsarnaev also points out that “[t]he bombings targeted a Boston tradition and
the city itself.” Br. 91. But the venire was drawn from a large part of the state, not
just Boston. The geographic diversity of the jury pool is reflected in the jury that was
actually selected, whose cities of residence are shown in this map (alternate jurors
marked by lighter pins).
See Doc. 1639. (Two seated jurors and one alternate were from Peabody,
Massachusetts, marked by Point F.) “Given this large, diverse pool of potential
87
jurors, the suggestion that 12 impartial individuals could not be empaneled is hard to
sustain.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 382.
ii. Lack of confession or blatantly prejudicial

information
Second, this case was not “marred by the repeated broadcast of a defendant’s
questionable taped confession two months before trial in a small area of 150,000
people, as in Rideau.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 21. The publicity “consist[ed] of factual
news media accounts” that were not “of the grossly prejudicial character that attended
Rideau.” Id. at 22. See Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 556 (1962) (noting that pretrial
publicity consisted of “straight news stories rather than invidious articles which would
tend to arouse ill will and vindictiveness”); United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1181
(1st Cir. 1990) (“To justify a presumption of prejudice . . . , the publicity must be both
extensive and sensational in nature.”). Cf. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d at 383 (media had
published allegedly false rumors about the defendant, including that he had
“drunkenly bragged about assassinating the then-governor of Puerto Rico”).
Tsarnaev points to a number of reasons why he believes the media coverage
was prejudicial. Br. 56-60, 89. First, he contends that the venire was exposed “not
just to a single confession from the defendant, but to multiple confessions.” Br. 89.
See id. at 60. He points out (Br. 56) that the news media characterized as a
“confession” the message he wrote inside the boat explaining his motive for the
bombing. But, unlike the uncounseled confession in Rideau, Tsarnaev’s statement in
88
the boat was admissible and admitted at trial. Thus, any pretrial exposure to the
message would not unfairly prejudice the jury.
Tsarnaev argues that “prejudice should be presumed where particularly
damaging information is disclosed,” “even where . . . that same information is later
admitted at trial.” Br. 86. He points out (Br. 86-87) that two confessions (one written
and one oral) were admitted at trial in Rideau. See Rideau, 373 U.S. at 730 (Clark, J.,
dissenting). But Rideau’s finding of presumed prejudice was not based on the
admitted confessions; it was based on the “televised interview,” which, “to the tens of
thousands of people who saw and heard it, in a very real sense was Rideau’s trial—at
which he pleaded guilty to murder.” Id. at 726 (majority opinion).
The Supreme Court and other courts of appeals have recognized that
admissibility is relevant to determining whether pretrial publicity is prejudicial.
Compare, e.g., Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 360 (noting that the information reported by the
media was “clearly inadmissible” and that “[t]he exclusion of such evidence in court is
rendered meaningless when news media make it available to the public”), with Murray
v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 805 (9th Cir.) (“There was no inflammatory barrage of
information that would be inadmissible at trial. Rather, the news reports focused on
relaying mainly evidence presented at trial.”), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 414 (2018);
Henderson v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 1991) (“[B]ecause we have found
[the defendant’s] confessions were admissible, the damage if any from the [pretrial]
publicity is negligible.”). And even where an inadmissible confession is reported in the

89
media, the resulting prejudice may dissipate. See Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029. Media
reports of Tsarnaev’s “confession” in the boat are therefore inadequate to establish a
presumption of prejudice. 27
Tsarnaev also notes that the media referenced his “admissions” to the FBI after
his arrest, which were “not introduced at trial.” Br. 56. Those news articles do not
establish a presumption of prejudice. As an initial matter, reading a news report that
Tsarnaev “made [an] admission,” 23.App.10851, or “allegedly admitted,”
24.App.10930, 10935, 11053, to his role in the bombings is not nearly as “dramatic[ ]
or “indelibl[e]” as watching the televised confession in Rideau. Skilling, 561 U.S. at
382-83. And other evidence admitted at trial—such as the message Tsarnaev wrote in
the boat—clearly indicated that he acknowledged committing the bombing.
Furthermore, Tsarnaev did not contest his guilt; indeed, his counsel essentially
asked the jury to convict him during the guilt phase. See 10.App.3977 (“There’s little
that occurred the week of April the 15th—the bombings, the murder of Officer
Collier, the carjacking, the shootout in Watertown—that we dispute. . . . It was
him.”); 10.App.3978 (“We . . . will not . . . attempt to sidestep . . . [Tsarnaev]’s
responsibility for his actions . . . .”); 15.App.6958 (“[W]e are not asking you to go easy
on [Tsarnaev]. . . . The horrific acts that we’ve heard about, the death, destruction
This is particularly true considering that Tsarnaev wrote his statement in the
27
boat to “shed some light on our actions,” which, he said, “came with a [me]ssage.”
11.App.4555-56. Tsarnaev voluntarily wrote a manifesto, and he can hardly complain
that it became public.
90
and devastation . . . deserve to be condemned, and the time is now.”). So any pretrial
publicity indicating that he acknowledged committing the bombings was consistent
with both the overwhelming evidence and Tsarnaev’s own admissions at trial. It
cannot establish unfair prejudice.
Tsarnaev also points out that “[s]ome articles falsely claimed that [he] wrote
‘Fuck America’ in the boat.” Br. 56. This inaccurate report appears in only one of the
many articles included in Tsarnaev’s appendix. See 24.App.10988 (“[Expletive]
America”). And the jury was able to see Tsarnaev’s messages and even view the entire
boat in person. 1.Supp.App.28-30 (Gov’t Exhs. 826, 827, 828); 12.App.5206-5214.
The jury therefore learned definitively that Tsarnaev did not write “Fuck America.”
Moreover, even if jurors had read and remembered this inaccurate claim, the
resulting prejudice would be minimal in light of the other evidence. Jurors read
Tsarnaev’s text messages calling President Barack Obama and now-Senator Mitt
Romney “s[a]tan ass niggas.” 1.Supp.App.68 (Gov’t Exh. 1385); 14.App.6341. They
read Tsarnaev’s statement in the boat that “killing innocent people . . . is allowed”
because “[t]he U.S. Government is killing our innocent civilians.” 1.Supp.App.29-30
(Gov’t Exhs. 827, 828); 11.App.4555-4557. And they saw video of Tsarnaev raising
his middle finger at a security camera. 1.Supp.App.90 (Gov’t Exh. 1595);
Add.CD.DX4001 at 00:14-00:16; 16.App.7294-7295, 7308-7309. Faced with this
evidence, jurors were unlikely to be improperly swayed by any misconception they
91
might have had—subsequently debunked by the trial evidence—that Tsarnaev had
written “Fuck America.”
Second, Tsarnaev points out that many articles “described the video footage of
the Tsarnaev brothers walking down Boylston Street carrying the backpacks
containing the bombs.” Br. 56. He also points out that this video and another video
depicting the bomb blasts were posted online and viewed millions of times. Br. 56-
57. But that information would not have unfairly swayed the jury. Although those
specific videos were not admitted at trial (though they could have been), very similar
videos of the bombing were put into evidence. See Gov’t Exhs. 5, 22. Nor were the
videos unfairly prejudicial, especially considering that Tsarnaev did not contest his
guilt. Moreover, the “nearly 30 million views” (Br. 57) that the Boston Globe’s
bombing-related videos received undoubtedly included millions of people from
outside Massachusetts. Unlike in Rideau, exposure to those videos was not unique to a
particular venue.
Third, Tsarnaev points to media coverage of the victims, including “poignant
descriptions” of the “pain and suffering” endured by the decedents’ families, as well
as the survivors’ “horrific injuries,” “the daunting recoveries they faced, and their
courage as they went through the rehabilitation process.” Br. 57-58. Although this
media coverage would likely engender sympathy for the victims, it was not “blatantly
prejudicial” or comparable to the “dramatically staged admission of guilt” in Rideau.
Skilling, 561 U.S. at 382-83. And similar evidence about the victims’ horrific injuries
92
and the impact on the deceased victims was admitted at trial. See, e.g., 10.App.4066
(“[M]y bones and all of my flesh was sticking out of my left hand and blood was
running down my arm.”); 4142 (“I looked down and I saw my legs, and it was . . .
pure carnage. . . . I could see my bones and my flesh sticking out.”), 4286-95 (injuries
to Richard family); 16.App.7152-53, 7170 (effect on Krystle Campbell’s family), 7210-
11, 7223-27 (effect on Sean Collier’s family), 7335-40; Gov’t Exh. 1600 (video
showing effect on Lingzi Lu’s family). Jurors who sat through the poignant trial
testimony were unlikely to be influenced by any previous exposure to this media
coverage. The mere existence of the coverage does not show that an impartial jury
could not be selected in Massachusetts.
Fourth, Tsarnaev points out that the media reported the views of “prominent
community members[ ]” and some victims’ families that Tsarnaev should receive the
death penalty. Br. 58-59. See id. at 89-90. But the media also reported personal
opposition to the death penalty by Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley. 23.App.10834.
The Boston Globe ran an editorial arguing that then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
erred in authorizing the death penalty. 24.App.11051. And the Globe conducted a poll
indicating that a majority of Massachusetts residents (57%) supported life
imprisonment, as opposed to the death penalty, for Tsarnaev. 24.App.11047. In light
of those diverse viewpoints, jurors were unlikely to be prejudiced in favor of the death
penalty by media coverage. And considering that only 25% of prospective jurors had
93
formed the opinion that Tsarnaev should be punished by death, any effect these
reports had did not prevent the district court from selecting an impartial jury.
Finally, Tsarnaev points to various articles “characterizing” him as a “monster,”
“a terrorist,” or “evil.” Br. 59-60. See id. at 89. As an initial matter, such
characterizations are hardly surprising given the nature of Tsarnaev’s crimes, which
his own counsel described as “tragic,” “senseless,” “horribly misguided,” and inspired
by “violent Islamic extremism.” 10.App.3975, 3976, 3978. In any event, the fact that
some people expressed such views to the news media is not enough to presumptively
disqualify every prospective juror in the Eastern Division of the District of
Massachusetts. In any case involving the bombing of innocent civilians, some
members of the community will condemn the actions with harsh words. But “even
pervasive, adverse publicity does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial.” Nebraska Press
Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554 (1976). And the media publication of these
viewpoints does not show that the passions of every person in the Eastern Division
were “inflamed . . . past the breaking point.” Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d at 182 (quotations
omitted).
iii. Lapse of nearly two years between crime and

trial
The third factor that Skilling considered—the passage of time—also
undermines a presumption of prejudice. Unlike in Rideau, where the defendant’s trial
took place within two months of his arrest and televised confession, Tsarnaev’s trial
94
took place almost two years after the marathon bombing. See 10.App.3922, 3944
(opening statements began on March 4, 2015). As this Court observed in denying
mandamus relief, “[t]he nearly two years that have passed since the Marathon
bombings ha[ve] allowed the decibel level of publicity about the crimes themselves to
drop and community passions to diminish.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 22. See also
Add.411 (district court’s judgment that, eighteen months after the bombing, “media
coverage has continued but the ‘decibel level of media attention [has] diminished
somewhat’” (quoting Skilling, 561 U.S. at 361)). Cf. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d at 383-84,
388 (jury selection in defendant’s federal trial took place just two months after the
televised sentencing in his local case).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Patton v. Yount is instructive. There, the
defendant confessed to a brutal murder and was initially convicted, but his conviction
was overturned because his confession was obtained in violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Patton, 467 U.S. at 1027. At voir dire for his second
trial, 98% of the venire had “heard of” the case, and 77% “admitted they would carry
an opinion into the jury box.” Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029. Eight of the 14 jurors and
alternates admitted that they had previously formed an opinion regarding the
defendant’s guilt. Id. at 1029-30. But the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s
claim that prejudice should be presumed, pointing out that “prejudicial publicity [had]
greatly diminished and community sentiment had softened” in the four years that
elapsed between the first and second trials. Id. at 1032. Similarly here, the time that
95
passed between the 2013 bombing and the 2015 trial allowed passions to cool and
reduced the likelihood of pervasive prejudice.
iv. Jury’s decision not to impose death on 11 of 17

eligible counts
Finally, as in Skilling, the jury’s verdict undermines a presumption of prejudice.
The jury did not acquit Tsarnaev on any counts, but that is hardly surprising
considering that Tsarnaev did not contest his guilt. See 10.App.3977-3978;
15.App.6958. The jury did, however, decline to impose the death penalty on 11 of the
17 counts for which the government sought it. Add.96. This indicates just as
persuasively as the acquittals in Skilling that the jury did not act out of bias or
prejudice, but took seriously its responsibility to weigh the aggravating and mitigating
factors and to select an appropriate sentence.28 As Skilling observed, “[i]t would be
odd for an appellate court to presume prejudice in a case in which jurors’ actions run
counter to that presumption.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 383. There is no justification for
applying such a presumption here.
Indeed, the jury failed to find one aggravating factor (advocating additional
28
acts of terrorism) with respect to any count, found some aggravating factors to exist
only as to certain counts, and took a nuanced approach to the mitigating factors, with
at least one juror finding each of the 21 listed factors, but all the jurors agreeing only
on four. See Add.82-92. This was far from being a straight verdict for the
government.
In Casellas-Toro, by contrast, the jury’s verdict “support[ed] a presumption of
juror bias” because the jury convicted on all three counts, but the district court
granted a judgment of acquittal on two of them. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d at 388.
96
d. Even if Tsarnaev could establish a presumption of

prejudice, the government could rebut it.
If this Court were to conclude that a presumption of prejudice applies in this
case, the government could rebut that presumption. This Court has assumed, without
explicitly deciding, that a presumption of prejudice is rebuttable. Casellas-Toro, 807
F.3d at 388-90. See also United States v. Moreno Morales, 815 F.2d 725, 739 n.18 (1st Cir.
1987) (“Rideau may allow the presumption of prejudice to be rebutted by a showing of
impartiality in the voir dire testimony.”). As the Supreme Court has made clear, an
error is “structural” and therefore subject to reversal without inquiring into prejudice
“only in a very limited class of cases.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999)
(quotations omitted). And potential jurors’ exposure to extensive pretrial publicity
should not be considered a structural error. The effects of the error can be
ascertained through voir dire, and the district court can ensure that individuals actually
selected for the jury do not have the same biases that pervade the more general
population. As explained below, the record shows that the jury that convicted
Tsarnaev was not biased. The government therefore could meet its burden of
rebutting any presumption of juror bias that might arise.
2. The record does not demonstrate actual prejudice.
“Actual prejudice hinges on whether the jurors seated at trial demonstrated
actual partiality that they were incapable of setting aside.” Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d at 183
(quotations omitted). In assessing whether actual prejudice exists, “[a]ppellate courts
97
. . . should be mindful that their judgments lack the on-the-spot comprehension of the
situation possessed by trial judges.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 386. “When pretrial publicity
is at issue, ‘primary reliance on the judgment of the trial court makes [especially] good
sense’ because the judge ‘sits in the locale where the publicity is said to have had its
effect’ and may base her evaluation on her ‘own perception of the depth and extent of
news stories that might influence a juror.’” Id. (quoting Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 427).
Moreover, the trial judge’s “estimation of a juror’s impartiality” is “ordinarily
influenced by a host of factors impossible to capture fully in the record—among
them, the prospective juror’s inflection, sincerity, demeanor, candor, body language,
and apprehension of duty.” Id. “[T]he trial court’s resolution of such questions is
entitled, even on direct appeal, to special deference.” Patton, 467 U.S. at 1038
(quotations omitted).
a. Excluded venire members’ views do not establish

actual prejudice.
In seeking to establish actual prejudice, Tsarnaev first reprises some of his
presumed-prejudice arguments, pointing out that “99.7% of the venire admitted they
had been exposed to some amount of the publicity” and that “920 [prospective] jurors
. . . reached the conclusion that Tsarnaev was guilty based solely on what they had
heard before coming to court.” Br. 95. He also cites prospective jurors’ “[i]ndividual
responses” to the juror questionnaire. Id. at 95-96. Although he admits that these
prospective jurors “were not provisionally qualified” and did not sit on his jury, id. at
98
96, he argues that their views are relevant based on this Court’s observation that
“[w]here a high percentage of the venire admits to a disqualifying prejudice, a court
may properly question the remaining jurors’ avowals of impartiality, and choose to
presume prejudice.” Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d at 390 (quoting Angiulo, 897 F.2d at 1181-
82).
This Court’s observation in Casellas-Toro (echoing other cases) was based on the
Supreme Court’s dicta in Murphy, 421 U.S. at 803, which observed that “[i]n a
community where most veniremen will admit to a disqualifying prejudice, the
reliability of the others’ protestations may be drawn into question.” Murphy cited the
example of Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727, where “90% of those examined on the point were
inclined to believe in the accused’s guilt.” Murphy, 421 U.S. at 803. But Murphy
concluded that where only “20 of the 78 persons questioned . . . indicated an opinion
as to [the defendant’s] guilt,” the facts did not “suggest[ ] a community with sentiment
so poisoned against [the defendant] as to impeach the indifference of jurors who
displayed no animus of their own.” Id. Subsequently, in Patton, the Supreme Court
rejected a challenge to the jury where 77% of the venire “admitted they would carry
an opinion into the jury box.” Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029. This is higher than the 67%
of prospective jurors in Tsarnaev’s case who indicated that they had formed the
opinion that Tsarnaev was guilty, and far higher than the 37% who had formed that
opinion and could not set aside that view. Moreover, in Skilling, the Court observed
that “[s]tatements by nonjurors do not themselves call into question the adequacy of
99
the jury-selection process; elimination of these venire members is indeed one indicator
that the process fulfilled its function.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 389 n.24. So the fact that
some prospective jurors expressed disqualifying prejudice does not support the
inference that the seated jurors were lying when they indicated an ability to be
impartial.
This Court has already addressed some of the potential jurors’ statements that
Tsarnaev now quotes, concluding that they were not “so common among the pool of
excused jurors that a court must infer bias among others who have been provisionally
qualified.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 27. “It is not surprising that in a pool of over a
thousand jurors . . . , some will make strong statements that disqualify them from jury
service.” Id. But other prospective jurors “expressed their ability to be fair and
impartial,” and the district court evaluated their claims through “extensive voir dire.”
Id. The district court’s conclusion that impartial jurors could be found was not
“manifest error.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 428 (quotations omitted).
b. The seated jurors’ views do not show actual prejudice.
Tsarnaev next points to several facts that, in his view, show the actual prejudice
of the seated jurors in this case. First, he points out that “all 12 seated jurors (and all
six alternates) admitted to having been exposed to . . . pre-trial publicity.” Br. 97. But
the Supreme Court’s cases clearly establish that this fact alone does not show
prejudice. See Skilling, 561 U.S. at 381 (“Prominence does not necessarily produce
prejudice, and juror impartiality . . . does not require ignorance.”); Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029
100
(98.8% of prospective jurors had heard of the case); Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 155-56
(“[E]very case of public interest is . . . brought to the attention of all the intelligent
people in the vicinity . . . .”). And, as demonstrated by his polling data, Tsarnaev
would have been hard-pressed to find any U.S. jurisdiction in 2015 where a significant
percentage of potential jurors had not been exposed to media coverage of the
bombing. See Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 16 (“[I]n his preferred venue, Washington D.C.,
96.5% of survey respondents had heard of the bombings.”).
Second, Tsarnaev asserts that “before hearing even a single witness testify . . . 6
of the 12 seated jurors admitted they believed Tsarnaev participated in the bombings
and 3 of these 6 admitted they already thought Tsarnaev was guilty of the charges.”
Br. 97. See id. at 83-84 (voir dire quotations). Tsarnaev is correct that three of the
seated jurors (Jurors 349, 395, and 487) indicated in their questionnaires that they had
formed the opinion Tsarnaev was guilty. See 26.App.11843, 11870, 11955. But they
also checked the box saying they would be “able . . . to set aside [their] opinion[s] and
base [their] decision[s] about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence that will be
presented . . . in court.” Id. And each was “unsure” whether Tsarnaev should receive
the death penalty. Id.
The Supreme Court has made clear that a juror is not disqualified for having
“formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at
722. “It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a
verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Id. at 723. All three jurors
101
expressed an ability to do so, both in their questionnaires and during voir dire. See
6.App.2351-52, 2633-34; 7.App.3076-77. As one juror (#349) explained, after she
indicated on the questionnaire that she believed Tsarnaev was “guilty,” she “realized”
that “I can’t know that he’s guilty, because I don’t know what the charges are or what
the evidence is.” 6.App.2351.
As to the three additional jurors that Tsarnaev says “admitted they believed
Tsarnaev participated in the bombings,” Br. 97, the full context of their voir dire
statements does not indicate that they were biased. Juror 83 candidly admitted, “I
don’t think this would be a case of mistaken identity,” and “obviously he [Tsarnaev]
was involved in something.” 2.App.874, 879. But that juror added: “[I]t is my
understanding that you’re . . . innocent until proven guilty.” 2.App.874. Juror 229
admitted when pressed by defense counsel that “I guess, yes, I suppose that we knew
that he was involved.” 4.App.1675. But she explained she was “unsure” about
Tsarnaev’s guilt because “I’m a little bit jaded with the media, and I just thought with
our legal system I should keep an open mind. . . . I just know what the media tells us,
there’s always more.” 4.App.1663. “So I felt like, you know, you’re innocent before
proven guilty, that I should have that open mind.” Id. Juror 286 said she “assume[d]”
while watching the news that “the police . . . got who they were looking for.”
5.App.2009. But she explained that “I wasn’t comfortable with the information I
knew to make an accurate decision” regarding Tsarnaev’s guilt. Id.
102
Far from demonstrating “actual partiality” that these three jurors were
“incapable of setting aside,” Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d at 183, their voir dire responses
show that they were unwilling to prejudge Tsarnaev’s guilt without first seeing the
charges and hearing the evidence. As with all the seated jurors, the district court
confirmed through additional questioning that these jurors could apply the
presumption of innocence and reach a conclusion based solely on the evidence
presented at trial. See 2.App.874-875; 4.App.1663-1664; 5.App.2009-2010. Their
belief that Tsarnaev was “involved” with the bombing does not establish disqualifying
prejudice. And any details the jurors might have remembered from pretrial media
coverage paled in comparison to what they heard and saw at trial. See 21.App.9864
(juror observing after the guilt phase that he was now “an eyewitness” to the
bombing).
Third, Tsarnaev points out (Br. 82, 97) that five of the seated jurors had made
financial contributions to the bombing victims, either by directly donating to the
Boston One Fund or by purchasing Boston Strong merchandise. See 2.App.503-504
(Juror 35 made a $50 or $75 contribution); 5.App.2010 (Juror 286 attended a One
Fund concert and bought a “Boston Strong” t-shirt); 6.App.2353 (Juror 349 bought a
“life is good” t-shirt with some proceeds going to One Fund); 26.App.11872 (Juror
395 contributed to One Fund); 7.App.3086 (Juror 487 bought a “Boston Strong” t-
shirt for her nephew). The mere fact that these five jurors had contributed to a
charitable cause aimed to aid the victims of the bombing does not show that they
103
harbored actual prejudice against Tsarnaev. As this Court observed, “the Boston
Strong theme is about civic resilience and recovery. It is not about whether
[Tsarnaev] is guilty of the crimes charged.” Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 25 n.13. “That
someone buys a Boston Strong T-shirt is not proof that he or she could not be fair
and impartial if selected as a potential juror on the question of guilt.” Id. All five of
these jurors indicated that they could decide the case based on the evidence presented.
See 2.App.502-503; 5.App.2009; 6.App.2351-2352, 2633-2634; 7.App.3076-3077. And
Tsarnaev did not move to strike any of them for cause, “strong evidence that he was
convinced the jurors were not biased.” Beck, 369 U.S. at 558. The district court’s
decision to credit these jurors’ responses was not an abuse of discretion.
Fourth, Tsarnaev asserts that “it took 21 court days . . . to obtain this
compromised jury.” Br. 97. But, as this Court pointed out previously, a jury selection
of this length is “not unusual,” particularly for a death penalty case that received
nationwide attention. Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 26 & n.14 (citing cases). “Moreover, it
defies logic to count the efforts the district court has taken to carefully explore, and
eliminate, any prejudice as showing the existence of the same.” Id. at 26. Tsarnaev
points (Br. 97) to the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he length to which the trial
court must go in order to select the jurors who appear to be impartial is another factor
relevant in evaluating those jurors’ assurances of impartiality.” Murphy, 421 U.S. at
802-03. But Murphy does not suggest that a 21-day voir dire in a capital case raises an
inference of prejudice.
104
Finally, Tsarnaev argues that “the Court should also consider that at least two
of the seated jurors deceived the [district c]ourt as to their bias against Tsarnaev.” Br.
98. As explained below, these jurors were not dishonest, and any inaccuracies in their
statements do not indicate disqualifying bias against Tsarnaev.
In short, there is no evidence to support Tsarnaev’s contention that the 12
jurors who convicted him were anything short of impartial. They assured the district
court that they could be impartial, and the court “did not simply take venire members
who proclaimed their impartiality at their word.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 394. The court
conducted individualized voir dire during which both the court and the parties were
able to ask the jurors questions. “This face-to-face opportunity to gauge demeanor
and credibility, coupled with information from the questionnaires regarding jurors’
backgrounds, opinions, and sources of news, gave the court a sturdy foundation to
assess fitness for jury service.” Id. at 395. The district court individually questioned
the seated jurors a second time before the end of the guilt phase to ensure that they
had avoided media coverage during the trial. See 21.App.9848-66. And the jury’s
decision to impose the death penalty on only six of the 17 death-eligible counts
“suggests the court’s assessments were accurate.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 395. This
Court should reject Tsarnaev’s claim of actual prejudice.
105
D. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 and this Court’s supervisory

powers do not justify reversal.
Tsarnaev argues that, even if the Constitution does not require a change of
venue, this Court should require one based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21
and this Court’s supervisory power. Br. 93. Although Tsarnaev summarily mentioned
Rule 21 in several of his change-of-venue motions, see 23.App.10706; 25.App.11450,
11558, he never argued that Rule 21’s standard is more lenient than the constitutional
standard, and he never mentioned the court’s supervisory power. He therefore failed
to preserve this argument, meaning that this Court’s review is for plain error. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(b). To obtain relief under this standard, Tsarnaev must show “that (1)
there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
dispute; (3) the error affected [his] substantial rights . . . ; and (4) the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (quotations and brackets omitted).
It is not “clear or obvious” that the standard under Rule 21 or a federal court’s
supervisory power is “more favorable to the defense . . . than the constitutional
standard.” Br. 93. Rule 21 requires transfer if the district court is satisfied that “the
defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial” in the district. Fed. R. Crim. P.
21(a). This is textually indistinguishable from the constitutional standard, which
ensures the right to “an impartial jury” and a “fair trial.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 377-78.
It would make little sense to interpret the term “fair and impartial trial” in Rule 21 to
106
mean something other than the “fair trial” by an “impartial jury” guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment.
As to the Court’s supervisory powers, federal courts “may, within limits,
formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the
Congress.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983). And a few justices have
suggested in individual opinions that the Court’s supervisory powers may justify a
change of venue even when the Constitution does not. See Skilling, 561 U.S. at 446
n.9 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); Murphy, 421 U.S. at 804 (Burger, C.J., concurring);
Rideau, 373 U.S. at 728-29 (Clark, J., dissenting). But the Court has never adopted that
view, and it has made clear that its inherent power “does not include the power to
develop rules that circumvent or conflict with the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 426 (1996). Because Rule 21 already
establishes a venue-transfer standard that echoes the constitutional standard, it would
be inappropriate for courts on their own authority to create a lower threshold for
transfer. See id. at 426-28 (court could not invoke inherent power to circumvent
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29’s time limits for a motion for judgment of
acquittal). That is particularly true here, where Tsarnaev forfeited his argument that
this Court should adopt a lower standard.
Nor is it “clear or obvious” that Tsarnaev would be entitled to relief under the
“more expansive Rule 21 standard” that he advocates. Br. 93. He admits that the
Supreme Court has “never articulated” this supposedly lower standard, Br. 93, and he
107
points to no authority from this Court establishing such a standard. The district court
did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte order a change of venue based on its
supervisory power.
E. The Eighth Amendment does not independently require reversal.
Tsarnaev also argues that “the Eighth Amendment independently requires a
change of venue” based on the “heightened need for reliability” in capital cases. Br.
99 (quoting Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323 (1985)). To be sure, the
importance of an impartial jury is at its peak “[w]here one’s life is at stake.” Irvin, 366
U.S. at 727. But the Sixth Amendment already “secures to criminal defendants the
right to trial by an impartial jury.” Skilling, 561 U.S. at 377. Even in capital cases, the
Supreme Court has relied on the Sixth Amendment as guaranteeing an impartial jury.
See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 85 (1988) (“It is well settled that the Sixth and [in
state cases] Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a defendant on trial for his life the
right to an impartial jury.”). And the Court has recognized even in capital cases “the
wide discretion granted to the trial court in conducting voir dire in the area of pretrial
publicity.” See Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 427. Here, the district court’s careful voir dire
ensured that Tsarnaev received an impartial jury. The Eighth Amendment required
nothing more.
108
II. Tsarnaev is Not Entitled to a New Trial or Remand Based on Alleged

Juror Dishonesty.
Tsarnaev next contends that two members of the jury—Jurors 286 and 138—
gave knowing false answers during voir dire about their social media postings and that
Juror 286 falsely indicated that she and her family did not shelter in place. Br. 102-
160. He argues that the district court’s “failure to strike both [jurors] for cause was
structural error that requires reversal of Tsarnaev’s convictions, or in the alternative,
. . . his death sentences.” Br. 103. “At a minimum,” he argues, this Court “should
remand for further proceedings.” Br. 103-04. In fact, the jurors were not dishonest
about their social media postings. Although Juror 286 appears to have given an
inaccurate answer on the questionnaire regarding whether her family sheltered in
place, she volunteered that fact during her individual voir dire, correcting the
inaccuracy and alerting defense counsel to the issue. And even if both jurors had fully
disclosed everything Tsarnaev argues they should have, they would not have been
stricken for cause. So Tsarnaev cannot show entitlement to a new trial or an
evidentiary hearing.
A. Background
1. Juror 286
When Juror 286 filled out her jury questionnaire in January 2015, she disclosed
in response to Questions 29 and 30, which asked jurors about their social media use,
that she looked at Facebook and Twitter “daily,” but did not “post daily.” Add.544.
109
Question 79 asked whether she had “commented on this case in a letter to the editor,
in an online comment or post, or on a radio talk show.” Add.553. Juror 286 wrote,
“[I] don’t believe I have.” Add. 553. In response to Question 81, which asked
whether she or a family member had been “personally affected by the Boston Marathon
bombings or any of the crimes charged in this case (including being asked to ‘shelter
in place’ on April 19, 2013),” she wrote “N/A.” Add.554.
Months before she appeared to fill out her questionnaire, between April 2013
and April 2014, Juror 286 had tweeted or retweeted posts about the Boston Marathon
bombing 22 times.29 See 25.App.11538-51. For example, on the day of the bombing,
she tweeted, “Need something to make you smile and warm your heart after today’s
tragedy at #BostonMarathon , take a look at #BostonHelp.” 25.App.11541. About
Martin Richard, she tweeted, “Little 8yr old boy that was killed at marathon, was a
Savin Hill little leaguer :-( RIP little man #Dorchester #bostonmarathon.”
25.App.11551. (Juror 286 was from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston.
Add.537.) On April 19, she indicated that she was “locked down” with her family,
saying, “[I]t’s worse having to work knowing ur family is locked down at home!!
Finally home locked down w/them #boston.” 25.App.11544.
When a Twitter user “retweets another user, the other user’s original tweet
29
will appear on the retweeter’s timeline” with a notation that it is “Retweeted.” One
Wisconsin Now v. Kremer, 354 F. Supp. 3d 940, 944-45 (W.D. Wis. 2019).
110
After Tsarnaev’s arrest, Juror 286 retweeted several expressions of celebration
that had been posted by other users, including a tweet that said, “Told y’all. Welcome
To Boston The City Of CHAMPS! We get our shit DONE! #BostonStrong.”
25.App.11540. Another tweet that Juror 286 retweeted said, “Congratulations to all
of the law enforcement professionals who worked so hard and went through hell to
bring in that piece of garbage.” 25.App.11540. Over the following year, Juror 286
retweeted additional posts relating to the victims, including a photo of Sean Collier
and Richard Donohue (the Transportation Authority officer who almost died on
Laurel Street) at their police academy graduation, a photo of Martin Richard’s younger
sister Jane singing the national anthem at Fenway Park, and a photo of Martin’s older
brother Henry running the Boston Marathon’s Youth Relay races in April 2014.
25.App.11548-50.
When Juror 286 appeared for individual voir dire on February 4, 2015, she said
that she used Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for “just social” purposes, saying,
“Twitter, I watch TV and kind of tweet while I’m watching TV with other people that
are watching the same programs that I’m watching.” 5.App.2007. She indicated she
had “[a]bsolutely” seen reports about this case and saw “everything on the news.”
5.App.2009. But she explained that she had not formed an opinion regarding
Tsarnaev’s guilt because “I don’t feel I knew enough of the facts to base a decision
[on].” 5.App.2009. And she indicated that she would “[a]bsolutely” be able to apply
111
the presumption of innocence and to acquit Tsarnaev if the government failed in its
proof. 5.App.2009-10.
Juror 286 indicated that she had “never really thought” about the death penalty,
but was neither for nor against it and could vote to impose it or a sentence of life
imprisonment, depending on the facts and the law. 5.App.2011. When asked if she
could “listen to all th[e] evidence,” consider the aggravating and mitigating factors,
and “choose in either direction depending on how [she] weighed the evidence,” she
said, “I could.” 5.App.2012. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, Juror 286
stated, “I guess I don’t feel like I’m the one that’s sentencing someone to death or
prison for the rest of their life.” 5.App.2013. It was the person’s “own actions that
are determining that,” and she would just be “following the law.” 5.App.2013. Since
she had been “told to follow the law,” she would “decide . . . by what [she had] heard
in the courtroom.” 5.App.2013.
2. Juror 138
On the morning of January 5, 2015, when Juror 138 appeared in court to
complete his juror questionnaire, he posted on Facebook: “Jury duty....this should be
interesting...couple thousand people already here.” 25.App.11537. This prompted
responses from two of his Facebook “friends,” who said, “How’d you get stuck going
to Boston?” and “Did you get picked for the marathon bomber trial!!! ??? That’s
awesome!” 25.App.11537. Juror 138 responded, “Ya awesome alright haha there’s
112
like 1000s of people.” 25.App.11537. Over the next few hours, people left more
comments, saying,
If you’re really on jury duty, this guys got no shot in hell.
OMG you could be on this jury!!!
1200 people it’s one out of 100 chance.
They’re gonna take one look at you and tell you to beat it.
Did you get selected?
25.App.11537.
During preliminary instructions, the district court instructed prospective jurors
(including Juror 138) “not to discuss this case with your family, friends or any other
person.” 1.App.182. The court said prospective jurors were allowed to “tell others
that you may be a juror in the case” and to “discuss the schedule with your family and
employer.” 1.App.182. But it warned them “not to discuss anything else, or allow
anyone else to discuss with you anything else until you have been excused, or if you’re
a juror, until the case concludes.” 1.App.182. And it told them not to “communicate
about this case or allow anyone to communicate about it with you by phone, text
message, Skype, email, social media, such as Twitter or Facebook.” 1.App.183.
Later that day, Juror 138 returned to the Facebook thread and posted:
There’s 1200 or so of us...250 a day mon-fri this week go in full out

survey 100’s of ques and then we call back to see when we go back and
they select 18 of us out of the 1200 but single people out one by one
over the next month they are telling me the process will take until the
113
23rd or 24th...then the whole trial it self is going to be 3-4 months they
say
25.App.11537.
A few minutes later, he added: “Shud be crazy he was legit like ten feet infront
of me today with his 5 or 6 team of lawyers...can’t say much else about it tho...that’s
against the rules.” 25.App.11537. This prompted a number of responses from his
Facebook friends:
Whoa!!
Since when does [Juror 138] care about rules?
Play the part so u get on the jury then send him to jail where he will be
taken care of
25.App.11537. Juror 138 responded: “When the Feds are involved id rather not take
my chances...them locals tho...pishhh ain’t no thaang.” 25.App.11537. Another
Facebook friend added one more comment: “Yea super careful bc should you get
picked any mention of anything can get you booted or call for mistrial.”
25.App.11537.
When Juror 138 returned for individual voir dire a few weeks later (on January
23), the district court said, “I had instructed everyone to avoid any discussion of the
subject matter of the case with anybody. You could talk about coming here,
obviously, but—and also to avoid any exposure to media articles about the case.
Have you been able to do that?” 3.App.1146. Juror 138 responded, “Yeah, I haven’t
looked at anything. . . . I haven’t talked to anybody about it.” 3.App.1146-47.
114
The district court also asked Juror 138 about the nature of his Facebook use:
THE COURT: What’s the nature of your use of it? Is it essentially

personal, social-type things?
THE JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do you comment on public affairs or anything like that?
THE JUROR: Yeah, I see what my friends are doing and comment on
that.
THE COURT: Anybody commenting about this trial?
THE JUROR: No.
3.App.1148.
When asked why he had responded “no” to Question 77, which asked whether
he had formed any opinions with respect to guilt or punishment, see Add.525, Juror
138 responded, “I wasn’t going to make any decisions until I’d seen everything that
was presented . . . in front of me.” 3.App.1151. The court asked whether he could
render a not-guilty verdict if the evidence “wasn’t there,” and Juror 138 responded,
“Yes, I would be able to go both ways . . . .” 3.App.1152.
Juror 138 said he did not have any “views in general” on the death penalty
because he had “never really known much” about it and it “never really interested
[him] too much.” 3.App.1152. Although he indicated that he was generally in favor
of the death penalty, he thought it should depend “on the circumstances of the event”
or “what happened for . . . each individual.” 3.App.1153. He said he would be “open
to either” the death penalty or life imprisonment, 3.App.1154, and was “not more in
favor one way or the other; it would all depend on the outcome of everything
presented,” 3.App.1155-56. As to the penalty in Tsarnaev’s case specifically, Juror
115
138 said, “I don’t really have an opinion as of now. . . . I would have to wait.”
3.App.1156. In response to questioning from the prosecutor, Juror 138
acknowledged that “it’s a pretty serious situation” to decide whether someone lives or
dies. 3.App.1157. But when asked whether he thought he could sentence someone to
death, he said, “I can’t really say for sure until I would know all the facts in front of
me, but . . . if that was the right decision to be made, then I would make the right
decision, yes.” 3.App.1158.
3. Defense motions to strike
On Friday, February 27, 2015, three days before the pretrial conference and
four days before the parties were to exercise their peremptory challenges, Tsarnaev
filed motions to strike Jurors 138 and 286 for cause based on newly discovered
evidence. Add.469-475. These motions followed on the heels of several motions
(and renewed motions) challenging five other provisionally qualified prospective
jurors. See Docs. 994, 1042, 1064, 1065, 1094. Tsarnaev argued that Juror 286’s
tweets were “contrary to answers given in her juror questionnaire” and “reveal[ed] a
community allegiance that is certain to color her view of the case.” Add.472. He
argued that Juror 286 should be stricken or “recalled for follow-up questioning.”
Add.475. And he argued that Juror 138 “was dishonest with the Court about
comments on Facebook and violated the Court’s instructions within just a few hours
of receiving them.” Add.470.
116
The government responded to all seven of Tsarnaev’s motions to strike in a
single filing. Sealed.App.95-101 (excerpts); Doc. 1106-1 (entire opposition). The
government argued that these motions were untimely because the defense failed to
object when Jurors 138 and 286 were provisionally qualified (on January 23 and
February 4, 2015) and filed their motions “just one or two business days before the
parties will exercise their peremptory challenges,” and that the untimeliness should
not be excused based on newly discovered evidence because the motions relied on
“social media postings . . . that predated voir dire, often by years.” Sealed.App.95, 96.
See 3.App.1329; 5.App.2078.
On the merits, the government argued that Juror 286’s tweets “express[ing]
gratitude to law enforcement and sympathy for the victims” did not indicate that she
“has a fixed opinion about guilt or punishment that she cannot set aside.”
Sealed.App.100. And it argued that Juror 286 “may well not have considered
‘tweeting’ (or especially ‘retweeting’) a photograph to be the same as ‘comment[ing]
on this case in a letter to the editor, in an online comment or post, or on a radio talk
show.’” Sealed.App.101. The government argued that Juror 138 did not violate the
court’s instructions by “simply reporting that Tsarnaev was ten feet in front of him at
one point and had a team of five or six lawyers.” Sealed.App.99.
The district court denied all of Tsarnaev’s motions to strike in an oral ruling:
As to the several defense motions, again, I reviewed the jury

questionnaires, I reviewed the transcripts. First of all, I agree with the
government that the objections are late and it is—we have a procedure.
117
We have done it with some care and taken the time to do it. And I think
the time to raise the issues was in the course of that process and not
thereafter. So I am not inclined—and will not—reopen the voir dire for
late discovery matters that could have been discovered earlier.
That said, considering the objections, I find them largely
speculative. There are various possible explanations and none of them is,
in my view, serious enough to warrant changing our provisional
qualification, and in particular, none of the issues that were raised seem
to me to suggest the presence of a bias that would be harmful to jury
impartiality in this case. They’re collateral matters about things, they
are—people close to them may have done, but none of them speak to
actual bias in the case. So we leave the roster as it is.
Add.321-22.
This Court reviews for abuse of discretion “the district court’s response to . . .
allegations of juror misconduct,” including the district court’s decision to grant or
deny an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458, 464 (1st Cir. 2017).
Because Tsarnaev requested further voir dire only with respect to Juror 286, Add.469-
75, his claim that the court should have questioned Juror 138 further is reviewed for
plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
C. The jurors did not make material false statements that would
support challenges for cause.
“One touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact,” and voir dire
“serves to protect that right by exposing possible biases.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc.
v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (plurality opinion). “Demonstrated bias in the
responses to questions on voir dire may result in a juror being excused for cause,” and
“[t]he necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors . . . is obvious.” Id. But a

118
juror’s inaccurate answer on voir dire does not automatically entitle a party to a new
trial. Instead, to obtain a new trial “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed
to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a
correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at
556. See Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 164-65 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Sampson II”).
“Jurors normally are subject to excusal for cause if they are biased or if they fail
to satisfy statutory qualifications.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 165. “Traditionally, courts
have distinguished between two types of challenges for cause: those based on actual
bias and those based on implied bias.” United States v. Mitchell, 690 F.3d 137, 142 (3d
Cir. 2012). See United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936) (“The bias of a
prospective juror may be actual or implied . . . .”).
Actual bias “is typically found when a prospective juror states that he can not
be impartial, or expresses a view adverse to one party’s position and responds
equivocally as to whether he could be fair and impartial despite that view.” Fields v.
Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see also United States v. Chandler, 996
F.2d 1073, 1102 (11th Cir. 1993) (actual bias can be demonstrated by “an express
admission of bias”).
Implied bias, by contrast, is “bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law,”
Wood, 299 U.S. at 133, and is limited to “exceptional” or “extreme” circumstances.
McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S.
209, 222 (1982) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Some examples of the “extreme
119
situations that would justify a finding of implied bias” include “a revelation that the
juror is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency, that the juror is a close relative
of one of the participants in the trial or the criminal transaction, or that the juror was
a witness or somehow involved in the criminal transaction.” Smith, 455 U.S. at 22
(O’Connor, J., concurring); see Amirault v. Fair, 968 F.2d 1404, 1406 (1st Cir. 1992)
(per curiam) (concluding that a juror’s blocking of a hurtful memory “does not rise to
the level of ‘exceptional’ or ‘extreme’ circumstances which may permit a finding of
implied bias”).
Although the McDonough plurality stated the standard in terms of a juror’s
dishonesty, the five concurring justices clarified that, even where a juror gives an
honest (but mistaken) response, a party can still attempt to show actual or implied
bias. See McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (noting that,
“regardless of whether a juror’s answer is honest or dishonest,” the district court may
afford a party “the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in exceptional
circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred”); id. at 558 (Brennan,
J., concurring in the judgment) (“Whether the juror answered a particular question on
voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or
intentional, are simply factors to be considered in this latter determination of actual
bias.”). But three of the concurring justices agreed with the plurality that “in most
cases, the honesty or dishonesty of a juror’s response is the best initial indicator of
whether the juror in fact was impartial.” Id. at 556 (Blackmun, J., concurring). As the
120
Ninth Circuit has put it, “an honest yet mistaken answer to a voir dire question rarely
amounts to a constitutional violation.” Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.
1998) (en banc). See Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 164 n.8 (“[I]n the absence of dishonesty,
post-trial relief, if available at all, will require a more flagrant showing of juror bias.”).
“Any inquiry into potential bias in the event of juror dishonesty must be both
context specific and fact specific.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 165. And “[a] number of
factors may be relevant in determining whether a juror has both the capacity and the
will to decide the case solely on the evidence.” Id. at 166. These factors include “the
juror’s interpersonal relationships, the juror’s ability to separate her emotions from
her duties, the similarity between the juror’s experiences and important facts
presented at trial, the scope and severity of the juror’s dishonesty, and the juror’s
motive for lying.” Id. (citations omitted). The ultimate inquiry is whether a
“reasonable judge” would conclude “that the juror lacked the capacity and the will to
decide the case based on the evidence (and that, therefore, a valid basis for excusal for
cause existed).” Id. at 167. “[E]ven an intentionally dishonest answer is not fatal, so
long as the falsehood does not bespeak a lack of impartiality.” Dyer, 151 F.3d at 973.
“The party seeking to upset the jury’s verdict has the burden of showing the requisite
level of bias by a preponderance of the evidence.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 166.
121
1. Juror 286’s voir dire statements do not justify a new trial.
Tsarnaev argues that “Juror 286’s responses to questions about her online
activity and her experience during the manhunt were false; material; and knowingly
dishonest.” Br. 123. That argument lacks merit.
a. Juror 286 was not dishonest.
McDonough’s first step requires Tsarnaev to show that Juror 286 “failed to
answer honestly a material question on voir dire.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554. “[A]
voir dire question is material if a response to it ‘has a natural tendency to influence, or
is capable of influencing,’ the judge’s impartiality determination.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d
at 165 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999)). The juror’s answers to
Questions 79 and 81, which asked whether prospective jurors had publicly
commented about the case or were personally affected by the charged crimes, were
“capable” of influencing the district court’s impartiality determination and were
therefore material.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s claim, however, the record does not show “knowing
dishonesty.” Br. 128. A juror may give “honest, but mistaken responses” when, “for
example, the juror misunderstands the wording of the question, fails to recall the
correct response, or is not asked a question that would necessitate disclosure of the
relevant information.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 164 n.8. See McDonough, 464 U.S. at
555 (noting that “jurors are not necessarily experts in English usage” and “may be
uncertain as to the meaning of terms which are relatively easily understood by lawyers
122
and judges”). The possibility of honest but mistaken responses is particularly high for
juror questionnaires, as opposed to in-court questioning. Prospective jurors may not
understand or carefully read the questions, and there is no opportunity for them to
ask clarifying questions. As the district court observed, questionnaires have inherent
limitations, and “may result in answers that appear more clear and unambiguous than
the juror may have intended or than is actually true.” Add.464-65.
With respect to Question 79, Juror 286 could have reasonably believed that
tweeting or retweeting about events surrounding the 2013 Boston Marathon was not
“comment[ing] on this case.” Add.553 (emphasis added). The word “case” ordinarily
refers to legal proceedings. See Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. 2014) (defining
“case” in the legal sense as “[a] legal action”); Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)
(defining “case” as “[a] civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit or controversy at law
or in equity”). Because Juror 286 had not tweeted about Tsarnaev’s criminal
proceedings, she had not tweeted about the “case” in that sense. Moreover, she
might have understood the question’s reference to “a letter to the editor, in an online
comment or post, or on a radio talk show,” Add.553, as referring to something more
formal than a tweet or retweet. Because the question did not clearly ask about tweets
or retweets relating to the bombing, as opposed to Tsarnaev’s legal case, Juror 286’s
answer “[I] don’t believe I have,” Add.553, was not dishonest.
As to Question 81, Juror 286 wrote “N/A” on her questionnaire when asked if
she, a family member, or a close friend was “personally affected by the Boston
123
Marathon bombings . . . including being asked to ‘shelter in place’ on April 19, 2013.”
Add. 554. Her questionnaire indicated, however, that she lived in Boston’s
Dorchester neighborhood with her two children. Add.537, 540; 2.Supp.App.198.
And during individual voir dire, Juror 286 explained that her home was within the
shelter-in-place area, though she was already at work outside the city by 6:00 a.m. on
April 19:
I work 20 miles out of the city. We were actually really busy. I was a
waitress at the time. I was kind of like joking with my boss I wanted to
go home. Boston was—I live in Boston, and Boston was on lockdown.
I’m, like, I have to go home. We’re on lockdown.
5.App.2016. Additionally, Juror 286’s April 19 tweet indicated that her family was
“locked down at home” while she was at work and that she eventually arrived home
and was “locked down w/them.” 25.App.11544. Although she may not have been
home for long before the shelter-in-place order was lifted at 6:00 p.m., see
12.App.5187, the questionnaire also asked not just whether she had sheltered in place,
but whether her “family member[s]” had, so her response of “N/A” was inaccurate.
But the record does not indicate “knowing dishonesty.” Tsarnaev Br. 128. If
Juror 286 had been trying to conceal the fact that she and her family sheltered in
place, she would not have volunteered that she “live[d] in Boston, and Boston was on
lockdown,” 5.App.2016, an answer that was not called for by the question asked. See
5.App.2016 (“At the restaurant, did your employees or coworkers, colleagues, talk
about the Boston Marathon bombing when it happened?”). Her openness indicates
124
that, whatever the reason for her inaccurate answer in the questionnaire, she was not
trying to mislead the court. And the inaccuracy does not suggest that she suffered
from a disqualifying prejudice.
b. Juror 286’s tweets and sheltering in place would not

have justified a for-cause strike.
In any event, Juror 286’s questionnaire answers do not entitle Tsarnaev to a
new trial because fully accurate answers would not “have provided a valid basis for a
challenge for cause.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556. McDonough “requires a party to
offer more than the mere possibility that, given the chance, counsel might have
removed a prospective juror.” Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181, 1185 (6th Cir. 1995).
Instead, the party must show that “the juror lacked the capacity and the will to decide
the case based on the evidence.” Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 165-66.
Juror 286’s bombing-related tweets would not have justified her dismissal. Her
expressions of empathy for the victims of the “tragedy” do not indicate that she could
not be impartial. 25.App.11541. Indeed, Tsarnaev’s own counsel called the bombings
“tragic” and “heinous,” and acknowledged the “unbearable grief, loss, and pain”
caused by Tsarnaev’s “senseless, horribly misguided acts.” 10.App.3975, 3976;
19.App.8762. And, contrary to Tsarnaev’s claim, Juror 286 did not “call[ ] Tsarnaev a
‘piece of garbage.’” Br. 115, 123. Rather, she retweeted a post written by someone
else that said, “Congratulations to all of the law enforcement professionals who
worked so hard and went through hell to bring in that piece of garbage.” Br. 107.
125
The focus of this tweet was more on the congratulations due to law enforcement than
on Tsarnaev. Moreover, Juror 286’s retweet was nearly two years before the trial in
this case, and it is inadequate to call into question her affirmation that she would
“[a]bsolutely” be able to apply the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof
at trial, 5.App.2009-2010, and that she would “follow the law” with respect to the
death penalty and “decide . . . by what [she had] heard in the courtroom,” 5.App.2013.
Nor would Juror 286 have been stricken for cause if she had disclosed in her
questionnaire that she had sheltered in place. Tsarnaev admits that “not every
[prospective] juror who sheltered in place was disqualified.” Br. 135. In fact, nine of
the 75 provisionally qualified jurors had sheltered in place, yet Tsarnaev moved to
strike only one of them (#98) for cause.30 See 3.SPA.1451; 2.App.630-33 (#54);
2.App.926-27, 950-952 (#98); 3.App.1093-94, 1122 (#129); 3.App.1113, 1122 (#134);
3.App.1264, 1331-32 (#156); 9.SPA.4671; 4.App.1564 (#172); 4.App.1536, 1570
(#195); 14.SPA.7749; 5.App.2071-78 (#283); 6.App.2295, 2487 (#340). His reasons
for moving to strike that juror included not only that the juror had sheltered in place
but also that the juror had indicated on his questionnaire that “he thought the
In fact, he affirmatively opposed government motions to strike three of

30
them. See 2.App.630-33; 3.App.1331-32; 5.App.2071-78.
126
defendant was guilty and . . . should be sentenced to death.” 2.App.950. And the
district court denied the motion.31 2.App.952.
Considering that not a single prospective juror was stricken for cause on the
basis of having sheltered in place—and that Tsarnaev accepted without protest eight
who did—he cannot show that an accurate answer in Juror 286’s questionnaire would
have resulted in her being stricken for cause. This is especially true considering that
Juror 286’s questionnaire indicated that she and her children lived within the
lockdown area, and individual voir dire specifically put Tsarnaev on notice that Juror
286’s neighborhood had been “on lockdown.” 5.App.2016; 2.Supp.App.198.
Counsel could have inquired further, but chose not to. Moreover, the fact that Juror
286 joked with her boss about the “lockdown” as an excuse to leave work early
suggest that the shelter-in-place order did not seriously affect her ability to serve as an
impartial juror. See 5.App.2016. Tsarnaev cannot satisfy McDonough’s requirement of
showing that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for
cause.
Tsarnaev also moved to strike prospective juror 429, a bank manager who
31
closed several area banks during the shelter-in-place order. 7.App.2810-11. But
Tsarnaev’s motion to strike also relied on the fact that the manager had attended on
the bank’s behalf a dinner honoring first responders. 7.App.2847-48. In counsel’s
view, the prospective juror’s “life has been too impacted professionally and . . . he’s
already taken part in honoring people who are likely to be prosecution witnesses.”
7.App.2848.
127
2. Juror 138 was not dishonest during voir dire, and his
Facebook postings did not justify a for-cause strike.
Tsarnaev’s arguments are similarly unavailing with respect to Juror 138.
Tsarnaev first claims that Juror 138 was dishonest during individual voir dire when he
said he had obeyed the district court’s instructions to avoid talking about the case. Br.
136. The district court asked whether Juror 138 had “been able” to “avoid any
discussion of the subject matter of the case with anybody,” and he replied, “I haven’t talked
to anybody about it.” 3.App.1146-47 (emphasis added). That was not dishonest.
Juror 138 did not discuss “the subject matter of the case” by reporting to his
Facebook friends that Tsarnaev had been “legit like ten feet infront of me . . . with his
5 or 6 team of lawyers.” 25.App.11537. He merely reported a fact about the jury
selection itself, consistent with the court’s clarification that Juror 138 “could talk
about coming here, obviously.” 3.App.1146.
Tsarnaev next claims (Br. 136-38) that Juror 138 “lie[d]” when he said people
were not “commenting about this trial” on Facebook. 3.App.1148. In response to
Juror 138’s Facebook post about the fact that he had been called for jury service—
which the district court’s instructions permitted—some of his Facebook “friends”
responded that it was “awesome” that Juror 138 might “get picked” and suggested
that Juror 138 “[p]lay the part so [he could] get on the jury then send [Tsarnaev] to jail
where he will be taken care of.” 25.App.11537. Those comments—which appeared
in the context of flippant and joking remarks by other commenters, and which Juror
128
138 never endorsed—quickly ended after Juror 138 indicated he would “rather not
take [his] chances” and another person warned that “should you get picked any
mention of anything can get you booted or call for mistrial.” 25.App.11537. It is not
clear that these passing comments about Juror 138’s possible jury service amounted to
comments “about this trial” that fell within the court’s question. 3.App.1148.
At the very least, the evidence does not show that any misstatement rose to the
level of knowing dishonesty. In his questionnaire, Juror 138 disclosed that some
people “were jealous” of him being summoned for jury duty and others told him
“[g]ood [l]uck.” Add.524. During voir dire, he explained that these comments came
from his extended relatives over dinner around Thanksgiving and that he “really
wasn’t too interested in talking about it” with them. 3.App.1158-60. His disclosure
of his family’s comments indicates that he was not trying to hide other people’s
comments in order to get on the jury.
In any event, even if Juror 138 had disclosed these Facebook comments, which
were publicly available to the defense, they would not have justified dismissal for
cause because they do not indicate that he was prejudiced. True, one person
recommended that Juror 138 “send [Tsarnaev] to jail where he will be taken care of,”
and another said, “If you’re really on jury duty, this guy[’]s got no shot in hell.”
25.App.11537. But two flippant remarks by Juror 138’s Facebook connections is far
from adequate to show that Juror 138 had a disqualifying bias. Juror 138 did not
express those views, nor did he control what comments people would make on his
129
post.32 The district court found that the facts did not “suggest the presence of a bias
that would be harmful to jury impartiality in this case.” Add.322. Indeed, Juror 138
stated that he would not “make any decisions” about guilt until he had “seen
everything that was presented,” 3.App.1151, and that his views on the death penalty
“would all depend on the outcome of everything presented,” 3.App.1155-56.
Tsarnaev also argues (Br. 140-41) that Juror 138’s “refusal to follow the Court’s
instructions” provided grounds for a for-cause challenge. Again, Tsarnaev’s
assumption that the juror disobeyed the court’s instructions is incorrect. In its
preliminary instructions, the court said, “You may tell others that you may be a juror
in the case,” but “you are not to discuss anything else, or allow anyone to discuss with
you anything else.” 1.App.182. Simply reporting on Facebook that he might be
chosen as a juror was consistent with the court’s instructions. And although it might
have been best not to mention that he was “like ten feet” from Tsarnaev and his
lawyers, this hardly counts as “discuss[ing] th[e] case,” 1.App.182, and certainly would
not have justified removal for cause. Moreover, Juror 138 told his friends that he
could not “say much else about it” because “that’s against the rules,” 25.App.11537,
indicating that he was trying to follow the court’s instructions.
Not all Facebook “friends” are “friends in the traditional sense.” Lane v.
32
Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 826 (9th Cir. 2012) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). “Some are
more in the nature of contacts, or acquaintances, or people we think may want to see
what we post.” Id.
130
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s claim, Juror 138 did not “disobey[ ] a pellucid Court
order” or “solicit[ ] others to ‘communicate about this case’ with him.” Br. 141-42.
He simply followed up on a Facebook thread that he had started before the court’s
preliminary instructions and indicated that he was not allowed to say much. And even
if his posts could be construed as violating the court’s instructions, they would not
have justified dismissal for cause. See United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 305 (3d Cir.
2011) (finding no prejudice where juror violated court’s instructions and posted on
Facebook about the trial).
3. The jurors’ post-trial social media comments do not indicate

dishonesty or prejudice.
Tsarnaev also points to several additional publicly available social media posts
by Jurors 286 and 138 after trial, Br. 117-18, none of which support his claim of juror
bias. A few hours after the jury rendered its penalty-phase verdict on May 15, 2015—
and the court instructed jurors that they were “now free to talk with [their] family and
friends about the case,” 19.App.8866—Juror 138 posted on Facebook, “That’s a
wrap,” 25.App.11622. Some of his Facebook friends expressed agreement with the
verdict, such as saying, “Great job [Juror 138]! Thanks for serving up some justice.”
25.App.11623. On the morning of Tsarnaev’s June 24, 2015 sentencing, Juror 138
posted that he was “[b]ack to boston today.... see the end of this...for now anyway.”
25.App.11623. After the sentencing, he posted the single word: “Scum.”
25.App.11624. That same day, Juror 286 changed her Facebook profile picture to a
131
“BOSTON STRONG” banner, but the picture said nothing about Tsarnaev or
serving on the jury. 25.App.11625. Juror 138 later posted, “At[ ]least they finally
moved that trash out of the state and making their way to the dungeon where he will
be forgotten about until his time comes.” 25.App.11624.
These Facebook posts, all of which took place after the jury rendered its
verdict, do not support Tsarnaev’s claim of juror bias. They do not suggest that
Jurors 286 or 138 were dishonest during voir dire or harbored biases against him prior
to trial that they were unable to set aside. They came only after the jurors had sat
through trial and had seen the full picture of the horror that Tsarnaev caused. At
most, these comments indicate that the jurors remained convinced at the time of
Tsarnaev’s sentencing that he deserved the death penalty. That is neither surprising
nor problematic. Cf. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 550-51 (1994) (noting that a
trial judge “may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill disposed
towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible
person,” but that “the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his
knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the
course of the proceedings”).
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err by
failing to conduct a more extensive inquiry.
The district court did not abuse its discretion (as to Juror 286) or plainly err (as
to Juror 138) by failing to conduct a more extensive inquiry into the claim of juror
132
dishonesty. “[W]here a defendant makes a colorable or plausible claim of juror
misconduct, the district court must investigate it.” Zimny, 846 F.3d at 464. “[T]he
court nonetheless has broad discretion to determine the type of investigation which
must be mounted.” United States v. Rodriguez, 675 F.3d 48, 58 (1st Cir. 2012)
(quotations omitted). “The trial judge may, but need not, convene a fullblown
evidentiary hearing.” Id. (quoting United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 258 (1st Cir.
1990)). “Instead, the court’s ‘primary obligation is to fashion a responsible procedure
for ascertaining whether misconduct actually occurred and if so, whether it was
prejudicial.’” Id. (quoting Boylan, 898 F.2d at 258). The ultimate inquiry is
“reasonableness: did the trial court fashion, and then even-handedly implement, a
sensible procedure reasonably calculated to determine whether something untoward
had occurred?” United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242, 249-50 (1st Cir. 2001).
Tsarnaev argues that the district court’s ruling “deserves no deference” because
the court “undertook no inquiry and made no specific findings at all.” Br. 143-44.
He is incorrect. Before ruling on Tsarnaev’s motions to disqualify multiple jurors, the
district court “reviewed the jury questionnaires,” “reviewed the transcripts,” and
“consider[ed] the objections,” before finding them “largely speculative.” Add.321-22.
That the court believed no further hearing was necessary does not mean its
conclusions are not entitled to deference.
Tsarnaev contends that, in any event, the district court abused its discretion by
resting its decision to deny a hearing “on multiple legal errors.” Br. 144. First, he
133
asserts that the court “was incapable, as a matter of law, of determining that [Juror
286] was impartial without knowing more.” Id. Contrary to his contention, this
Court’s decision in French does not require a district court always to determine “why [a
juror] answered as she did.” Id. at 145 (quoting United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111,
118 (1st Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 949 (2019)). French addressed a juror’s failure
in a marijuana-manufacturing case to disclose that her son was a small-time marijuana
trafficker. French, 904 F.3d at 114-15. The Court said, “we do not see how a court
can say whether the juror in this instance was unduly biased without knowing why she
answered as she did.” Id. at 118. But French did not establish a categorical rule. And
the district court here concluded that, although there were “various possible
explanations” for the prospective jurors’ answers, “none of them is . . . serious
enough to warrant changing our provisional qualification, and in particular, none of
the issues that were raised seem to me to suggest the presence of a bias.” Add.322.
Next, Tsarnaev argues that the district court committed legal error by
“ignor[ing] the ‘similarity’ between Juror 286’s experience during the lockdown and
‘important facts presented at trial,”’ as well as “the ‘scope and severity’ of both jurors’
dishonesty.” Br. 145 (quoting Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 166). He also contends that the
court “neglected that ‘juror dishonesty, by itself . . . can be a powerful indicator of
bias.’” Id. (quoting Sampson II, 724 F.3d at 167). These claims are simply
disagreements with the court’s ultimate resolution of his factual claims, not legal
errors that themselves show an abuse of discretion.

134
The ultimate inquiry on appeal is “reasonableness,” Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d at
249, and the district court’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The
district court gave the parties seven days to review the jury questionnaires once they
were completed. Sealed.App.97. The court then conducted 21 days of individual voir
dire during which the defense had ample opportunity to ask about publicly available
social media posts and to make oral motions to strike. Yet Tsarnaev waited until the
Friday before the pretrial conference to move to strike Jurors 138 and 286. The
challenge to Juror 138 was based on fairly innocuous postings about being called for
jury duty. And the challenge to Juror 286 was based on an inaccuracy in her
questionnaire about whether her family sheltered in place—a fact that she volunteered
on voir dire and that Tsarnaev did not treat as a ground for disqualifying other
prospective jurors. The district court properly concluded that these challenges were
untimely, and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying further voir dire after
reviewing the record and concluding that none of the alleged misstatements
“suggest[ed] the presence of a bias.”33 Add.322.
If this Court were to conclude that the district court’s inquiry was inadequate,
33
remand would be the appropriate remedy. As this Court observed in French, “we are
aware of no case in which, faced with a potentially biased juror and the need to
investigate further, an appellate court has ordered a new trial without first permitting
the district court to investigate.” French, 904 F.3d at 120.
135
III. The District Court Acted Within Its Discretion by Dismissing

Prospective Juror 355.
Tsarnaev contends that the district court improperly dismissed one prospective
juror (Juror 355) for cause. Br. 161-81. The district court acted well within its
discretion in concluding that Juror 355’s opposition to the death penalty substantially
impaired his ability to serve as a juror in this case. Juror 355 gave hesitant and
carefully hedged answers about the death penalty, refused to answer hypothetical
questions, and was unable to think of any category of crimes beyond genocide where
he believed the death penalty would be appropriate.
A. Background
Juror 355 had worked as a criminal defense attorney for 22 years, most recently
for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, Massachusetts’s public defender
agency. 6.App.2442, 2454. When asked on his questionnaire about his views of the
death penalty, he wrote,
Sealed.Add.70. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1
being “a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed” and 10 being a belief
that it should be imposed for all cases of “intentional murder”), Juror 355 circled the
number 2. Sealed.Add.70. In response to Question 90, he circled option (c), which
read, “I am opposed to the death penalty but I could vote to impose it if I believed
that the facts and the law in a particular case called for it.” Sealed.Add.71. In
response to Question 92, he said,
136
Sealed.Add.72. Question 95 asked, “If you found Mr.
Tsarnaev guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate
punishment for Mr. Tsarnaev, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?”
Sealed.Add.72. Juror 355 checked the box for “I am not sure,” and then wrote,
Sealed.Add.72.
During individual voir dire, Juror 355 said he did not think his work as a public
defender would affect his impartiality. 6.App.2442-43. When asked about his views
on the death penalty, he said, “I mean, if I was asked to vote on it, I would probably
vote against it because of my belief that it is overused.” 6.App.2447. As to why he
marked “2” on a scale of 1 to 10, he explained, “[W]hen I found out I was going to be
in this pool, I did a lot of soul-searching, and I came to the conclusion that because I
believe it should be in the most rarest of situations, that’s why I’m down at that end
. . . .” 6.App.2448. “[B]ut,” he added, “I could foresee situations where I might
consider it appropriate.” 6.App.2448. When discussing Question 90, the district
court asked, “So you can envision there could be a case where you could vote in favor
of the death penalty?” 6.App.2448. Juror 355 said, “After a lot of thought and soul-
searching, I think I could.” 6.App.2448.
The district court asked Juror 355 about his statement that he could not
“possibly prejudge” Tsarnaev’s guilt, explaining that what “the question may have
137
been getting at” was whether “if you had intellectually concluded the death penalty
was appropriate, could you actually vote for it.” 6.App.2449. Juror 355 responded, “I
find it very difficult to answer that without hearing everything.” 6.App.2449.
The government picked up this line of questioning, explaining that “[t]he
question is assuming that [Tsarnaev is] guilty and that you found that the death
penalty was appropriate.” 6.App.2450. Juror 355 responded, “I guess part of my
problem is that I’m disturbed that I have to assume his guilt at this stage without
hearing anything and to prejudge the particular case I’m asked to come and judge. I
don’t know that I really want to exercise that fantasy.” 6.App.2450. The district court
then stepped in to “generalize” the question, asking, “If you were sitting on a death
penalty case . . . and the defendant is found guilty of a capital crime, and you
concluded that for that defendant and for that crime the death penalty was an
appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote to impose it in that case?”
6.App.2450-51. Juror 355 replied, “If, after hearing the Court’s instructions, and if I
believed it . . . fit into one of those rare cases where I believed the death penalty
should be imposed, having understood the law as given to me, then, yes, I could vote
to impose the death penalty.” 6.App.2451.
When asked whether he could “imagine any case that [he] would think is
appropriate for the death penalty,” Juror 355 said, “I think Slobodan Milosevic was
138
close, if not a prime example.”34 6.App.2451. The prosecutor asked, “So genocide?”
6.App.2451. Juror 355 said, “Genocide’s a good starting point,” but “I have not come
up with a list of cases where I think it would be appropriate.” 6.App.2451-2452.
When asked by the defense whether he could “actually vote to impose” the death
penalty in an appropriate case, Juror 355 said, “I think I could.” 6.App.2459. When
asked if he was “pretty confident of that answer,” he said, “Yes.” 6.App.2459.
The government subsequently moved to strike Juror 355 “for his bias” based
on his role as a criminal defense attorney and “also for his death penalty answers.”
6.App.2500. The prosecution argued that Juror 355 was “substantially impaired” in
his ability to impose the death penalty because the “only time . . . he could think that
he would impose the death penalty could be in the case of genocide.” 6.App.2502-03.
The defense opposed the motion, pointing out that Juror 355 said he could “make a
decision in a given set of facts” and impose the death penalty. 6.App.2504.
The district court granted the government’s motion. 6.App.2505-06. The
court explained that Juror 355’s “career as a criminal defense lawyer wouldn’t by itself
be a factor,” although it “may explain where his alignment is on these issues.”
6.App.2505. Rather, the court based its decision on Juror 355’s “answers to the
question” and the court’s “sense of him.” 6.App.2505. In the court’s view, Juror 355
was not adequately “open to the possibility of the death penalty.” 6.App.2505. The
34
18.SPA.9692.
139
court noted the “genocide issue” and concluded that “the zone of possibility is so
narrow” that “I think you would have to regard [Juror 355] as substantially impaired.”
6.App.2505. The court said, “[I]n the end, it was not convincing to me that he was
going to be truly open in the way that would be necessary.” 6.App.2506.
This Court “review[s] a trial court’s for-cause dismissal of a juror for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13, 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (“Sampson I”). As
explained further below, review in this context is very deferential. Id.
C. The district court reasonably concluded that Juror 355 was

substantially impaired by his views regarding the death penalty.
In Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), the Supreme Court determined
that jurors in a capital case must be willing to “consider returning a verdict of death,”
and that jurors who are invariably “opposed to capital punishment” may therefore be
excused for cause. Id. at 518, 520. The Court held, however, that a capital
defendant’s right to an impartial jury prohibits the exclusion of venire members
“simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed
conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.” Id. at 522. As the Court
subsequently explained, the relevant inquiry is “whether the juror’s views would
prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance
with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985)
(quotations omitted). This standard “does not require that a juror’s bias be proved
140
with ‘unmistakable clarity.’” Id. at 424. Instead, a court may excuse a juror for cause
“where the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror
would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law.” Id. at 425-26. The
wrongful exclusion of a juror under Witherspoon is not subject to harmless-error
review, but requires vacating the death sentence. Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 667-
68 (1987) (plurality opinion).
When a defendant raises a Witherspoon claim, “reviewing courts are to accord
deference to the trial court,” which “is in a position to assess the demeanor of the
venire, and of the individuals who compose it, a factor of critical importance in
assessing the attitude and qualifications of potential jurors.” Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S.
1, 7, 9 (2007). See Witt, 469 U.S. at 428 (noting that the trial court’s judgment as to
“whether a venireman is biased” is “based upon determinations of demeanor and
credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province”). Even when there is a
“lack of clarity in the printed record . . . , there will be situations where the trial judge
is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to
faithfully and impartially apply the law.” Id. at 425-26. “[T]his is why deference must
be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror.” Id. at 426.
The case for deference is particularly strong in the Witherspoon context because
the risk of actual constitutional harm flowing from a single Witherspoon error is low.
Ordinarily, a claim of juror partiality focuses on “the jurors who ultimately sat,” not
on those who were excluded. Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 86 (1988). But
141
Witherspoon reasoned that the government should not be allowed to use for-cause
strikes to “[c]ull[ ] all who harbor doubts about the wisdom of capital punishment”
from the jury. Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 520. That is because the jury in capital cases
should “express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or
death.” Id. at 519.
But the erroneous exclusion of a single juror under Witherspoon does not suggest
that the defendant has been deprived of an impartial jury. Assuming an otherwise
proper jury selection process, an equally qualified juror will take the excluded juror’s
place. And where a defendant is “convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat, he
has not been deprived of any . . . constitutional right.” See United States v. Martinez-
Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 307 (2000). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that
Witherspoon errors are excepted from the harmless-error rule and result in automatic
reversal. Gray, 481 U.S. at 667-68 (plurality opinion); id. at 669-70 (Powell, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). But that is because the existence
of peremptory challenges makes it too difficult to assess harmlessness in the
Witherspoon context, not because a single “Witherspoon exclusion” necessarily yields a
biased jury. See Gray, 481 U.S. at 665-66 (majority opinion), 668 (plurality opinion);
Ross, 487 U.S. at 87-88. Because the institutional cost of finding a single Witherspoon
error is so high—automatic reversal requiring a new penalty phase—the deferential
standard is particularly appropriate.
142
1. The deferential standard applies.
Tsarnaev argues that the district court’s “disqualification ruling merits no
deference.” Br. 174. He first points (Br. 174) to Uttecht’s statement that “[t]he need
to defer to the trial court’s ability to perceive jurors’ demeanor does not foreclose the
possibility that a reviewing court may reverse the trial court’s decision where the
record discloses no basis for a finding of substantial impairment.” Uttecht, 551 U.S. at
20. But Uttecht went on to say that “where, as here, there is lengthy questioning of a
prospective juror and the trial court has supervised a diligent and thoughtful voir dire,
the trial court has broad discretion.” Id. Far from the situation contemplated in
Uttecht—where there is no record support for the trial court’s decision—this case
involved “lengthy questioning” as part of a “diligent and thoughtful voir dire.” Id. The
district court therefore enjoyed “broad discretion.” Id.
Next, Tsarnaev quotes Gray’s statement that “deference is inappropriate where
. . . the trial court’s findings are dependent on an apparent misapplication of federal
law, and are internally inconsistent.” Br. 176 (quoting Gray, 481 U.S. at 661 n.10). He
argues that the district court’s ruling in this case “depended on the erroneous legal
premise that Juror 355, having given one example of a death-appropriate case, had to
give others.” Br. 176.
The district court did not misapply the law. In Gray, the trial court struck a
juror who was “clearly qualified” under Witherspoon in an attempt to remedy its
previous failure to strike several jurors who were not qualified. Gray, 481 U.S. at 654-
143
55, 659 (quotations omitted). The Court gave no deference to the trial court’s
decision, which was clearly at odds with Witherspoon and Witt. As the Court observed,
“we cannot condone the ‘correction’ of one error by the commitment of another.” Id.
at 663. Here, by contrast, the district court did not “misappl[y] federal law.” Id. at
661 n.10. The court applied the correct standard and found as a matter of fact that
Juror 355 did not meet that standard because he was impaired in his ability to impose
the death penalty. 6.App.2505.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s suggestion (Br. 177), there is nothing wrong with a
court inquiring into the general categories of cases in which a person opposed to the
death penalty could nevertheless vote for it. In Uttecht, the defense asked the
prospective juror for examples of the “severe situations” in which the death penalty
was appropriate. Uttecht, 551 U.S. at 14. The juror mentioned situations where the
defendant “actually wanted to die” or “would reviolate if released.” Id. When
informed that the defendant would never be released, the juror was unable to say
whether he could impose the death penalty. Id. at 15. Although the prospective juror
eventually stated that he could consider the death penalty and follow the law, id., the
Supreme Court concluded that “the trial court acted well within its discretion in
granting the State’s motion to excuse” the juror, id. at 17.
Consistent with Uttecht, the courts of appeals have regularly considered (and
deferred to district courts that considered) prospective jurors’ unwillingness to impose
the death penalty beyond narrow classes of cases as evidence that the juror would be
144
incapable of fairly considering the death penalty. See United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d
775, 793 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197, 211 (2d Cir. 2008); United
States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923, 937 (10th Cir. 2008); Morales v. Mitchell, 507 F.3d 916, 942
(6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Moore, 149 F.3d 773, 780 (8th Cir. 1998).35 Thus, the
district court here did not apply “an erroneous legal premise” when it considered
Juror 355’s inability to think of cases beyond genocide in which he could impose the
death penalty.
Tsarnaev also contends (Br. 167, 177) that the district court later changed its
mind when it said, “I think it’s a mistake to try to get people to try to characterize the
circumstances that they think would justify [the death penalty] or not.” 9.App.3889.
The district court made this comment when it denied the government’s motion to
strike Juror 671 for cause. 9.App.3886-89. Juror 671 was opposed to the death
35
Tsarnaev cites several cases that, he says, “approve[d] courts’ refusal to ask
prospective jurors for examples.” Br. 177. But those cases are inapposite. In United
States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 614 (4th Cir. 2010), the district court declined to ask
“what kind of case does or does not deserve the death penalty,” but the defendant did
not challenge on appeal the omission of that specific part of his proposed question.
In Spivey v. Head, 207 F.3d 1263, 1273 n.8 (11th Cir. 2000), the trial court did not
permit the defense to ask, “In what type of cases do you think the death penalty
would be appropriate?” But it did allow other questions such as, “Do you feel the
death penalty should be limited to certain types of crimes?” Id. Given the “breadth
of the questions permitted,” the Eleventh Circuit found “the voir dire constitutionally
adequate.” Id. And in McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1329 (6th Cir. 1996), overruled
on other grounds by In re Abdur’Raham, 392 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2004), the district court
disallowed the question, “In what kinds of cases do you think the death penalty is
warranted?” But it allowed questions that were “equally illuminating.” Id. at 1330.
The fact that courts may have discretion in certain circumstances to refuse to ask such
questions does not mean that the district court was required to do so here.
145
penalty but mentioned that “some crimes are just so heinous that, you know, maybe
the death penalty would be appropriate.” 9.App.3855. When the government asked
whether he was referring to someone “like Hitler,” the district court sustained a
defense objection to the question “as phrased.” 9.App.3855. But the court allowed
the rephrased question: “When you say ‘some crimes are so heinous,’ say more about
that. What do you mean?” 9.App.3855. The juror replied that he meant
“unbelievably cruel, cold-blooded murder . . . on a big scale.” 9.App.3855. In
concluding that Juror 671 was qualified, the court specifically mentioned the juror’s
openness to the death penalty for “unbelievably cruel, cold-blooded murder on a big
scale.” 9.App.3889.
The context therefore makes clear that the district court did not think it was
categorically a “mistake” to ask about broad categories of crimes for which the person
would be able to impose the death penalty. See 9.App.3872, 3875 (asking similar
questions of another juror). And, at the very least, the court’s suggestion that such
questions are “mistake[n]” does not establish a legal error sufficient to make deference
inappropriate.
Nor is Tsarnaev correct that the district court’s findings were “internally
inconsistent” because the court “qualified pro-death penalty jurors . . . without
requiring those jurors to provide examples of the circumstances in which they would
deem a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate.” Br. 178. Tsarnaev cites the
example of Prospective Juror 260, who was generally in favor of the death penalty
146
(rating himself as a “7” on Question 89’s scale of “strongly oppose” to “strongly
favor”), but could not immediately come up with circumstances where the death
penalty would not be appropriate. Br. 178-79. Tsarnaev argues that “[i]t was illogical
and inequitable to grant the government’s cause challenge to Juror 355 because he
suggested one non-exclusive example, while denying the defense’s cause challenge to
Juror 260, who could muster none at all.” Br. 179.
Tsarnaev ignores important differences between Jurors 355 and 260. Juror 355
believed the death penalty is and would be appropriate only in
or “the most rarest of situations.” Sealed.Add.72; 6.App.2448.
It was appropriate to ask what those situations were to ensure that Juror 355 was not
merely thinking of extreme examples like Hitler and Stalin, see Antwine v. Delo, 54 F.3d
1357, 1369 (8th Cir. 1995), or where the defendant himself wanted to die, see Uttecht,
551 U.S. at 14.
Juror 260, by contrast, did not believe that capital punishment should be
imposed in all but the “rarest of situations.” Instead, he said it was “[s]ometimes
appropriate” and he was “not for or against the death penalty” and could vote for
whatever was “called for by the facts and the law in the case.” 13.SPA.7107-08. His
inability on the spot to think of situations where the death penalty “would not be
appropriate” for someone “convicted of willful murder” did not raise the concern that
he would apply the death penalty in every case. 5.App.1932. As he explained, “The
outline you gave of how to make the decision of aggravating and mitigating factors
147
seems a reasonable one to me, and I would want to hear what, in fact, they have
done.” 5.App.1933. This was a far more open-minded attitude than that displayed by
Juror 355.
At the very least, this supposed “inconsistency” in treatment between Juror
355, who had serious reservations about the death penalty, and Juror 260, who said
the death penalty was “[s]ometimes appropriate,” does not merit giving no deference.
In almost any capital case, a party could argue that the exclusion of one juror is
inconsistent with the inclusion of another. But this is nothing like the situation in
Gray, where the trial court denied the state’s for-cause challenges to five jurors who
were “unequivocally opposed” to the death penalty, yet struck a juror who said she
could vote for the death penalty. Gray, 481 U.S. at 653 n.5, 655 n.7. Gray’s observation
that “deference is inappropriate where . . . the trial court’s findings are . . . internally
inconsistent,” Gray, 481 U.S. at 661 n.10, does not apply to a case like this one, where
the defendant simply takes issue with the district court’s factual findings regarding
specific jurors.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
Tsarnaev does not assert that he could prevail under the deferential standard
that applies here, nor could he. Juror 355’s answers in his questionnaire and during
individual voir dire evinced significant hesitation regarding the death penalty. He said
that the death penalty is Sealed.Add.72, though he “could foresee
situations” where he “might consider it appropriate.” 6.App.2448. When asked if he

148
could “envision” a case where he “could vote in favor of the death penalty,” he said,
“After a lot of thought and soul-searching, I think I could.” 6.App.2448 (emphasis
added). This hesitancy alone provides significant support for the district court’s for-
cause strike.
Tsarnaev claims that Juror 355 showed “no equivocation” and “was ‘confident’
in his ability” to impose the death penalty. Br. 172-73 (quoting 6.App.2459). He is
incorrect. Juror 355 twice indicated that he had to do “a lot of soul-searching,”
6.App.2448, and it was only when Tsarnaev’s counsel was trying to rehabilitate him
that he indicated he was “pretty confident” of his answer that he thought he could
actually impose the death penalty. 6.App.2459. “[I]solated statements indicating an
ability to impose the death penalty do not suffice to preclude the prosecution from
striking for cause a juror whose responses, taken together, indicate a lack of such
ability . . . .” Morales, 507 F.3d at 941. See Uttecht, 551 U.S. at 18 (“Juror Z’s
assurances that he would consider imposing the death penalty and would follow the
law do not overcome the reasonable inference from his other statements that in fact
he would be substantially impaired . . . .”).
Moreover, when the court and the government asked hypothetical questions
that went to the crux of the Witherspoon inquiry, Juror 355 resisted answering them.
The questionnaire asked whether he could conscientiously vote for the death penalty
“[i]f [he] found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and . . . decided that the death penalty was the
appropriate punishment.” Sealed.Add.72 (emphasis added). Rather than answer this

149
clearly hypothetical question, Juror 355 said
Sealed.Add.72. When the
district court asked whether he could “actually vote for” the death penalty “if [he] had
intellectually concluded the death penalty was appropriate,” he said it would be “very
difficult to answer that without hearing everything.” 6.App.2449 (emphasis added).
And when the prosecutor pointed out that “[t]he question is assuming that he’s guilty
and that you found the death penalty was appropriate,” Juror 355 responded, “I’m
disturbed that I have to assume his guilt at this stage” and said he did not “want to
exercise that fantasy.” 6.App.2450.
As a long-time criminal defense attorney, Juror 355 clearly knew how to ask
(and presumably answer) hypothetical questions, yet he consistently refused to answer
them. It was only when the district court rephrased the question without reference to
Tsarnaev that Juror 355 finally said he could “vote to impose the death penalty” if he
“believed it . . . fit into one of those rare cases where [he] believed the death penalty
should be imposed.” 6.App.2451. Even this answer was carefully hedged, if not
tautological. In light of Juror 355’s resistance to the questioning, the district court
could reasonably question whether he “was going to be truly open” to imposing the
death penalty. 6.App.2506.
It was also reasonable for the district court to consider Juror 355’s inability to
identify any cases beyond genocide in which he considered the death penalty
appropriate. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s contention, the district court did not

150
“misunderst[and] Juror 355’s answers” or “f[i]nd, contrary to what Juror 355 actually
said, that he would entertain the possibility of capital punishment only in cases
involving genocide.” Br. 162. The court knew from Juror 355’s answers that
genocide was a “starting point,” not necessarily the “ending point.” Br. 161, 176. But
the fact remains that Juror 355 was unable to give any other examples. And the
court’s observation that Juror 355’s “zone of possibility” was “narrow,” 6.App.2505,
is supported by Juror 355’s repeated statements that the death penalty is appropriate
only in Sealed.Add.72, and “the most rarest of situations,”
6.App.2448. See Sealed.Add.70 );
6.App.2451 (“rare cases”).
Other courts of appeals have upheld the exclusion of jurors who, like Juror
355, are unable to identify situations in which they could impose the death penalty
beyond particularly severe crimes such as genocide. See Rodriguez, 581 F.3d at 793
(“[g]enocide” or “somebody like Hitler or Stalin or a person in Bosnia”); Fell, 531
F.3d at 211 (“‘unforgivable type[s] of war crimes’ like genocide or mass murder”);
Fields, 516 F.3d at 937 (“genocide; torture; and willful killing of children”); Morales,
507 F.3d at 942 (“mass murder or torture”). The district court acted well within its
discretion by considering Juror 355’s inability to give further examples.
Finally, the district court was able to observe Juror 355’s demeanor and
specifically noted that “the value of this process is you can sit here five feet away”
from the prospective juror. 6.App.2505. In light of the “deference” that “must be
151
paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror,” Witt, 469 U.S. at 426, Tsarnaev
cannot show an abuse of discretion.
3. Tsarnaev’s other assertions have no merit.
Tsarnaev makes a few additional assertions that are beside the point. He first
claims that “the government took full advantage of the law to purge the venire of
people who . . . opposed capital punishment,” pointing out that the district court
“sustained 27 of the government’s Witt challenges.” Br. 179. Of course, the
government “has a strong interest in having jurors who are able to apply capital
punishment within the framework [the] law prescribes,” Uttecht, 551 U.S. at 9, and
there is nothing wrong with the government making (and the district court sustaining)
valid motions to strike. The fact that the court sustained 27 government motions is
hardly surprising considering that the court interviewed 256 prospective jurors in a
jurisdiction where, as Tsarnaev points out, “most residents . . . oppose[ ] capital
punishment.” Br. 179. And Tsarnaev does not assert that any of these other
exclusions were improper under Witherspoon.
Tsarnaev also claims that the government “used 18 of its 20 peremptory strikes
on jurors who had expressed some opposition to, or uncertainty regarding, imposing
the death penalty.” Br. 179-80. But he does not explain how that is improper. The
government has the “right to remove peremptorily jurors whom [it] believes may not
be willing to impose lawful punishment.” Gray, 481 U.S. at 671 (Powell, J.
concurring). “Absent intentional discrimination violative of the Equal Protection

152
Clause, parties should be free to exercise their peremptory strikes for any reason, or
no reason at all.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 374 (1991) (O’Connor, J.,
concurring in the judgment). See Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 481 (1990) (noting
that each party may “use peremptory challenges to eliminate prospective jurors
belonging to groups it believes would unduly favor the other side”). And, of course,
Tsarnaev had the same opportunity “to remove jurors he believe[d] may be
prosecution oriented.” Gray, 481 U.S. at 671 (Powell, J., concurring).
Unsurprisingly, then, the jury consisted mostly of people with neutral views on
the death penalty, with ten of the 12 seated jurors indicating they were “not for or
against the death penalty,” Add.557; 26.App.11707, 11735, 11763, 11791, 11819,
11847, 11875, 11903, 11959, and two indicating they were “in favor of the death
penalty but . . . could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment . . . if [they] believed
that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case,” Add.529;
26.App.11931. 36 Thus, contrary to Tsarnaev’s claim, the government did not
“produce[ ] a jury uncommonly willing to condemn a man to die,” Br. 180-81
(quoting Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 520-21). And he cites no authority suggesting that
the government used its peremptory challenges improperly.
Similarly, five of the six alternates said they were “not for or against” the
36
death penalty, 26.App.11987, 12015, 12071, 12099, 12127, and one indicated she was
“opposed to the death penalty but . . . could vote to impose it,” 26.App.12043.
153
IV. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Limiting

the Questions Asked on Voir Dire.
Tsarnaev contends that the district court prevented him “from asking voir dire
questions essential to seating impartial jurors.” Br. 182 (capitalization omitted). First,
he claims that the district court “misapplied” Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), by
not allowing him to “ask venirepersons whether they could take into account
mitigating evidence and consider a sentence of life imprisonment not just in the
abstract, but in light of the specific allegations in his case.” Br. 182. Second, he
claims that the court erred by denying his request “to ask prospective jurors what they
had seen, read, or heard about his case.” Br. 183. Neither argument has merit.
Morgan does not require fact-specific questioning, and, in any event, the potential
jurors were aware of the critical aggravating facts in this case when they answered the
general Morgan questions. Nor does this Court’s precedent require detailed inquiry
into what prospective jurors have seen and heard about a case. In fact, the Supreme
Court has specifically rejected the claim that such an inquiry is required. Mu’Min v.
Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 417 (1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
A. Background
Before voir dire, the parties submitted a joint proposed questionnaire that
asked whether prospective jurors “would vote for [the death penalty] in every case in
which the person charged is eligible for a death sentence.” 24.App.11395. The
proposed questionnaire also asked, “If you were on the jury and you decided that life
154
imprisonment without possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for Mr.
Tsarnaev, could you vote for life imprisonment without possibility of release?”
24.App.11397. The district court approved slight variations of these questions, which
made it into the final questionnaire. See Add.529, 531.
Tsarnaev also moved to add an additional question:
[After No. 100]: State whether you agree or disagree with the following
statements:
The death penalty is the ONLY appropriate punishment for ANYONE

who:
A. murders a child.  Agree  Disagree

B. deliberately murders a police officer.  Agree  Disagree
C. deliberately commits murder as an act of terrorism.  Agree 
Disagree
Add.432. Tsarnaev argued that this question was useful to “probe for a common
form of bias—the belief that the death penalty should always or automatically be
imposed for certain types of murder.” Add.433 (emphasis omitted).
In a separate memorandum of law, Tsarnaev argued that he should be allowed
to ask prospective jurors whether they could consider life imprisonment with respect
to each of the “charged offenses and the statutory aggravating factors that the
government has actually alleged.” 24.App.11310 (emphasis omitted). For example,
he suggested that jurors should be asked whether they could consider life
imprisonment for a person charged with using a weapon of mass destruction resulting
in death where (a) “[t]he defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous,
155
cruel, or depraved manner,” (b) “the killings were committed after substantial
planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person or commit an act of
terrorism,” (c) “the defendant intentionally killed or attempted to kill more than one
person in a single criminal episode,” or (d) “one of the victims was particularly
vulnerable due to youth.” 24.App.11308.
The government argued that Tsarnaev’s proposed questions were improper
because they effectively “ask[ed] jurors to commit (or ‘precommit’) to a penalty
decision before they have heard any mitigation evidence or been told that the law
requires them to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors.” 24.App.11407. The
government contended that such questions—sometimes referred to as “stakeout”
questions, see Richmond v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2004)—are “certain to
confuse and mislead venire members about their duty to weigh and consider the
evidence.” 24.App.11410.
The district court denied Tsarnaev’s requested additions to the jury
questionnaire, concluding that “the questionnaire is too clumsy” and that “those kinds
of issues, I think, can be addressed in voir dire.” Add.319. Tsarnaev then filed
several sets of additional requested questions, which included questions asking
whether jurors could consider life imprisonment in light of the particular offenses and
aggravating factors in this case. See Add.448 (“us[ing] a weapon of mass destruction
to cause the deaths of several victims”); 449 (“deliberately committ[ing] an act of
terrorism that killed multiple victims”); id. (“kill[ing] a child by deliberately using a
156
weapon of mass destruction”); 454 (“using a weapon of mass destruction to carry out
an intentional killing”); 455 (“assume for the moment that . . . the defendant engaged
in substantial planning to kill and to commit an act of terrorism, he intentionally killed
and tried to kill multiple victims, and he killed a child”); 456 (“intentionally
murder[ing] a police officer in the line of duty”).
The district court denied Tsarnaev’s repeated requests to ask these and similar
questions. See Add.108, 116, 123, 127-29, 134, 142-44. See also Add.147-49 (noting
the defense’s standing objection). As the court explained:
I do think . . . drawing attention to specific circumstances, either by the

nature of the offense or by the identifying categories of victims and so
on, is more specific than is called for and gets into the stakeout territory.
I would, I guess, add that the jurors know that this is about a
bombing, and they know that there are three people who were killed in
the bombing. So in light of what we’ve also heard about, what people
understand from the media about the case, is they have those specifics
already in their minds as they would answer the question about the
ability to meaningfully consider life imprisonment in this case. In other
words, . . . even just as it’s been framed in my preliminary instructions,
by telling them what the offenses were in general, they have those
specifics, and I think that’s sufficient under the circumstances.
Add.120-21.
As to pretrial publicity, the parties’ proposed questionnaire included a question
asking, “What did you know about the facts of this case before you came to court
today (if anything)?” 24.App.11391. The district court said the question “might get
very interesting answers,” but could “cause trouble because it will be so unfocused”
and would likely yield “unmanageable data.” Add.304-05. The court decided to “do
157
without” the question. Add.307. But the court included what became Question 77,
which asked whether, “[a]s a result of what [they] ha[d] seen or read in the news
media,” prospective jurors had already “formed an opinion” that Tsarnaev was
“guilty” or “not guilty” and “should” or “should not” receive the death penalty. See
Add.525.
Before individual voir dire, Tsarnaev proposed questions that asked for details
about prospective jurors’ media exposure, such as, “What stands out in your mind
from everything you have heard, read or seen about the Boston Marathon bombing
and the events the followed it?” and “How did you first learn about the bombing at
the Marathon?” Add.450. See id. (suggesting follow-up questions asking what jurors
remembered about “how the bombings occurred,” “the people who are supposed to
have carried it out,” “any of the bombing victims who died,” “any of the victims who
were hurt but survived,” “the MIT police officer who was killed several days later,”
“the defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,” and “any members of Mr. Tsarnaev’s family”).
The district court denied Tsarnaev’s request for these specific questions, noting
that “[w]e have detailed answers in the questionnaire concerning . . . exposure to the
media” and that “digging for details from someone who hasn’t prepared by spending
time reflecting and recalling all of that will not likely yield reliable answers.” Add.115.
The court also denied Tsarnaev’s subsequent requests to inquire into the details of
prospective jurors’ media exposure. See, e.g., Add.129, 134, 138, 142-44. The court
158
explained that “detailed questioning about what the juror thinks he or she knows
about the events . . . places the wrong emphasis for the juror.” Add.143.
“This court reviews a district court’s conduct of voir dire for abuse of
discretion . . . .” United States v. Casanova, 886 F.3d 55, 60 (1st Cir. 2018). Even in
capital cases, “the trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should
be asked on voir dire.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 424.
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion under Morgan v.
Illinois by not allowing case-specific voir dire questions.
In Morgan v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that a juror “who will automatically
vote for the death penalty in every case” is not impartial and must be removed for
cause. 504 U.S. at 729. Morgan also concluded that “general fairness and ‘follow the
law’ questions” are insufficient to “detect those in the venire who automatically would
vote for the death penalty.” Id. at 734. Instead, a defendant in a capital case is
entitled to an inquiry sufficient to “discern[ ] those jurors who . . . had predetermined
the terminating issue of his trial, that being whether to impose the death penalty.” Id.
at 736. Morgan held that the defendant should have been able to ask the prospective
jurors the following question: “If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you
automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?” Id. at
723. Phrased another way, the relevant question is whether the juror would
“automatically vote for the death penalty without regard to [whether] the mitigating
159
evidence . . . is sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty.” Id. at 738
(emphasis omitted).
1. Morgan does not require case-specific questions like those

Tsarnaev requested.
Although Morgan requires the district court to permit an inquiry into whether
prospective jurors would “automatically” vote to impose the death penalty no matter
the facts, the courts of appeals agree that “Morgan does not compel a trial court to
allow questions about how a potential juror would vote if given specific examples of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.” Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 528 (6th Cir.
2013) (holding that venire need not be informed of defendant’s prior murder
conviction). See Richmond v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309, 330 (4th Cir. 2004) (same); United
States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1207 (10th Cir. 1998) (no abuse of discretion where
district court excluded questions about whether jurors believed death was the “only
appropriate punishment for anyone convicted of the [Oklahoma City] bombing”),
overruled on other grounds by Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999).
Tsarnaev points to three federal district court decisions that have “permitted
defendants to pose . . . questions that refer to case-specific aggravating
circumstances.” Br. 206. These decisions are not precedential, and they do not hold
that Morgan requires case-specific questions. See United States v. Johnson, 366 F. Supp.
2d 822, 849 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (“Morgan does not require ‘case-specific’ questions
during voir dire of prospective jurors in capital cases, but neither does Morgan bar such
160
questions . . . .”); United States v. Fell, 372 F. Supp. 2d 766, 769-70 (D. Vt. 2005)
(noting that “appellate courts usually address whether a trial court was required to ask
a particular question” and that cases like McVeigh do “not hold[ ] that a trial court may
never ask such questions”); United States v. Burgos Montes, 2012 WL 1190191 (D.P.R.
Apr. 7, 2012) (following Fell). Instead, these district courts exercised their “extremely
broad discretion” to allow case-specific questions during voir dire. See Fell, 372 F.
Supp. 2d at 769-70 (quotations omitted). The fact that some trial courts, exercising
their broad discretion in managing voir dire, have permitted such questions does not
support Tsarnaev’s contention that Morgan “entitled” him to ask those questions in
this case. Br. 199.
Tsarnaev cites a number of state cases that have found an abuse of discretion
where a state trial court prevented voir dire inquiry into certain salient facts. Br. 206.
One of those cases, Ellington v. State, 735 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. 2012), was decided on state-
law grounds. Id. at 753-55 (holding that state statute required the trial court to inform
the venire that defendant murdered his two-year-old twin sons). The others cited
Morgan and the U.S. Constitution, but primarily relied on state-court precedent. See
State v. Turner, 263 So. 3d 337, 360-64 (La. 2018) (venire not informed that the charged
murder occurred during the course of an armed robbery), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-
9710 (June 14, 2019); State v. Jackson, 836 N.E.2d 1173, 1188-92 (Ohio 2005) (venire
not informed that murder victims included a three-year-old); State v. Clark, 981 S.W.2d
143, 147-48 (Mo. 1998) (same); People v. Cash, 50 P.3d 332, 340-43 (Cal. 2002) (venire
161
not informed that defendant had killed his grandparents eight years before the
charged murder).
Because these cases relied more on state-court precedents than on Morgan, they
do not undermine the unanimous authority in the federal courts of appeals holding
that Morgan does not require case-specific questioning. Other state courts have
reached the same conclusion. 37 The Court should therefore reject Tsarnaev’s
expansive reading of Morgan, as every other court of appeals to consider the question
has done.
2. Even if Morgan required jurors to be informed of certain

case-specific facts, the veniremembers in this case were so
informed.
Even if Tsarnaev were correct that Morgan requires jurors to be informed of
certain case-specific facts, Tsarnaev’s proposed questions were unnecessary. In its
preliminary instructions to the venire before they filled out the questionnaires, the
district court twice informed the venire that Tsarnaev was “charged in connection
37
See, e.g., Ex Parte Taylor, 666 So. 2d 73, 82 (Ala. 1995) (holding that Morgan
does not require voir dire questions seeking “to identify any prospective juror who
would vote for death under the facts of this particular case” (emphasis omitted));
People v. Brown, 665 N.E.2d 1290, 1303 (Ill. 1996) (“[I]nquiring how the venire
members would act given the particular aggravating circumstances of the victims’
murders in the present case, is clearly not required by Morgan.”); State v. Lynch, 459
S.E.2d 679, 686 (N.C. 1995) (“[I]t [i]s not proper to ask potential jurors if they would
impose the death penalty under the particular facts and circumstances of the case.”);
Clagett v. Commonwealth, 472 S.E.2d 263, 269 (Va. 1996) (holding it was “not the proper
inquiry” under Morgan to ask if prospective jurors would “automatically impose the
death penalty even if they accepted [the defendant’s] theory of the case”).
162
with events that occurred near the finish line of the Boston Marathon . . . that resulted
in the deaths of three people.” See, e.g., 1.App.175; 2.App.481-82. The jury
questionnaire gave a “summary of the facts of this case,” indicating that “two bombs
exploded . . . near the Boston Marathon finish line” and that the “explosions killed
Krystle Marie Campbell (29), Lingzi Lu (23), and Martin Richard (8), and injured
hundreds of others.” Add.554. It said that “MIT Police Officer Sean Collier (26) was
shot to death in his police car.” Add.554. And it said that Tsarnaev “has been
charged with various crimes arising out of these events.” Add.554.
After informing the venire of these facts, the questionnaire asked prospective
jurors their views on the death penalty for someone convicted of “intentional
murder” and whether they could “conscientiously vote for life imprisonment without
the possibility of release.” Add.556, 559. And the district court later conducted
individual voir dire, asking, for example, whether prospective jurors would “be
prepared to vote for a penalty of life imprisonment without parole instead of the
death penalty” if Tsarnaev were “convicted of a capital crime.” 2.App.544.
Because the jury knew these details, the voir dire adequately covered Tsarnaev’s
proposed questions. Those questions asked some variant of whether jurors would
“automatically sentence him to death” for “intentionally setting off bombs . . . that
resulted in the deaths of three people.” Add.448-49. See Add.448 (“Do you believe
that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for persons who deliberately
uses a weapon of mass destruction to cause the deaths of several victims?”); Add.449
163
(“If . . . the defendant deliberately committed an act of terrorism that killed multiple
victims, could you consider imposing a life sentence rather [than] the death penalty
. . . ?”). Including those questions in the voir dire would not have meaningfully added
to the information the jury already had.
The voir dire similarly covered Tsarnaev’s proposed questions about other
aggravating circumstances. He proposed asking whether a juror would automatically
impose the death penalty where the defendant “killed a child by deliberately using a
weapon of mass destruction,” Add.449, “us[ed] a weapon of mass destruction to carry
out an intentional killing,” Add.454, “deliberately committed an act of terrorism that
killed multiple victims, including a child,” or “intentionally murder[ed] a police officer
in the line of duty.” Add.455. Again, the questionnaire informed the prospective
jurors that Tsarnaev was charged with using “bombs” to kill three people, including
an eight-year-old child, and attempting to “injure[ ] hundreds of others.” Add.554-56.
And it said he was charged with the death of “MIT Police Officer Sean Collier (26),”
who was “shot to death in his police car.” Add.554. The venire was thus informed of
the critical aggravating facts before being asked general Morgan questions. This was
sufficient even under the state cases on which Tsarnaev relies. See Clark, 981 S.W.2d
at 147 (“Only those critical facts—facts with substantial potential for disqualifying
bias—must be divulged to the venire.”); Jackson, 836 N.E.2d at 1191 (noting that if
jurors had “been aware of th[e] fact” that one murder victim was a three-year-old
“when they were asked general questions of fairness and impartiality, they may well
164
have been prompted to admit to a predisposition to recommend the death penalty for
those who murder children”).
Tsarnaev argues that several prospective jurors demonstrated the need for case-
specific questions, pointing to three who failed to indicate any disqualifying bias on
their jury questionnaires but admitted during individual voir dire that they would be
inclined to impose the death penalty for Tsarnaev. Br. 204-05. He concedes that
“[v]oir dire happened to identify these ineligible venirepersons,” but claims “there is
no telling whether others . . . passed unnoticed” because they were “asked no
questions that would have revealed their inability to consider mitigating evidence.”
Br. 205-06. In fact, these potential jurors’ responses prove the opposite point. They
were not asked Tsarnaev’s case-specific questions, yet still admitted they would have
difficulty considering a sentence of life imprisonment under the facts of this case. See
1.App.278-79; 4.App.1478, 1627. Their failure to reveal their hesitation fully in their
questionnaires demonstrates the importance of in-person voir dire. But it does not
suggest that Tsarnaev’s additional questions were necessary.
3. The district court did not commit any legal error that would
constitute an abuse of discretion.
Tsarnaev argues that the district court’s “refusal to ask Tsarnaev’s proposed
questions rested on two errors of law” and “therefore constituted an abuse of
discretion.” Br. 209. The district court correctly applied the law.
165
a. Characterizing Tsarnaev’s questions as “stakeout”

questions was not legal error.
Tsarnaev first claims that the district court “mistakenly rejected the [proposed
case-specific] inquiries as ‘stakeout questions.’” Br. 209. He cites a Northern District
of Iowa opinion stating that “it is a misconception to assume that any ‘case-specific’
question is necessarily a ‘stake-out’ question.” Br. 209 (quoting Johnson, 366 F. Supp.
2d at 845). Tsarnaev is incorrect for several reasons.
First, the district court did not conclude that all case-specific questions were
impermissible stakeout questions—that is, questions that ask prospective jurors to
“stake out” a position on whether the death penalty is appropriate under particular
facts. Instead, it concluded that Tsarnaev’s proposed questions “about
aggravation/mitigation” were “really questions about the case and fall into the
category of stakeout,” and that the relevant case law required questions at “a more
general level.” Add.116. This was a fact-specific determination about Tsarnaev’s
proposed questions, not a conclusion that “any” case-specific question is necessarily a
stakeout question. Br. 209. Even cases requiring case-specific questioning have
recognized that “[t]he line between permissible inquiry into ‘prejudice’ . . . and
impermissible questions of ‘pre-judgment’ . . . can be hazy.” Ellington, 735 S.E.2d at
754. The district court was entitled to deference in its determination that Tsarnaev’s
proposed questions fell on the “pre-judgment” side of the line.
166
Moreover, the district court’s determination was correct. Several of Tsarnaev’s
proposed questions asked prospective jurors whether they believed the death penalty
was the “only appropriate punishment” for the charged offenses. Add.448, 454, 456.
One question went so far as to ask, “In what sort of situation, or for what sort of
convicted defendant, would you favor life imprisonment rather than the death penalty
in a terrorism-murder case?” Add.455-56. And Tsarnaev twice tried to ask
prospective jurors (who were ultimately seated) whether “the death of a child” would
“make it more difficult” for them to consider life imprisonment. Add.176, 224. As
worded, these questions did not ask whether veniremembers “could fairly consider”
either a life or death sentence, Johnson, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 845 (emphasis omitted), or
would “automatically” impose death, Morgan, 504 U.S. at 723. Instead, they
improperly sought “to discover in advance what a prospective juror’s decision will be
under a certain state of the evidence.”38 Br. 209 (quotations and emphasis omitted)
(quoting Johnson, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 845). Thus, several of these questions were
inappropriate even under Tsarnaev’s preferred cases. See Johnson, 366 F. Supp. 2d at
849 (“[T]o avoid ‘stake-out’ questions, which this court agrees are improper, questions
must be in the form of whether or not the prospective juror ‘could fairly consider’ a
A few of Tsarnaev’s proposed questions were better worded, focusing on

38
whether the juror would “automatically sentence him to death,” Add.448-49, or would
“always vote to impose the death penalty,” Add.455, in a given situation. But these
questions were unnecessary given the court’s general Morgan questions.
167
life sentence, a death sentence, or both, not whether the prospective juror would vote for life or
death in light of particular facts.” (emphasis added)).
Second, the district court’s conclusion was consistent with decisions from all
three federal appellate courts to address the question. See Hodges, 727 F.3d at 529;
Richmond, 375 F.3d at 330-31; McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1207. As those decisions point
out, questions about “specific aggravating and/or mitigating factors” often go beyond
“attempting to identify members of the venire who would always vote for the death
penalty” and “attempt[ ] to preview how prospective jurors will vote given the specific
facts of the individual case.” Hodges, 727 F.3d at 529. Such questions may benefit a
defendant by allowing him to identify and strike jurors who are more likely to impose
the death penalty. But Morgan does not require such a preview of how jurors will
vote. Morgan “is designed to illuminate a juror’s basic beliefs ‘regardless of the facts
and circumstances of conviction,’ not to allow defendants to pre-determine jurors’
views of the appropriate punishment for the particular crime charged.” McVeigh, 153
F.3d at 1208 (citation omitted) (quoting Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735).
Third, as the government pointed out below, Tsarnaev’s proposed questions
about specific aggravating factors gave “only one half of the equation.” Add.113.
The questions failed to mention any mitigating factors and assumed that “the juror
has, in fact, found all of the government’s aggravating factors.” Add.114. But a juror
who indicates he would “always vote for the death penalty” in such a hypothetical
situation, Add.455, is not constitutionally unqualified. Morgan requires the exclusion

168
of a juror who “has already formed an opinion on the merits” and who “will fail in
good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729. See id. at 736-38 (emphasizing the need to exclude jurors who
would “refuse to give [mitigating] evidence any weight,” would not “follow the
instructions to consider the mitigating evidence,” or “w[ould] automatically vote for
the death penalty without regard to the mitigating evidence”). Morgan does not require
the exclusion of a juror who believes the death penalty is appropriate for a death-
eligible crime where the government has proven aggravating factors but the defense
has failed to prove any mitigating factors.39 Yet most of Tsarnaev’s proposed
questions were aimed at identifying the latter category, and not the former.40 See
Add.455.
The Federal Death Penalty Act allows the imposition of the death penalty in
39
such a situation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e) (requiring jury to “consider whether all the
aggravating . . . factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh the all the mitigating . . .
factors found to exist to justify a sentence of death, or, in the absence of a mitigating
factor, whether the aggravating . . . factors alone are sufficient to justify a sentence of
death”).
One of Tsarnaev’s proffered questions asked, “If you were convinced

40
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)?” Add.449. This question was
arguably proper because it asked if prospective jurors would “automatically” impose
the death penalty and it asked about both aggravating and mitigating factors. But this
question added little to the Morgan questions already posed in the questionnaire and
during individual voir dire, and the district court was not required to ask this specific
question, particularly when it was sandwiched between Tsarnaev’s other improper
questions.
169
Finally, most of Tsarnaev’s proposed questions failed to focus on the ultimate
inquiry—whether the prospective jurors could follow the district court’s instructions
and weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. Instead, his proposed questions
unhelpfully asked the jurors to opine, unguided by any instructions on the law, on
whether they thought the death penalty was appropriate in particular factual
circumstances. Prospective jurors asked to make off-the-cuff assessments might
reflexively agree that the death penalty is the “only appropriate punishment” for
certain crimes, Add.448, 454, 455, yet be perfectly willing and able to consider life
imprisonment if properly instructed on the need to weigh aggravating and mitigating
factors.
As the government pointed out below, it would be far more helpful to ask
whether, if prospective jurors had “already found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the actual offenses,” they would “be able to meaningfully
consider both the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors before [they] came to
a decision as to what the appropriate sentence would be.” Add.114. And the jurors
were asked some variation of this question. See Add.529 (Question 90); 2.App.507-08,
544-45, 878-79, 939-42; 3.App.1153-54, 4.App.1666-67, 1671; 5.App.2011-12;
6.App.2355-58, 2637-38; 7.App.2882-87, 3051-52, 3078-79 3085. But Tsarnaev’s
proposed questions asked jurors to opine on an appropriate sentence without
170
considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.41 Because Tsarnaev’s proposed
questions did not focus on the key inquiry, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by disallowing them.
b. Considering prospective jurors’ awareness of the key

facts was not legal error.
Tsarnaev also contends that the district court committed “legal error” by
concluding that “venirepersons’ knowledge of certain details about this case made
general Morgan questions ‘sufficient.’” Br. 212. He argues (Br. 212) that the Supreme
Court rejected such reasoning in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 527 (1973),
where it held that the Fourteenth Amendment entitled an African-American
defendant to ask specific questions about racial prejudice and that general questions
about “any bias or prejudice” were insufficient. Id. at 526 n.3. Tsarnaev points out
that the state argued in Ham that the general “bias or prejudice” question was
sufficient because the defendant was “within sight of the jury,” which could observe
his race. See Br. for Resp., Ham v. South Carolina, 1972 WL 135829, at *3-4.
Ham does not support Tsarnaev’s contention for several reasons. First, Ham
never addressed the state’s argument that a general question was sufficient, and there
is no reason to extrapolate a broad rule, applicable in other contexts, from the Court’s
Tsarnaev likely could have asked potential jurors whether there were any
41
categories of cases in which they could not consider life imprisonment. See
6.App.2451 (government asked Juror 355 about the “category of cases” in which he
could impose the death penalty). But Tsarnaev did not seek to do so.
171
implicit rejection of that argument. Second, Ham dealt specifically with racial
prejudice, an evil at which the Fourteenth Amendment was directly aimed. Ham, 409
U.S. at 526-27. Ham did not suggest that specific questioning was required for every
type of prejudice. In fact, it held that the defendant was not entitled to ask whether
jurors were prejudiced by “the fact that [the defendant] wore a beard.” Id. at 527.
Third, subsequent cases have clarified that specific questions about racial bias are
required only where “there [i]s a reasonable probability that racial or ethnic prejudice
would affect the jury,” such as a case involving a violent crime “where the defendant
and the victim are members of different racial or ethnic groups.” Rosales-Lopez v.
United States, 451 U.S. 182, 192, 194 (1981) (plurality opinion). See Ristaino v. Ross, 424
U.S. 589, 596 (1976) (“By its terms Ham did not announce a requirement of universal
applicability.”). In short, Ham does not indicate that it was “legal error” for the
district court to consider whether case-specific questions about prospective jurors’
views on the death penalty were rendered unnecessary by what the venire already
knew about the case.
Tsarnaev also contends that the district court improperly relied on “what the
venirepersons had learned ‘from the media.’” Br. 213. But although the court
referenced “what people understand from the media,” the court went on to mention
its “preliminary instructions.” Add.120-21. As explained above, the court’s
preliminary instructions and the questionnaire adequately informed the prospective
jurors of the salient facts, regardless of what they had heard in the media.
172
Tsarnaev speculates that jurors might have responded to the court’s Morgan
questions based on “information that was widely reported pre-trial and mitigating in
nature . . . but not introduced at trial.” Br. 213. The only example he can give of
mitigating evidence reported pretrial is “Tamerlan’s commission of three murders in
2011.” Id. As explained further below, Tamerlan’s alleged involvement in those
unrelated murders was not mitigating because it does not indicate that Tsarnaev was
somehow forced or intimidated into bombing the Boston Marathon. And it is
implausible to believe that the seated jurors’ stated willingness to consider life
imprisonment was conditioned solely on what they might have read about those
unrelated murders. Tsarnaev cannot show that the district court abused its discretion.
4. The voir dire adequately ensured that the seated jurors were
qualified under Morgan .
Nothing in the record suggests that any of the seated jurors held categorical
views about the death penalty that prevented them from following the court’s
instructions and considering mitigating factors. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. All
the seated jurors indicated that they had open minds about the death penalty, and
nothing in their answers suggested that case-specific Morgan questions were necessary.
Despite being aware of the general facts of the case, not a single seated juror
indicated that he or she had “formed [the] opinion . . . that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
should receive the death penalty.” See Question 77(c); Add.525. Ten of the twelve
jurors marked (d) on Question 90, indicating they were “not for or against the death
173
. . . all the evidence in the case”); 2.App.545 (Juror 41) (“I don’t know any evidence.
And where I’m not one way for death penalty or one way not for the death penalty, to
me, I would have to . . . hear the circumstances and the evidence . . . .”); 2.App.882
(Juror 83) (“I would say definitely life in prison at this point . . . if I had to make a
decision based on what you said, but in terms of the death penalty, . . . I couldn’t say
that right now.”); 2.App.940 (Juror 102) (“I have no . . . views either way. I am really
in the middle. I would have to hear everything and make an educated decision.”);
3.App.1155-56 (Juror 138) (“I’m not more in favor of one way or the other; it would
all depend on the outcome of everything presented.”); 4.App.1673 (Juror 229) (“I’m
not somebody who’s just going to say right at a cocktail party that, yes, somebody
should be put to death or, no, they shouldn’t. I need more information. I’m not
going to just jump to that.”); 5.App.2011-13 (Juror 286) (explaining that she had
“never really thought” about and did not “really have any” impressions of the death
penalty, but could “follow the law” and “decide that by what I’ve heard in the
courtroom”); 6.App.2354, 2358 (Juror 349) (saying she was not “for or against” the
death penalty, but “would have to hear the evidence,” and “whatever the law is, I
would go with that”); 6.App.2641-42 (Juror 395) (although she “always thought [she]
was against” the death penalty, she was not “in a position, without hearing all of the
facts, to say that I am either for it or against it” in Tsarnaev’s case); 7.App.2881 (Juror
441) (“I mean, very, very neutral on it. . . . I don’t really have any concrete feeling on
it.”); 7.App.3058 (Juror 480) (“[I]t might be [better], from my standpoint, that he lives
175
the rest of his life in prison versus the death penalty. I mean, I’m still going back and
forth on that.”); 7.App.3077 (Juror 487) (“I don’t have an opinion either way. . . .
Obviously, death would be the worst penalty you can have. But I’ve never felt it
shouldn’t exist. I really didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on it.”).
In light of the jurors’ responses, the district court properly concluded that
further follow-up with case-specific questions was unnecessary. Moreover, the district
court took a flexible approach to voir dire and asked or allowed questions highlighting
the aggravating facts in several instances. See 2.App.521 (“You know what the case is
about. It’s about bombings in which three people died and in which a police officer
was shot. . . . If somebody is convicted of doing that intentionally . . . . [w]ould you
think that . . . it should necessarily be the death penalty . . . ?”); 2.App.782 (“You
know that there were bombings in which people were killed?”); 2.App.881
(“[K]nowing that this case is the Boston Marathon bombing and its aftermath. . . .
[d]o you lean one way or another regarding death penalty or life imprisonment?”).
And the court allowed the defense to ask repeatedly whether prospective jurors
“lean[ed] one way or the other” regarding the death penalty for this particular case.
See 2.App.699; 4.App.1406, 1460-61; 5.App.1986; 6.App.2366; 8.App.3507;
9.App.3882. The district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing questions
focused on the specific aggravating facts of this case that the venire already knew.
176
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying inquiry
into the specifics of what each prospective juror had read, heard,
or seen about the case before trial.
Tsarnaev next contends that this Court’s decision in Patriarca v. United States,
402 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1968), required the court to ask “not just whether prospective
jurors had seen media coverage of this case, but what, specifically, they had seen.” Br.
192. He relies on Patriarca’s statement that a district court should question potential
jurors “with a view to eliciting the kind and degree of his exposure to the case or the parties.”
Br. 218 (quoting Patriarca, 402 F.2d at 318, and adding emphasis). And he asserts that
by failing to ask such questions, the district court “created a jury biased by prejudicial
publicity.” Br. 225. Those contentions are incorrect.
1. Patriarca does not require district courts to ask about the

specific contents of media coverage.
Patriarca does not support Tsarnaev’s assertion that the district court’s
questioning was inadequate. In Patriarca, this Court held that pretrial publicity did not
require a change of venue. Patriarca, 402 F.2d at 317. The Court noted that a month
had elapsed between the trial and the widely publicized car-bombing of a government
witness’s attorney and that the media reporting contained no “prejudicial statements
or records of conviction, . . . pejorative characterizations of [the] defendant,
description of evidence against the accused[,] or reports of plea negotiation.” Id. at
316-17.
177
Patriarca also observed that voir dire provided “another opportunity for counsel
to mitigate any possible effect of pretrial publicity.” Patriarca, 402 F.2d at 317. But
the defense did not ask for any questions about pretrial publicity beyond the court’s
asking prospective jurors whether they could “give the defendants a fair and impartial
trial.” Id. at 318. This Court observed that “such a single question posed to the panel
en bloc . . . achieves little or nothing by way of identifying, weighing, or removing any
prejudice from prior publicity.” Id. And where there is “a significant possibility” of
prejudicial pretrial publicity and a “request of counsel,” “we think that the court
should proceed to examine each prospective juror” individually “with a view to
eliciting the kind and degree of his exposure . . . , the effect of such exposure on his
present state of mind, and the extent to which such state of mind is immutable or
subject to change from evidence.” Id.
Patriarca does not, as Tsarnaev claims, establish that the district court in this
case committed reversible error by failing to ask prospective jurors “what they had
seen, read, or heard about his case.” Br. 183. This is so for several reasons.
First, this part of Patriarca was dicta. Patriarca found no abuse of discretion
even though the district court failed to conduct the recommended inquiry.42 Patriarca,
Tsarnaev points out (Br. 218-19) that Patriarca said (again in dicta) that its
42
view was “in accord with the suggestions” of the ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial
and Free Press, § 3.4 (Tentative Draft, Dec. 1966). Patriarca, 402 F.2d at 318. Those
standards said that voir dire should determine what prospective jurors have “read and
heard about the case.” See 25.App.11628. The Supreme Court has declined to place
much weight on the ABA Standards in subsequent cases, however, particularly
178
402 F.2d at 317-18. And even that recommended inquiry would not require more
detailed questioning than took place in this case. Patriarca recommended individual
questioning “with a view to eliciting the kind and degree of [the potential juror’s]
exposure to the case or the parties.” Id. And the questionnaire in this case did ask
each individual juror about the “kind and degree” of media exposure. Id. It asked
what newspapers, radio programs, and television programs each prospective juror
viewed and with what frequency, as well as how much media coverage he or she had
seen about the case. See Add.551-52. More importantly, both the questionnaire and
the individual voir dire focused on the key inquiry—“the effect of such exposure” on
the prospective juror’s “present state of mind” and “the extent to which such state of
mind is immutable or subject to change from evidence.” Patriarca, 402 F.3d at 318.
Tsarnaev is incorrect that “[t]his Court’s subsequent decisions have read
Patriarca to compel content questioning.” Br. 219. In United States v. Medina, 761 F.2d
12, 20 (1985), this Court concluded that voir dire “fully complied” with circuit
precedent, including Patriarca, where the court asked jurors about the “extent” of their
knowledge of the case and whether they had “formed an opinion of the guilt or
because earlier versions of those Standards (such as the version cited by Patriarca)
provided that “answers to questions about content, without more, could disqualify the
juror from sitting,” whereas, “[u]nder the constitutional standard, . . . ‘[t]he relevant
question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors
. . . had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the
defendant.’” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 430 (quoting Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035
(1984)). See 25.App.11628 (1966 ABA Standards).
179
innocence of the defendant.” Medina does not indicate whether the court asked jurors
about the specific content of the pretrial publicity, and it had no occasion to decide
whether any particular manner of questioning is constitutionally inadequate. Id.
Tsarnaev’s citations to United States v. Vest, 842 F.2d 1319 (1st Cir. 1988), and
United States v. Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000), are similarly inapposite.
Those cases addressed claims that the failure to conduct individual questioning
regarding pretrial publicity was reversible error. Vest, 842 F.3d at 1331; Orlando-
Figueroa, 229 F.3d at 43. Neither held that any specific types of questions were
required. And although Tsarnaev is correct (Br. 220) that the questionnaire in Skilling
asked jurors about the details of their media exposure, the Supreme Court did not
suggest that such questions were required. See Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358,
388 & n.22 (2010) (noting that the dissent “undervalue[d] the 77-item questionnaire,”
which “helped to identify prospective jurors excusable for cause”).
In any event, Patriarca, Medina, and the out-of-circuit cases that Tsarnaev cites
(Br. 220) were all decided prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mu’Min, which
rejected the argument that the Constitution requires courts to question prospective
jurors “about the specific contents of the news reports to which they had been
exposed.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 417. Mu’Min acknowledged that specific questions
about content “might be helpful in assessing whether a juror is impartial.” Id. at 425.
“To be constitutionally compelled, however, it is not enough that such questions
might be helpful. Rather, the trial court’s failure to ask these questions must render
180
the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 425-26. The Constitution does not
require the trial court to “make precise inquiries about the contents of any news
reports that potential jurors have read.” Id. at 424-25. Mu’Min seriously undermines
Tsarnaev’s claim that the voir dire process in this case “compromised [his] right to an
impartial jury.” Br. 196.
Tsarnaev claims that Mu’Min does not apply to this case for two reasons. First,
he contends that this case “falls within Mu’Min’s dictum that due process ‘might well
have required more extensive examination’ had that case involved . . . a ‘wave of
public passion engendered by pre-trial publicity,’” like that in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S.
717, 728 (1961). Br. 222 (some quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mu’Min, 500 U.S.
at 429). But Mu’Min simply noted that more questions “might” be required in a given
situation; it did not establish a constitutional requirement. And there are important
differences between this case and Irvin, most notably the population of the venue
(30,000 in Irvin versus about five million in eastern Massachusetts) and the fact that
several seated jurors in Irvin expressed serious bias. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728 (one
juror said he “could not . . . give the defendant the benefit of the doubt that he is
innocent,” and another said he had a “somewhat” fixed opinion as to the defendant’s
guilt).
Moreover, the district court in this case conducted a “more extensive
examination” than the one in Mu’Min. An important issue in Mu’Min was whether the
trial court properly questioned prospective jurors in groups of four, or whether, as the
181
defendant claimed, it should have questioned “each potential juror . . . individually.”
Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 425. Here, of course, the district court conducted individual voir
dire, augmented by extensive preliminary questionnaires, which the trial court in
Mu’Min did not use. The thorough voir dire process here was sufficient even if this
case required a “more extensive examination” under Mu’Min’s dicta.
Second, Tsarnaev points out that Mu’Min addressed only the constitutional
standard, and he argues that “Patriarca, which made no reference to the Constitution,
announced a supervisory rule unaffected by Mu’Min.” Br. 222-23. But Patriarca made
no reference to supervisory powers, and Tsarnaev has cited no cases that have
interpreted it in that way. And because Patriarca’s observations about proper
questioning were dicta, it did not “announce[ ]” any sort of binding “supervisory
rule.” Br. 223.
Even if Patriarca could somehow be construed as announcing a supervisory rule
unaffected by Mu’Min, there was no abuse of discretion here. Although federal courts
“enjoy more latitude in setting standards for voir dire in federal court under [their]
supervisory power” than when interpreting the Constitution, in “both sets of cases,”
the “trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on
voir dire.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 424. The district court here did not exceed that
latitude.
182
2. The voir dire was adequate to determine whether jurors were

impartial.
“No hard-and-fast formula dictates the necessary depth or breadth of voir dire.”
Skilling, 561 U.S. at 386. “The Constitution, after all, does not dictate a catechism for
voir dire, but only that the defendant be afforded an impartial jury.” Morgan, 504 U.S.
at 729. Thus, “[w]hether a trial court decides to put questions about the content of
publicity to a potential juror or not, it must make the same decision at the end of the
questioning: is this juror to be believed when he says he has not formed an opinion
about the case?” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 425. The voir dire in this case was adequate to
allow the court to answer that question.
The district court took a flexible approach to voir dire. As Tsarnaev recognizes
(Br. 195 n.109), he was allowed to ask one of the seated jurors what “st[ood] out in
[her] mind, if anything, about this case from anything [she had] heard, seen.”
2.App.942. Two other seated jurors volunteered information about what they had
seen or heard in the media. See 6.App.2351; 7.App.3075.
None of the seated jurors’ responses suggested a need to delve into the
specifics of the media coverage they had seen. Only three of the 12 indicated that
they had formed an opinion that Tsarnaev was guilty, 26.App.12132, and those three
indicated they could set their opinions aside, 26.App.11843, 11870, 11955. During
individual voir dire, all 12 jurors indicated that they gave little weight to what they had
seen or heard and could avoid drawing any conclusions at trial based on media
183
coverage. See 2.App.502, 542, 874, 937; 3.App.1151; 4.App.1663; 5.App.2009;
6.App.2351, 2633; 7.App.2880, 3050, 3075-76. The record does not suggest that any
follow-up was necessary or that any seated juror was actually biased. See McVeigh, 153
F.3d at 1210 (“[T]he record reveals sufficient indicia of safeguards for us to conclude
that each prospective juror was impartial . . . .”).
The district court could also reasonably conclude that the costs of detailed
content-based questioning would outweigh any marginal benefit. As the court
pointed out, asking jurors to recall everything they had read or seen would “not likely
yield reliable answers” and could result in “unmanageable data.” Add.115, 304-05.
The court also expressed legitimate concern that “detailed questioning about what the
juror thinks he or she knows about the events” creates the “wrong emphasis” and
could inadvertently create bias where none existed. Add.143. Inquiring into jurors’
(potentially faulty) memories of what they had read or seen in the press months or
years earlier, for example, could have reinforced potentially prejudicial information
from those sources. In declining to ask further questions, the district court did not
abuse its “wide discretion.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 427.
3. Any error was harmless.
In any event, any error in failing to allow inquiry into the specific media
coverage to which potential jurors had been exposed was harmless. The ultimate
question is not what a juror had heard about the case or even whether he had
“formed some impression or opinion as to the merits,” but whether “the juror can lay
184
aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented
in court.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722-23. As already explained, the district court engaged in
an extensive voir dire process to ensure that the jurors in this case could do so.
Nothing suggests that more specific questions about media coverage would have
revealed any undisclosed bias in the seated jurors. Thus, any alleged error was
harmless.
V. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Excluding

Evidence That Tsarnaev’s Brother May Have Committed an Unrelated
Triple Murder and by Protecting an Interview Report From Disclosure.
Tsarnaev argues that the district court violated his right to present a complete
defense by excluding evidence implicating his brother Tamerlan in the murder of
three people in Waltham, Massachusetts, in 2011. Br. 227-73. He also contends that
the district court violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by not
allowing the defense to see an FBI report and recordings relating to an interview in
which Tamerlan’s friend Ibragim Todashev implicated Tamerlan in the Waltham
killings. Br. 274-85. The district court acted within its discretion by excluding the
evidence, which would not have mitigated Tsarnaev’s punishment and would have
confused the issues in this case. Even if the court did abuse its discretion, any error
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court also correctly concluded
that disclosure of the Todashev-related materials was unnecessary because Tsarnaev
already had access to much of the same information, the information was not
185
discoverable under Brady, and the information was subject to the law enforcement
privilege. Tsarnaev is not entitled to reversal.
A. Background
On September 11, 2011, three men were murdered at a residence in Waltham,
Massachusetts. 25.App.11437. They were found bound and beaten, with their throats
cut and their bodies covered with marijuana. 25.App.11437. One of the victims,
Brendan Mess, was Tamerlan’s friend. 25.App.11437. The Waltham killings went
unsolved. 23.App.10465.
After the Boston Marathon bombing, law enforcement officers interviewed
Todashev, then living in Florida, on four separate occasions in April and May 2013.
Sealed.Add.32-33; Supp.Sealed.Add.4; 23.App.10556.
43
At some point, investigators began to suspect
Todashev in the 2011 Waltham murders. 23.App.10556. During a final interview on
the night of May 21, 2013, an FBI agent and two Massachusetts State Troopers
The Todashev 302s were filed ex parte in the district court and are available
43
for this Court’s review. This Court also made them available to the defense for
review pursuant to a protective order. Order of the Court, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Oct.
3, 2018) (granting the motion in part); Order of the Court No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Oct.
25, 2018) (modifying the protective order to include learned appellate counsel).
186
questioned Todashev about the Waltham killings over the course of several hours.
23.App.10556, 10568, 10571. Todashev eventually said he knew something about the
murders and asked if he could get a deal for cooperating. 23.App.10571, 10575.
he attacked the law enforcement agents and was shot and
killed. 23.App.10557, 10566-67.
As part of a pretrial discovery request, Tsarnaev asked the government for “[a]ll
documents concerning the investigation of the triple homicide” including “documents
concerning investigation of the alleged involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Ibragim
Todashev, and/or our client in those murders.” See 23.App.10442. The government
187
declined to provide the requested information because the matter was still under
investigation by local authorities. See Doc. 112-5 at 12.
Tsarnaev then moved to compel discovery, arguing that “evidence about the
nature and extent of Tamerlan’s alleged involvement in the Waltham murders, and the
absence of information about any involvement by [Tsarnaev], provides critical
mitigating information.” 23.App.10442-43. The government argued that the
documents were “not discoverable under the Federal or Local Rules of Criminal
Procedure or Brady.” 23.App.10464. The government also invoked the law
enforcement investigatory privilege, pointing out that the “Middlesex District
Attorney’s Office is engaged in an active, ongoing investigation into the Waltham
triple homicide.” 23.App.10465.
The district court denied Tsarnaev’s motion to compel, concluding that the
Waltham murder evidence was not discoverable under Brady or Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16. Add.390-94. The court concluded “[i]n addition” that the
Waltham-related evidence was subject to the law enforcement investigatory privilege
and that Tsarnaev had “not articulated a specific need for these privileged materials”
that could override the government’s interest in confidentiality. Add.394 n.2.
In another motion to compel, Tsarnaev argued that “Tamerlan’s having
committed a gruesome triple murder—and having included a ‘close friend’ among the
victims—would powerfully support the inference that [Tsarnaev] experienced his
older brother as an all-powerful force who could not be ignored or disobeyed.”

188
23.App.10486. In response to this motion, the district court ordered that “reports of
Ibragim Todashev’s statements to the FBI . . . be submitted to the Court for in camera
review.” Add.397.
After reviewing the materials, the district court again
denied disclosure, explaining: “I ha[ve] reviewed the matters that the government
submitted in camera, including recordings, and I see no reason to compel any further
discovery from that material.” 20.App.9171.
While Tsarnaev’s second motion to compel was pending, an attorney
representing Tsarnaev’s friend Dias Kadyrbayev, who was facing prosecution for
concealing Tsarnaev’s backpack and computer, told the government that his client
“may be able to provide” some information, including that “Kadyrbayev learned in
the fall of 2012 from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was involved in the
Waltham murders” and that “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told Kadyrbayev that his brother
‘had committed jihad’ in Waltham.” 24.App.11294. The government disclosed
Kadyrbayev’s proffer to Tsarnaev’s counsel. 24.App.11294-95.
Tsarnaev subsequently sought access to the Todashev materials through a third
motion to compel. 24.App.11291. The district court again denied Tsarnaev’s request.
189
Add.429-30. The court observed that only one of the in camera documents—an FBI
302 from the May 21 interview—was “pertinent to the request,” and determined that
disclosure of that information could interfere with the ongoing investigation into the
Waltham murders. Add.429-30. The court further observed that the government had
“already conveyed [to the defense] the fact and general substance of Todashev’s
statements concerning the murders” and that “principles governing discovery in
criminal cases do not require more.” Add.429-30. The court explained that it “fully
underst[ood] the mitigation theory the defense thinks the requested discovery may
advance,” but, in the court’s view, “the report does not materially advance that theory
beyond what is already available to the defense from discovery and other sources.”
Add.430. Instead, the report’s “utility . . . to the defense in building a mitigation case
is very low at best.” Add.430.
The government subsequently moved in limine to preclude Tsarnaev from
introducing at the penalty phase any evidence that Tamerlan participated in the
Waltham murders. 25.App.11437-41. The government argued that such evidence
was irrelevant unless Tsarnaev “in fact believed his brother had committed the
Waltham murders and was influenced to commit the crimes charged in [this case] by
that belief.” 25.App.11439. In addition, the government argued, Todashev’s
statements implicating Tamerlan were unreliable because he “had an obvious motive
to try to shift the blame to someone else.” 25.App.11439. Finally, the government
contended that the Waltham evidence would confuse the jurors by opening the door
190
to “a great deal of information having nothing to do with the crimes charged in the
Indictment” and by misleading the jury “into believing that a comparison of
Tamerlan’s character and [Tsarnaev’s] character is a relevant consideration in
recommending a sentence.” 25.App.11440.
The district court granted the government’s motion in limine, concluding that
“there simply is insufficient evidence to describe what participation Tamerlan may
have had” in the Waltham murders. Add.351. The court said: “From my review of
the evidence, which includes an in camera review of some Todashev 302s, it is as
plausible . . . that Todashev was the bad guy and Tamerlan was the minor actor.
There’s just no way of telling who played what role, if they played roles.” Add.352.
Thus, the court concluded that the evidence “would be confusing to the jury and a
waste of time, I think, . . . without any probative value.” Add.352.
At the sentencing phase, Tsarnaev alleged as mitigating factors various aspects
of his relationship with Tamerlan, including that Tsarnaev was “particularly
susceptible to his older brother’s influence” because of Tamerlan’s “age, size,
aggressiveness, domineering personality, privileged status in the family, traditional
authority as the eldest brother, or other reasons”; that Tsarnaev “acted under the
influence of his older brother”; that he “would not have committed the crimes but for
his older brother”; and that Tamerlan was “the dominant male figure in [Tsarnaev’s]
life.” Add.90-91. In support of these factors, Tsarnaev introduced evidence about
the traditional role of an older brother in Chechen families and about Tamerlan’s
191
radical Islamist beliefs and aggressive character. See 17.App.7521-25, 7530-32, 7540-
50, 7793-7800, 7861-64; 18.App.8134-43, 8206-07.
Before Tsarnaev filed his opening brief on appeal, this Court allowed
Tsarnaev’s appellate counsel to view all the Todashev-related materials that the district
court had reviewed in camera, including the FBI 302 of the May 21, 2013 interview in
which Todashev implicated Tamerlan. Order, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Oct. 3, 2018).
This Court “review[s] adequately preserved objections to rulings admitting or
excluding evidence for abuse of discretion.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d 13, 42 (1st Cir.
2007). See United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1062 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We review the
exclusion of mitigating evidence for abuse of discretion.”), petitions for cert. filed, Nos.
18-7489 (Jan. 14, 2019), and 18-7835 (Feb. 4, 2019). “Where evidence is challenged
on the ground that the trial court has struck the wrong balance between probative and
prejudicial effect,” this Court “afford[s] great deference to the trier’s first-hand
knowledge of the case and ordinarily will sustain the district court’s exercise of
discretion unless its judgment is plainly incorrect.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 42.
Tsarnaev argues that “deference is not appropriate”
192
abuse of discretion.” United States v. López-Díaz, 794 F.3d 106, 116 (1st Cir. 2015). See
United States v. Bulger, 816 F.3d 137, 153 (1st Cir. 2016) (same). Again, Tsarnaev
contends that this “deferential standard of review is not warranted” because the
district court “failed to . . . review . . . most of the material in question.” Br. 276. But
the district court could determine whether the details of the Todashev interviews were
properly withheld from disclosure by reading the report. It did not need to “actually
listen[ ] to Todashev’s words,” Br. 277, or see his “behavior and demeanor,” id. at 275
n.121, neither of which was relevant to whether the report was privileged or material.
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding

evidence of the Waltham murders from the penalty phase.
Both the Eighth Amendment and the Federal Death Penalty Act “protect the
right to present relevant mitigating evidence in capital sentencing proceedings.”
Mikhel, 889 F.3d at 1062. In Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 112 (1982), the Court
held that “the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant
mitigating factor.” See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion)
(“[T]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer . . . not be
precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s
character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant
proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” (emphasis omitted)).
The Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA) states that a defendant “may present
any information relevant to a mitigating factor,” regardless of whether it would be
194
admissible under the rules of evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). “Relevant mitigating
evidence is evidence which tends logically to prove or disprove some fact or
circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to have mitigating value.”
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284 (2004) (quotations omitted). The FDPA allows
courts to exclude mitigating evidence “if its probative value is outweighed by the
danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” 18
U.S.C. § 3593(c).
In excluding evidence of the Waltham murders, the district court acted well
within its discretion. The evidence had little or no relevance to whether Tsarnaev
deserved the death penalty. And any relevance that it had was outweighed by the
danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
1. The evidence was not relevant.
The Supreme Court has recognized several types of potentially mitigating
evidence in capital cases, including “the background and mental and emotional
development of a youthful defendant,” Eddings, 455 U.S. at 116, “evidence that the
defendant would not pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated),” Skipper v. South
Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 5 (1986), and “absence of direct proof that the defendant
intended to cause the death of the victim” or evidence that the defendant had a
“comparatively minor role in the offense,” Lockett, 438 U.S. at 608 (plurality opinion).
And the FDPA requires the jury to consider any “factors in the defendant’s
195
background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that
mitigate against imposition of the death sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(8).
But there are still limits on what is relevant for mitigation purposes. Trial
courts retain their “traditional authority . . . to exclude, as irrelevant, evidence not
bearing on the defendant’s character, prior record, or the circumstances of his
offense.” Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604 n.12 (plurality opinion). See Skipper, 476 U.S. at 7 n.2
(district courts may exclude evidence that is “irrelevant to the sentencing
determination”).
The fact that his brother was implicated in an unrelated triple murder almost
two years before the Boston Marathon bombing does not mitigate Tsarnaev’s offense
or punishment. Tamerlan’s alleged involvement in prior crimes has nothing to do
with Tsarnaev’s “character or record,” nor does it relate to the “circumstances of” this
“offense.” Eddings, 455 U.S. at 110 (quotations omitted). Nothing suggests that
Tamerlan’s alleged commission of the Waltham murders had any connection to
Tsarnaev’s commission of the crimes in this case. Tsarnaev’s attempts to demonstrate
relevance fail.
a. Tamerlan’s violent history is not automatically

relevant merely because he was a co-conspirator.
Tsarnaev first broadly asserts that “a co-conspirator’s history of violence is
relevant evidence” in capital cases. Br. 230. But he fails to show how this is true
absent a connection between the co-conspirator’s violent history and the defendant’s
196
commission of the instant offense. Tsarnaev cites the statutory mitigating factor
applicable when “[a]nother defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime,
will not be punished by death.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(4). “This factor does not
measure the defendant’s culpability itself, but instead considers—as a moral data
point—whether that same level of culpability, for another participant in the same
criminal event, was thought to warrant a sentence of death.” United States v. Gabrion,
719 F.3d 511, 524 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Because Tamerlan was already dead, the
fact that he did not face the death penalty indicates nothing about whether Tsarnaev
deserved death.
Next, Tsarnaev cites Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801 (1982), where the
Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional for felony murder without
proof that the defendant “intended or contemplated that life would be taken.” Br.
230. Enmund said nothing about what evidence is admissible in a capital penalty phase
or whether a deceased co-conspirator’s “history of violence is relevant.” Br. 230. It
simply held that the death penalty is impermissible for a “minor actor in an armed
robbery, not on the scene, who neither intended to kill nor was found to have any
culpable mental state.” Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 149 (1987) (summarizing
Enmund). Tsarnaev cannot credibly contend that he was anything like the getaway
driver in Enmund, who was only “vicariously guilty” and was not proven to have
“intended or contemplated that life would be taken.” Enmund, 458 U.S. at 800-01.
197
Tsarnaev personally placed and detonated a bomb in a crowded area with the goal of
taking lives.
The state and district court cases Tsarnaev relies on are closer, but still miss the
mark. In Cooper v. Dugger, 526 So. 2d 900, 902-03 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme
Court held that it was improper to exclude evidence of a co-defendant’s “violent
character and domination of” the defendant. And in Troedel v. Wainwright, 667 F.
Supp. 1456, 1461-62 (S.D. Fla. 1986), the court held that counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to learn that the co-defendant had a violent history and motive
for the killing (which the defendant lacked). In each case, however, the co-
defendant’s violent history was arguably linked to the charged offense, either because
there was other evidence of “domination,” Dugger, 526 So. 2d at 903, or because the
co-defendant had a greater motive for the offense and therefore may have had a
greater role, Troedel, 667 F. Supp. at 1461-62. Neither factor is present here.
To be sure, Todashev’s statements, if credited, tend to show that Tamerlan was
“violent” and a “cold-blooded killer.” Br. 229. But that fact was not in question,
considering his participation in the crimes in this case. Nor does it mitigate
Tsarnaev’s offense. Indeed, the fact that Tsarnaev continued to associate with
Tamerlan (and excused the cold-blooded Waltham murders as “jihad”) is arguably
aggravating. Evidence about Tamerlan’s violent nature was not automatically relevant
as mitigating evidence in the absence of any connection between Tamerlan’s prior
crime and Tsarnaev’s offenses.

198
b. The evidence was not relevant to show fear or

intimidation.
Next, Tsarnaev argues that the Waltham murder evidence was relevant to show
that Tamerlan “influenced” or “intimidated” him. See Br. 245, 247, 250, 251, 269.
Specifically, Tsarnaev argues that “the bombings were not the first time Tamerlan had
committed brutal crimes and influenced another person to help him.” Br. 245-46. See
id. at 247. He claims that his “knowledge of his brother’s willingness to kill someone
very close to him—[Brendan] Mess—in pursuit of jihad” might have persuaded a
juror that Tsarnaev “placed the bomb on the finish line out of fear of what his
brother might do to him if he refused.” Br. 250.
This argument fails because no evidence indicates that Tsarnaev committed the
bombings and subsequent crimes out of fear for his life or safety.44 Evidence is
irrelevant where “proof of some additional fact is required before the evidence could
support the point for which it is offered” or where “there is no other proof
supporting the proposition to which the evidence is directed and that evidence is
insufficient to prove it without something more.” 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird
C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence, § 4:2 (4th ed.). See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409,
444-45 (1st Cir. 1994) (evidence that zero-down loans were common in commercial
real estate was irrelevant where the charged crimes involved fake down payments). As
Tsarnaev did not seek a duress instruction during the guilt phase, nor did he
44
try to prove the statutory mitigating factor that applies when “[t]he defendant was
under unusual and substantial duress,” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(2).
199
explained above, evidence that Tamerlan may have committed unrelated murders is,
by itself, “insufficient to prove” that Tsarnaev committed the crimes in this case out
of fear of Tamerlan. Muller & Kirkpatrick, § 4:2. And because there “is no other
proof supporting the proposition” to which the Waltham evidence was directed, that
evidence was inadmissible. Id.
McVeigh is instructive. There, the district court excluded from the penalty
phase evidence that an anti-government organization had plotted to bomb the same
federal building in Oklahoma City that McVeigh himself bombed. United States v.
McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1211 (10th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Hooks v.
Ward, 184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). McVeigh argued that this evidence showed
that he was a “less culpable” member of a “broader conspiracy.” Id. at 1213. The
Tenth Circuit disagreed. Id. Because there was no “evidentiary link” between
McVeigh and the organization, “there simply was no basis for the jury to conclude
that McVeigh had a ‘lesser role’ in a broader . . . conspiracy.” Id.
Here, there was simply no evidence that Tsarnaev feared Tamerlan or
committed the marathon bombing out of fear for his own safety. The district court
allowed Tsarnaev to introduce extensive evidence about Tamerlan’s aggressive
behavior toward others. See 17.App.7521-25 (angrily shouted down an imam for
references to Thanksgiving and Martin Luther King, Jr.), 7530-32 (angry outburst to
store owner about halal turkeys at Thanksgiving), 7540-50 (poked opponent in the
chest during a heated argument about Islam), 7793-7800 (radical Islamic views and
200
physical aggression toward a stranger); 18.App.8134-43 (punched a man in the chest,
had a physical fight with his girlfriend, threatened and frightened his girlfriend’s
roommates). Yet nothing suggested that Tamerlan was ever aggressive toward
Tsarnaev or that he pressured or intimidated Tsarnaev into committing the bombing.
The evidence showed that Tsarnaev was independent and willing to make his
own decisions. At the time of the bombing, he was a sophomore at the University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth, living more than 60 miles away from Tamerlan’s home in
Cambridge. See 1.Supp.App.77 (Gov’t Exh. 1440 at 12) (demonstrative exhibit with
map). Tsarnaev had his own car and his own group of friends. 17.App.7963, 7969.
And although Tamerlan had become very religious and stopped drinking or smoking
marijuana (at least in the presence of others), 17.App. 7545, 7670-71,7808, Tsarnaev
continued to do so up until the marathon bombing. 12.App.5266, 5287-89;
18.App.8098-99. Tsarnaev told his friend Stephen Silva that Silva would not want to
meet Tamerlan because he was “very strict,” “very opinionated,” and might “give
[Silva] a little shit” for not being a Muslim. 12.App.5309. Yet Tsarnaev himself did
not live by Tamerlan’s strict rules and instead lived a carefree party lifestyle.
17.App.7980-84; 18.App.8098-99.
Moreover, the evidence shows that Tsarnaev was a willing and at times
independent participant in joint crimes with his brother. He texted and tweeted that
he wanted to attain the “highest level of Jannah.” 10.App.4501; 14.App.6344. He
borrowed the 9mm pistol used in the offense. 12.App.5264-67. He rented and shot a
201
9mm pistol at a firing range less than a month before the bombing. 14.App.6060-65;
17.App.7992. On the day of the bombing, he carried his own separate bomb.
14.App.6423; Gov’t Exh. 22 (video). After splitting up with Tamerlan, he placed and
detonated that bomb in the middle of a crowd that included children, resulting in two
deaths and dozens of injuries. 14.App.6423; 1.Supp.App.14 (Gov’t Exh. 29); Gov’t
Exhs. 22 (video). After three days (during which he returned to Dartmouth), he
joined Tamerlan in killing a police officer in an attempt to get a second gun, helped
kidnap Dun Meng at gunpoint, and stole money using Meng’s ATM card.
11.App.4840-44, 4884-86, 4954-55. Later, Tsarnaev lobbed bombs at police officers
on Laurel Street while his brother shot at them. 12.App.5045-46, 5077-78, 5151,
5157. When the bombs ran out and police were arresting Tamerlan, Tsarnaev did not
surrender or even try to escape through the unblocked end of Laurel Street. See
14.App.6119. Instead, he turned Meng’s Mercedes around and drove it straight
toward the officers and his still-living brother in an attempt to kill them all.
12.App.5091-92, 5097-98, 5137.
Even after Tamerlan’s death, Tsarnaev never suggested that he committed his
crimes out of fear. While hiding in the boat, he praised Tamerlan as a martyr, said he
wanted to become a martyr himself, and tried to “shed some light on our actions,”
which, he wrote, “came with a [me]ssage.” 11.App.4555-56. He wrote that the
United States government was killing innocent Muslims and that “I can’t stand to see
such evil go unpunished.” 11.App.4556. He considered himself a mujahideen who

202
But video footage before and after the marathon bombing—as well as Tsarnaev’s
nonchalant tweets and texts—suggest that Tsarnaev was not nervous or fearful at all.
See Gov’t Exhs. 22 (Forum restaurant video); 1181 to 1183 (UMass Dartmouth fitness
center video); 748 (Shell gas station video); 1.Supp.App.64 (Gov’t Exh. 1313) (“Ain’t
no love in the heart of the city, stay safe, people.”); 1.Supp.App.66 (Gov’t Exh. 1320)
(“I’m a stress free kind of guy.”); 1.Supp.App. 51 (Gov’t Exh. 1153) (“Better not text
me my friend . . . Lol.”). And Tsarnaev’s willingness to commit additional violence—
including participating in the murder of Officer Collier, throwing bombs at police
officers, and trying to run officers over—is entirely inconsistent with his claim that he
was coerced into committing the bombing.
c. The evidence was not relevant to show Tsarnaev’s

lesser role.
Next, Tsarnaev claims that the Waltham murder evidence was relevant to show
that Tamerlan “played a much greater role in these offenses than [Tsarnaev]” because
he “initiated the bombings and the brothers’ failed escape.” Br. 250. See id. at 247,
262, 267. He is incorrect. As an initial matter, the primary question for the jury was
Tsarnaev’s role in the offense, not his brother’s. Even if Tamerlan played a “greater
role,” the jury could still have concluded that Tsarnaev’s comparatively lesser role
justified the death penalty.
204
More importantly, Tamerlan’s alleged participation in the Waltham murders did
not tend to show that Tsarnaev played a “less significant” or “less culpable” role in
the Boston Marathon bombings and the brothers’ subsequent crimes.46 Br. 262, 268.
Tsarnaev claims that evidence that Tamerlan had previously “influenced a less
culpable person (Todashev) to participate in murder,” Br. 268-69, supported the
inference that Tamerlan had done the same with Tsarnaev. But Tamerlan did not
“influence[ ]” Todashev to “participate in a murder” at all.
Because
Tamerlan had not previously “recruit[ed]” (much less coerced) someone into
“commit[ting] violence,” Br. 269, the Waltham incident provides no support for
Tsarnaev’s claim that he played a less culpable role in the bombing.
Tsarnaev introduced other evidence at trial tending to show that Tamerlan

46
was the leader in the brothers’ relationship. See 12.App.5302 (when Stephen Silva
heard about the bombing he thought “it must have been [Tsarnaev’s] brother who got
him into it”); 17.App.7802 (Tsarnaev never spoke much at the gym when Tamerlan
was in the room); 18.App.8293 (Tsarnaev was proud of Tamerlan). And five jurors
found that Tamerlan “became radicalized first, and then encouraged his younger
brother to follow him,” Add. 92, yet still found the death penalty appropriate.
205
Tsarnaev did want to kill people. Months before the bombing, he texted a friend
about jihad and his desire to reach the “[h]ighest level” of paradise. 1.Supp.App.74
(Gov’t Exh. 1395). He repeated that sentiment on Twitter and expressed a desire for
“victory over kufr,” or unbelievers. 1.Supp.App.61 (Gov’t Exh. 1266); 12.App.5300;
13.App.5934. A month before the bombing, as well as the day after it, he accessed
the Inspire magazine file on his computer that showed how to build bombs and urged
Muslims in the West to “damage the enemy” with them. 13.App.5663; 1.Supp.App.39
(Gov’t Exh. 1142-013 at 5); 2.Supp.App.210 (1142-091 at 33). And after the
bombings, he explained that “killing innocent people” was “allowed” based on
perceived wrongs committed by the United States government. 11.App.4557; see
11.App.4556 (“I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished.”). Because Tsarnaev had
a clear motive for the bombing and personally took part in it, his position is nothing
like Todashev’s. Evidence of the Waltham murders is not relevant to show that he
played a less culpable role.
Tsarnaev cites cases (Br. 247-49) that, he says, hold “that a defendant’s death
sentence may not stand where the jury has been prevented from hearing evidence
tending to show that the defendant may not have had the primary role in the offense.”
Br. 247. But in those cases, the evidence was about the co-defendant’s role in the
charged offense, not his participation in an unrelated crime. For example, in Mak v.
206
Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), the court found prejudice
from cumulative errors, including the court’s “refusal . . . to admit at the penalty
phase” evidence that Mak’s co-defendant and a third party actually “may have planned
the massacre,” which rebutted the state’s argument that Mak himself had planned it.
And in Cooper v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 646 F.3d 1328, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 2011), the court
concluded that the defendant was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to call his family
members to corroborate a psychologist’s opinion that the defendant was “susceptible
to being dominated by older, dominant males” such as his co-defendants—an opinion
the sentencing court rejected because it was based solely on the defendant’s self-
reporting. See also Dugger, 526 So. 2d at 902-03 (improper exclusion of non-statutory
mitigation circumstances, including testimony about the co-defendant’s “violent
character and domination of” the defendant); Troedel, 667 F. Supp. at 1461-62 (counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate co-defendant’s violent history
and motive for the killing); Buttrum v. Black, 721 F. Supp. 1268, 1314-16 (N.D. Ga.
1989) (improper exclusion of evidence that defendant’s husband had urges to rape
women, wanted to kill his mother, and had attacked his mother with a knife, all of
which suggested the husband was the dominant actor in the charged rape and murder
and rebutted the state’s claim that he did nothing violent before he met the
207
defendant), aff’d, 908 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1990). None of the cases Tsarnaev cites
involved evidence of unrelated, uncharged murders committed by a co-defendant. 47
Other courts have concluded that a co-defendant’s prior murders or other
crimes are not relevant for mitigation purposes. See Cauthern v. Colson, 736 F.3d 465,
488 (6th Cir. 2013) (no prejudice from counsel’s failure to present evidence that the
co-defendant was suspected of an unrelated and unsolved rape and murder; the
evidence was “inadmissible” in the defendants’ joint trial because “a reasonable juror
would not have concluded” that the evidence “had any bearing on [the defendant’s]
relative culpability”); Fuller v. Dretke, 161 F. App’x 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished) (co-defendant’s propensity to violence had “little, if any, relevance to
[the defendant’s] character and background”); Carter v. Gibson, 27 F. App’x 934, 949-
51 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (evidence that co-defendant owned guns,
distributed drugs, and received stolen property “would not have been mitigating as to
[the defendant’s] participation in the crime or his character”); Lawrence v. State, 846 So.
2d 440, 449-50 (Fla. 2003) (no error in excluding co-defendant’s criminal history
Furthermore, each of these cases involved additional errors that supported

47
reversal of the death sentences. See Mak, 970 F.2d at 624-25 (erroneous jury
instructions and verdict form); Cooper, 646 F.3d at 1354-56 (failure to present
childhood and family background information); Cooper, 526 So. 2d at 901-02
(improper exclusion of evidence showing rehabilitation); Troedel, 667 F. Supp. at 1458-
66 (state presented false and misleading testimony, counsel failed to depose state’s
expert witness, and state violated its Brady obligations); Buttrum, 721 F. Supp. at 1312-
14, 1316-18 (failure to provide sufficient psychiatric assistance to the defense, use of
psychiatric interrogation violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment, prosecutorial
misconduct during closing argument).
208
where there was “no evidence presented or proffered indicating how [the co-
defendant’s] record influenced [the defendant’s] behavior in the instant crime”); Jones
v. State, 539 S.E.2d 154, 161 (Ga. 2000) (concluding that co-defendant’s prior murder
conviction “would not tend to lessen [the defendant’s] culpability for the murder, nor
would it constitute mitigating evidence pertaining to [the defendant’s] character, prior
record, or the circumstances of the offense” (quotations omitted)); State v. Goode, 461
S.E.2d 631, 651 (N.C. 1995) (“[H]is accomplice’s criminal record has no bearing on
defendant’s character or propensity to commit the crime.”). In light of these
decisions—and the dissimilarities between the Waltham murders and the marathon
bombing—the district court’s conclusion that the Waltham evidence was irrelevant
was not an abuse of discretion.
2. Even if the evidence was minimally relevant, its probative

value was outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and
misleading the jury.
Even if the Waltham evidence had some relevance for mitigation, the district
court was within its discretion to exclude the evidence based on the risk of “confusing
the issues[ ] or misleading the jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Consistent with the
Supreme Court’s view that it is “desirable for the jury to have as much information
before it as possible” in a capital penalty phase, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 204
(1976) (plurality opinion), the FDPA states that “[i]nformation is admissible regardless
of its admissibility” under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). But the
Act allows district courts to exclude information “if its probative value is outweighed
209
by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the
jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). This allows for the exclusion of more evidence than
Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which requires that the “probative value be substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice before evidence may be excluded.”
Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 42.
The district court reasonably concluded that the Waltham evidence risked
confusing the issues. Tsarnaev wanted to prove Tamerlan’s guilt for the unrelated
murders, not simply through a prior conviction (which obviously did not exist), but
through evidence such as Todashev’s hearsay statements, computer chats between
Tamerlan and Todashev, an article on Tamerlan’s computer that justified stealing
from non-Muslims, computer records from Tamerlan’s wife’s computer, and witness
testimony about Tamerlan’s close relationship with Brendan Mess. See Add.339-40,
343, 346-48; 25.App.11574; Doc. 1292-1 at 3. Tsarnaev also now indicates that he
would have called his friend Kadyrbayev to testify that Tsarnaev knew about
Tamerlan’s participation in the Waltham murder. 48 See Br. 238, 257.
Faced with all this evidence relating to the Waltham murders, the jurors easily
could have been confused as to what issues they needed to decide and how they bore
Tsarnaev mentioned Kadyrbayev’s potential testimony in his third motion to

48
compel, 24.App.11292, but he did not mention it when arguing that the Waltham
murder evidence was admissible at trial, see Add.343-44, 347-49; Doc. 1292-1. Thus,
he failed to provide the district court with an essential link in his argument that the
Waltham evidence was relevant—evidence that Tsarnaev knew of Tamerlan’s alleged
role in the triple murder.
210
on Tsarnaev’s culpability. For example, they would have had to determine whether
Todashev’s account of the Waltham murders was believable, or whether he had
exaggerated Tamerlan’s responsibility for the murders in order to minimize his own.
As the district court observed, it was possible that “Todashev was the bad guy and
Tamerlan was the minor actor.” Add. 352.
And Todashev attacked an FBI
agent at the conclusion of the interview in which he was questioned about the
Waltham murders. Todashev’s actions, which are more consistent with guilt, could
suggest that he committed the murders and only pinned them on Tamerlan because
Tamerlan was dead and was therefore an easy scapegoat.
Moreover, in trying to determine how much Tsarnaev knew about the murders,
the jury easily could have speculated (quite prejudicially to Tsarnaev) about whether
he knew about Tamerlan’s plans to kill in advance and failed to thwart them, and why
he told Kadyrbayev about the murders, but not the police. Because the Waltham
evidence was at best only minimally relevant—and possibly harmful to Tsarnaev—the
district court could reasonably decline to allow a miniature trial regarding those
murders.
The Waltham evidence also could have misled the jury into believing that
Tsarnaev did not deserve the death penalty simply because he was not as bad as his
211
brother. The primary focus of the jury’s inquiry is “the defendant’s background, record,
or character” and the “circumstance[s] of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(8)
(emphasis added). See Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604 n.12 (plurality opinion) (“the
defendant’s character, prior record, [and] the circumstances of his offense”). The
Waltham evidence would have confusingly focused the jury’s attention on Tamerlan’s
character and the circumstances of an unrelated offense.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the exclusion of similar collateral evidence in United
States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2007), where a capital defendant
sought to put on evidence about the details of two unrelated murders in order to
impeach a prosecution witness and to “contrast his culpability” with that of the other
murderer, who did not face the death penalty. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the
district court did not “abuse[ ] its discretion in concluding that more information than
this about these separate murders would confuse the issues and mislead the jury.” Id.
at 992. The details of the unrelated murders “had little apparent bearing on Mitchell’s
character or the circumstances of Mitchell’s offense.” Id. at 991. Cf. United States v.
Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 757 (8th Cir. 2005) (the “scandalous and perplexing nature” of
evidence that the defendant’s wife had tried to poison him “had significant potential
to confuse or mislead the jury”). Similarly here, trying to prove Tamerlan’s role in an
unrelated triple murder would have risked confusing the issues.49
Tsarnaev faults (Br. 261-62) the district court for saying that evidence of the
49
Waltham murders would not only be “confusing to the jury,” but also “a waste of
212
Any attempt to prove that Tamerlan was involved in these unsolved murders
would have exposed this jury to a large amount of sensational and gruesome evidence
relating to the Waltham crime scene and Todashev’s being shot by the FBI in Florida.
It would have required them to find that Tamerlan committed a dramatic unsolved
murder on the basis of a dead declarant’s self-serving statements and other
circumstantial evidence. The district court properly concluded in its ample discretion
that presentation of this evidence would have distracted the jury from the issues it had
to decide.
The question here is not whether “the district court was required to exclude the
evidence” or even whether “it was preferable to exclude it,” but whether the action
was “within the [district court’s] discretion.” United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 363
(6th Cir. 2016). A “district court is not an automaton that can only come to one right
answer on any evidentiary issue just because the case is a capital case.” Id. Here, the
district court could reasonably conclude that the probative value of the unrelated
murders was “outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, or misleading the jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c).
time.” See Add. 352. To be sure, the FDPA “makes no express mention of the
factors of undue delay, waste of time, and cumulativeness as grounds for exclusion.”
Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 42-43. Compare Fed. R. Evid. 403. But despite this omission,
“the trial court, in a capital sentencing proceeding, remains free to consider
cumulativeness.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 43. Trial courts accordingly retain inherent
authority to exclude evidence that would cause needless delay. The Court need not
reach the question because, even if the Waltham evidence was minimally relevant, the
concerns of jury confusion were sufficient to justify the district court’s ruling.
213
D. Even if the district court abused its discretion by excluding the

Waltham murder evidence, the error was harmless.
Even if this Court were to find an abuse of discretion, any error on this issue
would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s suggestion
(Br. 264-67), harmless-error review applies to the erroneous exclusion of mitigation
evidence in capital cases. And the record overwhelmingly shows that any error in
excluding the Waltham evidence was harmless.
1. Harmless-error review applies to the erroneous exclusion of

mitigating evidence in capital cases.
The FDPA directs that courts “shall not reverse or vacate a sentence of death
on account of any error which can be harmless, . . . where the Government
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3595(c)(2). Thus, harmless error review applies if the exclusion of mitigating
evidence is an error that “can be harmless.” Id.
Since Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the Supreme Court “has applied
harmless-error analysis to a wide range of errors.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279,
306-07 (1991) (collecting cases). “[M]ost constitutional errors can be harmless.”
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quotations omitted). To justify automatic
reversal without regard to prejudice, an error must be a “structural defect” that so
fundamentally alters the “framework within which the trial proceeds” that it “def[ies]
analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10. Such
structural errors “deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal

214
trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or
innocence . . . and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.’”
Neder, 527 U.S. at 8-9 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 (1986)). The
Supreme Court has found structural error “[o]nly in rare cases,” Washington v. Recuenco,
548 U.S. 212, 218 & n.2 (2006), including Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
(complete denial of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (biased trial judge);
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) (racial discrimination in grand jury selection);
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (denial of self-representation right at trial);
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (denial of public trial); and Sullivan v. Louisiana,
508 U.S. 275 (1993) (defective reasonable-doubt instruction).
A mistaken evidentiary ruling is quite different from the errors the Supreme
Court has deemed structural. An evidentiary ruling does not make the proceeding
fundamentally unfair, and its significance can be “quantitatively assessed in the
context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether [the error] was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08.
The Supreme Court has specifically treated evidentiary rulings that result in the
improper exclusion of mitigating evidence in capital trials as non-structural. In
Skipper, 476 U.S. at 5, the Court held that “evidence that the defendant would not
pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated)” is mitigating and “may not be excluded
from the sentencer’s consideration.” In analyzing the erroneous exclusion of such
evidence, however, the Court did not suggest that the error was structural. To the
215
contrary, the Court considered, and then rejected, the State’s argument that exclusion
of the evidence was harmless. Id. at 7-8. The Court held that, under the
circumstances of that particular case, “the exclusion of the evidence was sufficiently
prejudicial to constitute reversible error.” Id. at 8.
Similarly, in Hitchcock v. Duggar, 481 U.S. 393, 396-99 (1987), the Court ordered
that the habeas petitioner’s capital sentence be vacated because Florida law
unconstitutionally prohibited the sentencing jury and judge from considering certain
mitigating evidence introduced during the penalty phase. The Court noted that the
State had “made no attempt to argue that this error was harmless, or that it had no
effect on the jury or the sentencing judge.” Id. at 399. The Court then explained that,
“[i]n the absence of such a showing our cases hold that the exclusion of mitigating evidence
of the sort at issue here renders the death sentence invalid.” Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, both Skipper and Hitchcock presumed that erroneous exclusion of mitigating
evidence is reviewed for harmlessness, rather than considered structural error. Cf.
Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 257 (1988) (“We have permitted harmless error
analysis in both capital and noncapital cases where the evil caused by a Sixth
Amendment violation is limited to the erroneous admission of particular evidence at
trial.”); Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 402 (1999) (holding that harmless-error
review applies when the jury considers improper aggravating factors).
Although this Court has not yet weighed in, other courts of appeals have
uniformly applied harmless-error review to evidentiary rulings improperly excluding

216
mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital trial. 50 See, e.g., Rhoades v.
Davis, 914 F.3d 357, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-9614 (June 10,
2019); McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 821 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc); Dixon v. Houk,
737 F.3d 1003, 1011 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1137 (11th
Cir. 2013); United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 363, 365-66 (4th Cir. 2010); Williams v.
Norris, 612 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir. 2010); Bryson v. Ward, 187 F.3d 1193, 1205 (10th
Cir. 1999). If this Court finds an abuse of discretion, it too should review for
harmless error.
2. Any error here was harmless.
Any error in excluding the Waltham evidence was harmless. A constitutional
error is harmless when the government proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the
error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at
24. The question is whether, absent the error, the jury “would have reached the same
recommendation as it did.” Jones, 527 U.S. at 404. Here, the answer to that question
is “yes,” for several reasons.
Tsarnaev cites Nelson v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 287, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2006) (en
50
banc), where the court treated as structural error jury instructions that prevented the
jury from giving full effect to mitigating evidence that had already been admitted. As
the Fifth Circuit has subsequently explained, however, harmless-error review still
applies when the question is “whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit one
piece of mitigating evidence as irrelevant.” Rhoades v. Davis, 914 F.3d 357, 368 n.39
(5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-9614 (June 10, 2019).
217
First, as discussed above, Tsarnaev was unable to muster any evidence
suggesting that Tamerlan intimidated or coerced him into bombing the Boston
Marathon, much less that the Waltham murders somehow contributed to that
coercion. Thus, even if the jury had heard about Tamerlan’s alleged commission of
the Waltham murders, there would have been no basis other than speculation to
conclude that Tsarnaev committed the instant crimes out of fear of Tamerlan.
Second, the evidence in this case overwhelmingly demonstrated that Tsarnaev
participated in the bombings and subsequent crimes willingly. He read radical Islamic
publications, including the Inspire magazine that showed how to make pressure cooker
bombs and encouraged Muslims to use bombs to “damage the enemy.” See
13.App.5652, 5663, 5684-85; 2.Supp.App.210 (Gov’t Exh. 1142-091). He texted with
a friend about being interested in jihad. 14.App.6344-45. He placed and detonated a
bomb in the middle of a crowd, within a few feet of several children. 14.App.6423;
Gov’t Exh. 22 (video). When he returned to college after the bombing, he did not
report Tamerlan to authorities or express any fear or remorse, but instead worked out
at the gym and tweeted that he was a “stress free kind of guy.” 1.Supp.App.66 (Gov’t
Exh. 1320); Gov’t Exhs. 1181, 1182, 1183 (gym videos). When his friend realized he
was one of the bombers, Tsarnaev texted back, “Better not text me my friend . . . Lol
[laugh out loud].” 1.Supp.App.51 (Gov’t Exh. 1153).
Tsarnaev later voluntarily returned to the Boston area and joined Tamerlan in
murdering Officer Sean Collier, carjacking Dun Meng’s car, and trying to kill police
218
officers on Laurel Street by lobbing bombs. 12.App.5045-46, 5077-78. Even after
Tamerlan was captured, Tsarnaev tried to run down officers with an SUV.
12.App.5091-92, 5097-98. And after Tamerlan was dead, Tsarnaev wrote that his
killing of “innocent people” was justified by the “evil” committed by the United
States and described himself as a mujahideen. 11.App.4556-57. In light of all this
evidence, there is no reason to believe the Waltham evidence would have changed the
jury’s decision to impose the death penalty.
Finally, the Waltham evidence could have cut both ways. If jurors had known
Tsarnaev was aware that “Tamerlan was a cold-blooded killer” who “had slit three
people’s throats a year and a half earlier,” Br. 229, they could have concluded that
Tsarnaev himself was similarly cold-blooded. Tsarnaev did not report his brother’s
crimes to authorities or distance himself from his brother, even when Tamerlan spent
six months in Dagestan. Instead, Tsarnaev continued to communicate with Tamerlan,
exchanging Islamic videos and articles by email. See 17.App.7561-7572;
1.Supp.App.103-122 (Def. Exh. 3316-02). Moreover, according to Kadyrbayev’s
proffer, Tsarnaev characterized as “jihad” Tamerlan’s unprovoked murder of
Tamerlan’s friend Brendan Mess. 24.App.11294. That Tsarnaev was undisturbed by
Tamerlan’s violence—and even praised it as “jihad”—indicates that he himself was
“cold-blooded” and would commit similar acts of violence based on his jihadist
beliefs.
219
Tsarnaev’s attempts to show prejudice are unpersuasive. He argues that the
government “capitalized on the exclusion of Todashev’s statements,” Br. 271, and
“belittled the defense’s mitigation evidence as showing merely that Tamerlan was
‘bossy,’ ‘charming,’ and ‘loud,’ and ‘sometimes lost his temper,’” Br. 247. The
government’s arguments did not suggest that Tamerlan was never violent. The
prosecutor referenced a defense witness’s testimony that Tamerlan “could be
charming.” 19.App.8783; see 17.App.7741. (The defense also said at closing argument
that Tamerlan was “charming.” 19.App.8751.) But the prosecutor also pointed out
Tamerlan’s volatility: “Tamerlan was loud, flashy, in your face. The defendant was
quiet, polite and laid back. Tamerlan couldn’t stop talking about his beliefs. The
defendant kept his beliefs to himself. Tamerlan sometimes lost his temper. The
defendant knew how to keep his cool.” 19.App.8783. This was entirely accurate. It
was similarly accurate for the government to say that Tamerlan “was bossy,” “didn’t
want [Tsarnaev] to smoke, drink or do drugs,” and “wanted him to pray and go to the
mosque more often.” 19.App.8787. As the government observed, this was “a far cry
from coercion or control.” 19.App.8787. Even if the court had admitted the
Waltham evidence, the government could have made the very same arguments.
Tsarnaev also asserts that the government misleadingly claimed he “acted
‘independently’ and ‘alone.’” Br. 241. The context makes clear that the government
was not saying Tsarnaev committed the bombings entirely on his own. See
16.App.7085 (saying Tsarnaev “walked alone down Boylston Street, knowing that his
220
brother had taken up his own place at another location”); 19.App.8725 (saying
Tsarnaev “independently got the gun used to murder Officer Sean Collier” and
“independently chose the Forum restaurant as the bombing site . . . in spite of the
children”). In fact, the government argued that the bombing “was a full-on
partnership” between Tamerlan and Tsarnaev and that “[t]hey did not do the exact
same things, but they were both terrorists engaged in a joint effort.” 19.App.8798.
The exclusion of the Waltham murder evidence did not allow the government to
improperly characterize Tamerlan or minimize his role. Any error was harmless.
E. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that
the details contained in the Todashev materials were not
discoverable.
Tsarnaev contends that, even assuming the district court properly excluded the
Waltham evidence, the district court violated Brady v. Maryland by denying his trial
counsel access to the report and recordings of the May 21 Todashev interview.51 Br.
274-85. He also argues that the district court erred in relying on the qualified law
enforcement privilege to deny disclosure. Br. 281-85. The district court properly
denied disclosure because the undisclosed details were neither favorable nor material
under Brady. To the extent the details were discoverable on some basis other than
As noted above, this Court granted appellate counsel access to the report of
51
that interview, and counsel relied on the details of that report in the opening brief. See
Br. 255-56, 274-75, 280.
221
Brady, the court correctly concluded that they were protected by the law enforcement
investigative privilege.
1. The undisclosed information was not discoverable under

Brady because it was neither favorable to the defense nor
material to guilt or punishment.
“Brady requires that the Government disclose ‘evidence favorable to an
accused’ that is ‘material either to guilt or to punishment.’” United States v. Cruz-
Feliciano, 786 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87). Evidence is
material “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to
the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419, 433 (1995) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)
(opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Put another way, the question is whether the non-
disclosure “undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 434 (quoting
Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678).
The undisclosed details of the Waltham murders were not discoverable because
they were neither “favorable to an accused” nor “material either to guilt or to
punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. They were not favorable to the defense because,
as explained above, they were not relevant for any mitigation purpose. The other
evidence provided no basis for the jury to conclude that Tsarnaev feared Tamerlan or
that the Waltham murders influenced Tsarnaev to commit the instant offenses.
Even if the details of the Waltham murders had been favorable, they were not
material. The district court properly concluded that the evidence was inadmissible
222
because it was irrelevant and confusing to the jury. “Inadmissible evidence is by
definition not material,” United States v. Ranney, 719 F.2d 1183, 1190 (1st Cir. 1983),
unless it provides “so promising a lead to strong exculpatory evidence that there could
be no justification for withholding it,” Ellsworth v. Warden, 333 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.
2003). As explained further below, the inadmissible and irrelevant details of the
Waltham murder did not provide a lead to strong exculpatory or mitigating evidence.
Tsarnaev also contends that access to the Todashev FBI 302 and recordings
would have helped him “respond to the government’s argument for the complete
preclusion of the Waltham evidence.” Br. 278. See id. at n.122. But even if knowing
the details of Todashev’s statements might have been marginally helpful when
223
opposing the government’s motion in limine, evidence that is merely helpful for
litigation purposes is not “favorable to an accused” in the Brady sense because it is
neither impeaching nor exculpatory. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. And even if it were
favorable, such evidence would not be material. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,
109-10 (1976) (“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might
have helped the defense . . . does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional
sense.”).
In any event, Tsarnaev’s failure to obtain the precise details of Todashev’s
statements did not disadvantage him. Tsarnaev already knew “the fact and general
substance of Todashev’s statements concerning the murders.” Add.430.
Tsarnaev was therefore adequately equipped to litigate the
Waltham evidence’s admissibility.
Finally, Tsarnaev claims that access to the Todashev materials would have
allowed him to “develop[ ] additional mitigation evidence.” Br. 275. Inadmissible
evidence can be material if it provides “so promising a lead to strong exculpatory
evidence that there could be no justification for withholding it.” Ellsworth, 333 F.3d at
5. But Tsarnaev does not seriously contend that the report’s details would have led to
additional mitigating evidence. Instead, he points only to the possibility of discovering

224
further corroboration of Tamerlan’s alleged participation in the Waltham murders—
the purportedly mitigating evidence already at issue.
Br. 280.
Evidence corroborating these peripheral details would not be material. Indeed,
because the Waltham murders themselves are irrelevant, the details of the murders are
a fortiori irrelevant. And even assuming the murders had some minimal relevance and
were admissible, Tsarnaev cannot show that additional corroboration on collateral
details of the Waltham murders would have changed the outcome of the penalty
phase.
Moreover, Tsarnaev’s assertion that he could have found additional evidence is
entirely speculative. He cannot show that the previously undisclosed details in the
FBI 302 report would have provided a “promising lead” to “strong” mitigating
evidence. Ellsworth, 333 F.3d at 5. There is no reasonable probability that disclosure
of the details of Todashev’s statements would have led to a different outcome.
2. To the extent the Todashev reports and recordings were

discoverable on some other basis, they were protected by the
qualified law enforcement privilege.
Because the details of Todashev’s May 21, 2013 interview were not favorable or
material, they were not discoverable under Brady. And Tsarnaev has not asserted that
the Todashev materials were discoverable on any basis other than Brady, such as
225
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 or the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
Accordingly, this Court need not reach the question of whether the law enforcement
privilege applies. The privilege is potentially applicable to shield information from
discovery only if the information is first determined to be discoverable. See United
States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 131 (2d Cir. 2009) (before considering the privilege
applicable to classified information, court must “determine whether the material in
dispute is discoverable”). As explained, there is no basis for discovery here.
But even assuming the details of the Todashev interview were discoverable on
some basis other than Brady, the district court properly concluded that they were
protected from disclosure by the law enforcement privilege. Both this Court and the
Supreme Court have “recognized a qualified privilege for certain information related
to law enforcement activities.” Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States, 490 F.3d 50,
62 (1st Cir. 2007). In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957), the Court held
that the government has a qualified privilege to withhold a confidential informant’s
identity in order to protect “the public interest in effective law enforcement” by
encouraging citizens to report crimes. This Court has extended the law enforcement
privilege to “confidential government surveillance information,” United States v. Cintolo,
818 F.2d 980, 1002 (1st Cir. 1987), and to “law enforcement techniques and
procedures,” Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 490 F.3d at 64 (quotations omitted). The
privilege helps prevent “jeopardiz[ing] future criminal investigations.” Id. The
privilege “can be overcome by a sufficient showing of ‘need.’” Cintolo, 818 F.2d at

226
1002. And when ruling on the privilege, a district court must “balanc[e] the federal
government’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of sensitive law enforcement
techniques against the requesting party’s interest in disclosure,” Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, 490 F.3d at 64.
The district court recognized that the Middlesex County investigation into the
Waltham murders was “ongoing” and concluded that “disclosure of the [May 21,
2013] report risks revealing facts seemingly innocuous on their face, such as times of
day or sequences of events, revelation of which would have a real potential to
interfere with the ongoing state investigation.” Add.429-30. It also concluded that
the report was “not material” because its “utility . . . to the defense in building a
mitigation case is very low at best.” Add. 430.
Tsarnaev argues that the government failed to show that disclosure “would
have endangered the ongoing Waltham murder investigation.” Br. 281. But
considering that
and allegedly excused the Waltham murders
as “jihad,” 24.App.11294, a real danger existed that he could reveal facts or
investigative techniques to other targets or potential witnesses. And his attorneys
could have unintentionally interfered with the Middlesex investigation by attempting
their own investigation into the Waltham murders. For example, Tsarnaev suggests
his counsel could have “interviewed people close to Mess and Tamerlan” and
investigated Tamerlan’s and Todashev’s financial transactions, Br. 280, actions that
227
could have tipped off targets, scared off witnesses, or otherwise interfered with the
investigation.
Tsarnaev argues that because “the sole identified suspects . . . were both dead”
by the time of his penalty phase in 2015, there was “[b]y all indications . . . no case left
to solve.” Br. 282.
As late as April 2018, three years
after Tsarnaev’s penalty phase, the Middlesex District Attorney stated publicly that the
Waltham murder probe “continues to be an open and active investigation.” Phillip
Martin, Is the Waltham Triple Murder Investigation at a Dead End?, WGBH (Apr.
12, 2018). The district court could reasonably conclude that disclosure would
jeopardize that investigation.
The district court was also correct in concluding that Tsarnaev’s “interest in
disclosure” of the report was low. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 490 F.3d at 64. As
explained above, the details contained in the report were not favorable to the defense
because they were not relevant for mitigation purposes in the absence of any evidence
that Tamerlan coerced or pressured Tsarnaev into committing the bombings. For
much the same reason, they would not have affected the outcome of the trial.
Therefore, just as they fail to satisfy the Brady standard, they fail to outweigh the
government’s interests in non-disclosure. See United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d
12, 35 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that neither Brady nor Roviaro “provides grounds for
228
And Tsarnaev is wrong in any event.
To
justify in camera review for potential Brady information, a defendant “must make some
showing that the materials in question could contain favorable, material evidence.”
United States v. Prochilo, 629 F.3d 264, 268 (1st Cir. 2011). “This showing cannot
consist of mere speculation.” Id. at 268-69. “Rather, the defendant should be able to
articulate with some specificity what evidence he hopes to find in the requested
materials, why he thinks the materials contain this evidence, and finally, why this
evidence would be both favorable to him and material.” Id. at 269.
230
232
233
234
235
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
any other purpose; and (3) the evidence was not harmless. Each of those premises is
wrong. First, the testimony at issue here was relevant to establish the existence and
weight of other aggravating factors, in particular the factors that Tsarnaev caused a
grave risk of death to the surviving victims, and that he committed additional
uncharged crimes, including assault with intent to maim. Second, even if the
testimony was not admissible for any purpose other than victim impact, the FDPA
does not prohibit evidence of the impact of the capital offense on surviving victims.
Finally, even if the district court plainly erred or abused its discretion in admitting the
testimony, any error did not prejudice Tsarnaev.
A. Background
1. Tsarnaev’s first motion in limine
In its notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the government gave notice of
its intent to prove “[v]ictim [i]mpact” as a non-statutory aggravating factor.
1.App.137-38. Specifically, the government alleged that Tsarnaev “caused injury,
harm, and loss” to the four deceased victims and their families, which was “evidenced
by the victim’s personal characteristics and by the impact of the victim’s death upon
his or her family and friends.” 1.App.138.
Before trial, Tsarnaev filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the
government from introducing victim-impact evidence about the effect of Tsarnaev’s
capital offenses on victims who survived the bombing. 25.App.11495-98. Tsarnaev
argued that the FDPA barred victim-impact evidence about surviving victims.
255
25.App.11496-97. The government responded that it did “not intend to offer victim-
impact testimony from bombing survivors during the guilt phase.” 25.App.11516.
The government argued, however, that some testimony about the “long-term effects”
suffered by victims was relevant for other purposes, including providing necessary
background and context for their testimony, proving the indictment’s allegations that
the bombings “maimed, burned, and wounded scores” of people, and explaining why
the victims could not “remember certain events” but remembered others with
“particular sharpness.” 25.App.11516. For that reason, the government contended,
“objections to testimony on this ground” should be made at trial “on a question-by-
question basis rather than in a motion in limine.” 25.App.11516. Tsarnaev withdrew
his motion based on the government’s statement that it would not offer victim-impact
evidence that was not relevant on other grounds. 25.App.11569.
2. Rebekah Gregory, Sydney Corcoran, and Karen Rand
Three surviving victims testified on the first day of the guilt phase—Rebekah
Gregory, Sydney Corcoran, and Karen Rand. Gregory was at the finish line with her
five-year-old son Noah when the bombs exploded. 10.App.4064-65. She testified
that the explosion knocked her down and that she was unable to get up.
10.App.4066. She described the scene immediately around her: “My bones were
literally laying next to me on the sidewalk, and blood was everywhere, and pools of
BBs and nails and shrapnel . . . and people’s body parts were . . . laying everywhere.”
10.App.4066. Gregory testified that her “first instinct” was to find her son.
256
10.App.4066. She could hear Noah calling “Mommy!” repeatedly, and she felt
“helpless as a mother” because she could not come to her son’s aid. 10.App.4066-67.
Lying there on the pavement, she said a prayer for Noah, and at that moment a
relative “picked Noah up and placed him down beside me, and I knew that he was
going to be all right.” 10.App.4067.
Corcoran, who was 17 years old at the time of the bombing, testified that she
was at the Marathon with her parents. She said that, after the explosion, she limped
over to the rail and passed out. 10.App.4077-79. When she woke up moments later,
men were putting “massive” pressure on her thigh and tying tourniquets around it
because her femoral artery had been cut. She felt her body “going tingly” and
“getting increasingly cold.” 10.App.4080. She knew she was “fading fast.”
10.App.4087. Corcoran was taken immediately to the medical tent, where caregivers
were “frantic” and “kept saying, ‘She’s got a femoral artery break. She has to go. She
has to go now. She’s not going to make it.’” 10.App.4080.
Corcoran said she was rushed to the hospital, where doctors kept asking her for
a phone number so they could contact her family. 10.App.4087-88. Corcoran told
them she didn’t know whether her parents had survived. 10.App.4088. She said she
felt “panicked” at the thought of becoming “an orphan.” 10.App.4088. Corcoran
described waking up after surgery, seeing her father there, and learning from him that
her mother was alive, “[b]ut she doesn’t have her legs anymore.” 10.App.4089. The
257
nurses wheeled Corcoran’s mother into the room, and they cried and “held hands”
and were “just appreciating that we were both still alive.” 10.App.4089-90.
Karen Rand testified that, after the bombs went off, injuring her foot and leg,
she dragged herself over to her friend Krystle Campbell and held Campbell’s hand as
she bled to death. 10.App.4100-01. Rand said that, two days later, doctors informed
her that her leg had to be amputated, and “they took [her] leg that day.” 10.App.4107.
Rand also testified that, because she had Campbell’s phone in her pocket, hospital
staff misidentified her as Campbell. Rand explained that Campbell’s parents were
initially informed that Campbell was alive, while Rand’s parents couldn’t find her at
any hospital and thought she might have died. 10.App.4109. Rand said that
Campbell’s parents were “devastated” when they discovered that, in fact, it was their
daughter who had been killed. 10.App.4109.
3. Tsarnaev’s renewed motion.
Following these witnesses’ testimony, Tsarnaev renewed his motion in limine,
contending that the witnesses’ description of the long-term effects of their injuries
and emotional experiences with family members was not relevant for guilt-phase
purposes but was effectively victim-impact evidence. 25.App.11569-70. Tsarnaev
contended that he should not be required to object “on a question-by-question basis”
because interrupting the “moving testimony” of “surviving witnesses” would have
“shocked and perhaps even angered the jury.” 25.App.11570.
258
The government responded that the testimony about “the extent of the injuries
that occurred” was relevant to describe the crime and its surrounding context, and
that the testimony did not constitute “victim impact” evidence about how survivors’
injuries “affected the future of [their] li[ves].” 10.App.4118-19. The district court
ruled that the testimony “did not go out of bounds.” 10.App.4119.
4. Jeffrey Bauman, Roseann Sdoia, and Jessica Kensky
Survivors Jeffrey Bauman, Roseann Sdoia, and Jessica Kensky also testified
during the guilt phase. Jeffrey Bauman said that the first explosion left him “on the
ground.” 10.App.4141. His legs were “pure carnage.” 10.App.4142. He “grabbed
[his] left leg and squeezed it and . . . didn’t let go until [he] was . . . into the
ambulance.” 10.App.4144. Bauman testified that he thought he would die and that
he “made peace” with himself, thinking, “I had a great life . . . I had great friends and
I experienced a lot in my 26, 27 years on this planet.” 10.App.4142-43.
Roseann Sdoia testified that, when the bomb went off, she knew she had lost
her leg immediately, “probably before [she] hit the ground.” 10.App.4230. She said
that “all [she] could see was blood pouring out” of “where [her] knee should have
been.” 10.App.4230-31. She initially thought that she “didn’t want to live as an
amputee,” and she “knew [she] was bleeding out,” but she resolved to “stay calm and
stay conscious because if [she] didn’t, [she] would die.” 10.App.4231. When Sdoia
woke up after surgery, she was told her leg had been amputated “above the knee.”
10.App.4236. She explained that above-the-knee amputation made a “huge

259
difference” relative to below the knee, that it had been “extremely difficult to learn
how to walk again,” and that it was “hard” in the winter “to deal with the snow.”
10.App.4236.
Jessica Kensky testified that she was at the finish line with her husband Patrick
when the explosion sent her flying “like [she] was on a rocket.” 10.App.4313. She
knew that both she and Patrick were seriously injured, and Patrick was “bleeding
really badly.” 10.App.4313-14. As she tried to put a tourniquet on Patrick with her
purse straps, a man said, “‘Ma’am you’re on fire.’” 10.App.4314. The man pushed
her to the ground to put out flames that were burning “from [her] shoulder blades all
the way down [her] pants.” 10.App.4314.
Kensky lost both her legs. 10.App.4307. She said it was “terrifying” being a
“bilateral amputee.” 10.App.4325. She said she wanted to retain “some memory” of
her legs and wanted to be able to “paint [her] toenails” and “put [her] feet in the
sand.” 10.App.4325. Kensky also described Patrick’s injuries and how they had to
recover for weeks in separate hospitals because Patrick was being treated for a serious
infection. 10.App.4322. She said that she suffered “horrendous” pain as she endured
long-term treatment for her burns and 15 to 20 surgeries on her legs. 10.App.4324.
She said she was “in a very dark place” and that she “was really not wanting to live.”
10.App.4325-26. When she and Patrick eventually got out of the hospital, she moved
from Boston to Medford to find “handicap-accessible housing.” 10.App.4327.
260
Kensky testified that, until she brought home a service dog, she had difficulty sleeping
“between nightmares and phantom pain.” 10.App.4327-28.
5. Celeste Corcoran’s testimony and the district court’s denial

of Tsarnaev’s mistrial motion and request for a continuing
objection.
At the penalty phase, the government called additional survivors. Celeste
Corcoran, whose daughter Sydney had testified earlier, said that the bomb threw her
“up in the air,” and she “land[ed] hard.” 16.App.7099. She said she was in
“excruciating” pain as her husband applied pressure on her legs and used his belt as a
tourniquet. 16.App.7102. Corcoran’s husband told her he loved her and to “[h]old
on.” 16.App.7102. At the hospital, she felt that the “pain was too much,” and she
“wanted to die,” but she decided she needed to “be there” for her husband and
children. 16.App.7104. She described sharing a hospital room with Sydney and how
it was “heartbreaking” to see her daughter “in pain and not be able to get up and
[help].” 16.App.7107-08.
Following Corcoran’s testimony, Tsarnaev moved for a mistrial. 16.App.7120-
22. He argued that Corcoran’s testimony “went beyond” describing “the risk of death
from her injuries and became victim-impact testimony.” 16.App.7121. The defense
argued that, under the FDPA, the jurors “do not sit as sentence[r]s for the injuries
to . . . any of the many people that were injured that did not die” because causing
those injuries was not punishable by death. 16.App.7121. The defense acknowledged
261
that they had not objected during the testimony, but argued that they could not have
done so “without drawing the wrath of the jury.” 16.App.7121.
The government argued that the evidence was relevant to prove that Tsarnaev
created a grave risk of death to persons other than the victims who died.
16.App.7122; see 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(5) (defining aggravating factor where defendant
created a “[g]rave risk of death to additional persons”). The government argued
further that, for Tsarnaev to preserve a claim that particular testimony constituted
impermissible victim-impact evidence, he had to “make a real time objection.”
16.App.7122-23.
The district court denied a mistrial, concluding that the evidence was “relevant”
to statutory aggravating factors, including the “grave risk” of death. 16.App.7124.
Tsarnaev then requested a “continuing objection” to “testimony about the impact on
the surviving victims of their injuries.” 16.App.7125. The government responded
that “not every word out of a [witness’s] mouth” must be “directly relevant to a
factor” because witnesses are “allowed to give some narration and context” so “the
jury can understand the situation.” 16.App.7126. The government argued that
Tsarnaev should be required to object in “real time” so that the court could consider
his objection to particular questions or statements in the context of the witness’s
overall testimony. 16.App.7126. The government also contended that the risk of the
jury disapproving of objections is an ever-present dilemma for lawyers on both sides,
262
but it does not excuse the parties from objecting. 16.App.7122-23. The district court
agreed and denied Tsarnaev’s request for a continuing objection. 16.App.7126.
6. Nicole Gross’s testimony and the district court’s denial of

Tsarnaev’s renewed request for a continuing objection.
Nicole Gross also testified at the penalty phase. She said that, after the
explosion knocked her down, she “knew something was wrong” and “looked down at
[her] legs” and saw that her right leg was “blown open.” 16.App.7181. She could
“feel [her] shoes just dangling by what felt like threads.” 16.App.7181. At the
hospital, she was separated from her family, was “worried” about them, and felt
“helpless and alone.” 16.App.7185.
At a sidebar conference, Tsarnaev sought to “renew” his “continuing objection
to what amounts to victim impact testimony from non-homicide survivors.”
16.App.7239-40. The government responded that evidence about the medical
procedures the victims endured, the “risks attendant to those procedures,” and the
victims’ current “medical status” were relevant to aggravating factors including “grave
risk of death.” 16.App.7241-42.
The district court asked Tsarnaev’s counsel whether any authority supported
the premise that “people who are not killed but were injured by the bomb were not
victims of the capital offense.” 16.App.7242. The court noted that it was “natural” to
“regard somebody who is injured by the same bomb that killed somebody as a victim
of the bombing.” 16.App.7243. The defense responded that their authority consisted
263
of two district court cases, United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Mass.
2004), and United States v. Gooch, 2006 WL 3780781 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2006).
16.App.7244. The court noted that those cases were inapplicable because they
involved victim-impact evidence from separate conduct that was not part of the
capital offenses, whereas here the surviving victims were maimed in the same course
of conduct underlying the capital charges. 16.App.7244. The district court concluded
that, because this case involved “an offense which not only killed people but maimed
people,” the injured survivors “fall within the scope” of the victims for which victim-
impact evidence may be offered. 16.App.7244. The district court concluded that this
was an “additional reason” why the surviving victims’ testimony was admissible and
that, in any event, the evidence was relevant to aggravating factors, including the
“grave risk of death.” 16.App.7244.
7. Eric Whalley, Adrianne Haslet-Davis, and Stephen

Woolfenden
Eric Whalley, Adrianne Haslet-Davis, and Stephen Woolfenden also testified at
the penalty phase. They described severe injuries to themselves and family members
who were with them at the marathon. 16.App.7252-54 (Whalley describing injuries to
himself, including shrapnel in his eye, and to his wife Ann); 16.App.7280-82 (Haslet-
Davis describing losing her leg, as well as her husband’s lower leg and foot injuries);
16.App.7436-37 (Woolfenden testifying that he lost his left leg and sustained extensive
burns and that his three-year-old son Leo suffred a “skull fracture,” a “laceration” on
264
his head, a perforated ear drum, and “minor burns”). Whalley also testified that both
he and his wife had initially believed that the other had been killed, and when they
were brought into the same hospital room, Whalley “grabbed her arm” and “wouldn’t
let go.” 16.App.7255.
Haslet-Davis described her husband’s “earth-shattering” scream immediately
after the bombing. 16.App.7274. She knew her husband was “in shock,” so she had
to “save [herself]” by crawling “along the broken glass” to get help. 16.App.7274.
She testified that her husband was not in the courtroom because he had “bravely
admitted himself into a mental [health] facility at the VA hospital.” 16.App.7282.
Woolfenden testified that, after the bombing, three-year-old Leo was “crying”
and “screaming” for “mommy” and “daddy” repeatedly. 16.App.7429-30.
Woolfenden said he was “terrified” when Leo was taken away for treatment because
he “didn’t know if [he] was ever going to see [his] son again.” 16.App.7430.
This Court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the FDPA de novo,
United States v. Troy, 618 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2010), and reviews “adequately preserved
objections to rulings admitting or excluding evidence for abuse of discretion,” Sampson
I, 486 F.3d at 42. As explained further below, however, Tsarnaev failed to preserve
objections to the specific surviving-victim testimony that he now challenges on
appeal. His challenge to the admission of that evidence is therefore reviewed for plain
error. 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2)(C) (requiring preservation of alleged penalty phase

265
errors); see Jones, 527 U.S. at 388-89. Finally, even where an objected-to error occurs at
a penalty phase proceeding, this Court should not reverse if the error was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2); Jones, 527 U.S. at 402-05.
C. The district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion by
concluding that surviving victims’ testimony was relevant and
admissible to establish the existence and the weight of other
aggravating factors.
Tsarnaev’s argument that the district court violated the FDPA by admitting
“victim impact” evidence from surviving victims rests on the mistaken premise that
the only ground on which that evidence might have been admissible would have been
to prove the victim-impact aggravating factor—a use that he contends would be
prohibited by statute. As explained in Part D below, Tsarnaev’s assertion that victim-
impact evidence cannot include evidence of a capital offense’s effects on survivors is
wrong. As a threshold matter, however, Tsarnaev is also wrong in his belief that the
survivors’ testimony was not admissible for other purposes. The government offered
that testimony to establish several aggravating factors—including that Tsarnaev’s
conduct created a grave risk of death to other people and was an act of terrorism—
that were unrelated to the victim-impact aggravator. The district court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting the survivors’ testimony for those purposes.
1. Tsarnaev failed to preserve his challenge to surviving victim

testimony.
Tsarnaev does not argue that all of the survivors’ testimony about the trauma
they suffered at his hands was inadmissible. He does not dispute (Br. 328, 330-33)
266
that survivors could tell the jury how the bombs injured them and describe the
severity of those injuries, presumably because such testimony is obviously relevant to
prove that Tsarnaev’s conduct created a “grave risk of death” to them, as the district
court found. See 16.App.7124, 7244; 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(5) (defining the “grave risk
of death” statutory aggravating factor). But at various points, Tsarnaev contends, the
testimony “went beyond” permissible description of injuries and became allegedly
inadmissible victim impact evidence. Br. 317, 320. Tsarnaev has not, however,
identified any clear line that he believes marks the boundary between admissible
descriptions of injuries and inadmissible “victim impact” evidence. The absence of
any bright line underscores the need to evaluate the relevance of such testimony in its
particular context.
For that reason, the district court acted within its discretion when it denied
Tsarnaev’s request for a “continuing objection” and required him to object to
particular testimony as it was presented. 16.App.7125-26. But Tsarnaev did not
contemporaneously object to the particular testimony he now challenges. To be sure,
Tsarnaev repeatedly raised the claim, both in written motions and in conferences with
the court, that victim-impact evidence from survivors was not permissible and that
certain kinds of testimony—such as the long-term effects of injuries and emotional
reactions to family members’ injuries—was effectively victim-impact evidence. But
that is not sufficient to preserve the challenges to particular testimony that he raises
now, and this Court should review only for plain error. See United States v. Rivera-
267
Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073, 1083 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Although the judge’s ruling was
emphatic and indicated that future objections would be fruitless, defense counsel,
absent the grant of a continuing objection, could preserve an ‘error of law’ issue only
by continuing to object when the testimony warranted it as the trial progressed.”);
United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that,
although the district court granted a continuing objection to victim-impact testimony
that “went beyond the ‘immediate effects’” of the bombing, “continuing objections
generally are considered inappropriate” in this context because, due to the “variety of
factual contexts” in which such testimony is presented, “the admissibility of victim
testimony would not ordinarily be an issue that could be decided in a pretrial hearing
or by means of a continuing objection”), overruled on other grounds by Hooks v. Ward, 184
F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1999).61 Moreover, even if Tsarnaev had preserved objections to
the surviving victims’ testimony, he could not prevail under the applicable abuse-of-
discretion standard.
Tsarnaev argued below that he should not be required to object in “real

61
time” because the jury might hold it against him. 16.App.7121-22. But that is a risk
every trial lawyer, including prosecutors, must run in order to assert legal objections.
Moreover, any prejudice can be ameliorated, as it was here, by an instruction that the
jury should draw no inferences from objections by counsel or the court’s evidentiary
rulings. See 10.App.3941 (“An objection isn’t a signal that this is somehow really
important because they’re objecting to it. That’s not necessarily true at all.”);
15.App.6977 (“I remind you there is no significance for your purposes to any of the
rulings either admitting or excluding evidence.”); 19.App.8651 (same). Tsarnaev cited
no authority supporting his claim that he should be exempt from the
contemporaneous objection requirement.
268
2. The district court correctly concluded that the surviving

victims’ testimony was relevant to aggravating factors other
than victim impact.
The FDPA states that, in the penalty phase of a capital trial, the government
“may present any information relevant to an aggravating factor for which notice has
been provided,” regardless of whether it would be admissible under the rules of
evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency” to make a
fact that “is of consequence in determining the action” “more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1212
(“We conclude that the appropriate relevance standard in a federal capital sentencing
hearing is the same standard used throughout the federal courts under [Rule] 401.”).
Tsarnaev identifies several categories of surviving victims’ testimony that he
claims were irrelevant to any aggravating factor, including (1) “their reactions to facing
death”; (2) their “uncertainty about what had happened to other family members”; (3)
their “feelings of helplessness watching their injured child or partner suffer”; and (4)
“the long-term implications of becoming an amputee.” Br. 337; see also Br. 309.
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s contention, all of the testimony he challenges was relevant to
the jury’s finding and weighing of aggravating factors other than victim impact.62
Several of the surviving victims testified at the guilt phase. Although

62
Tsarnaev argues that aspects of their testimony were not relevant for guilt-phase
purposes, he does not challenge the guilt-phase verdict on these grounds.
Accordingly, this brief addresses the relevance of all of the victims’ testimony for the
jury’s penalty-phase verdict, the only verdict at issue. See 19.App.8650, 8652
(instructing the jury it could consider at the penalty phase evidence that was
269
a. Victims’ reactions to facing death
Several surviving witnesses testified that they thought they might die from their
injuries. Sydney Corcoran described feeling “tingly,” “getting increasingly cold,” and
“fading fast” while she lay bleeding in the street. 10.App.4080, 4087. Jeffrey Bauman
described making “peace” with death because he “had a great life.” 10.App.4142-43.
Roseann Sdoia said she “knew [she] was bleeding out,” but she resolved to “stay calm
and stay conscious” because if she panicked she “would die.” 10.App.4231. Celeste
Corcoran testified that she was in so much pain she “wanted to die,” but she needed
to “be there” for her family. 16.App.7104.
This testimony was relevant to establish that Tsarnaev “knowingly created a
grave risk of death to 1 or more persons in addition to” the victims who died. 18
U.S.C. § 3592(c)(5). The fact that the witnesses felt that they might die helps show
that they actually faced a grave risk of death. Moreover, the victims’ specific
descriptions of what that felt like and their thoughts during what could have been
their final moments made it more likely that the jury would credit the witnesses’
statements that they were at death’s door.
introduced in the guilt phase). In any event, the guilt-phase testimony was relevant to
prove the offenses charged in the indictment, including bombing a place of public use
“with the intent to cause death and serious bodily injury,” Add.23, 27; see 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332f(a)(1)(A), and malicious destruction of property “resulting in personal injury
and death,” Add.32, 36; see 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
270
In addition, the witnesses’ description of how they experienced their near-death
trauma is relevant not only to the existence of the “grave risk” factor but also to the
appropriate weight the jurors should give it. Tsarnaev’s argument that only the
immediate effect of physical injuries is relevant to “grave risk” presumes that the
jury’s consideration of an aggravating factor is a simple, yes-or-no factual finding. But
in a capital sentencing proceeding, the jurors do not just find factors; they also weigh
them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e) (requiring the jury to “consider whether all the
aggravating . . . factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh all the
mitigating . . . factors found to exist to justify a sentence of death, or, in the absence
of a mitigating factor, whether the aggravating . . . factors alone are sufficient to justify
a sentence of death”). Accordingly, testimony about what the victims thought and
felt as they confronted death helped the jury understand the full consequences of the
grave risk that each surviving victim faced, both in the immediate aftermath of the
bombing and as they underwent surgeries and amputations in the months and years
after the bombing. Understanding the full extent of the victims’ injuries aided the jury
in its responsibility to give appropriate weight to the grave-risk-of-death factor in
determining whether a death sentence was justified. See Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 44
(upholding admission of detailed, graphic evidence about a murder because it “would
help the jury to determine how much weight it should give” the aggravating factors).
The testimony was also relevant to the jury’s finding and weighing of other
aggravating factors. Those factors include (1) that Tsarnaev committed the offenses
271
“after substantial planning and premeditation to . . . commit an act of terrorism,” 18
U.S.C. § 3592(c)(9); (2) that he “targeted the Boston Marathon, an iconic event that
draws large crowds of men, women and children to its final stretch, making it
especially susceptible to the act and effects of terrorism,” 19.App.8683; and (3) that he
“participated in additional uncharged crimes of violence, including . . . assault with
intent to maim, mayhem and attempted murder,” id. The fact that so many people
nearly died helps show that Tsarnaev’s crime was intended to be an act of terrorism
and that he intended to maim and murder the surviving victims.
Finally, the witnesses’ reactions to facing death were admissible to provide
context to their accounts of what happened when the Tsarnaevs detonated their
bombs. As the government argued below (and the district court agreed), not “every
word out of a [witness’s] mouth” must be “directly relevant to a factor.”
16.App.7126. Witnesses are “allowed to give some narration and context.” Id. The
“usual standards of trial relevance afford factfinders enough information about
surrounding circumstances to let them make sense of the narrowly material facts of
the crime itself.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 840-41 (1991) (Souter, J.,
concurring); see also United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir. 1980) (stating that
evidence is admissible when it provides the context for the crime, “is necessary to a
full presentation of the case,” or is “appropriate in order to complete the story of the
crime on trial by proving its immediate context” (quotations omitted)). Even if the
witnesses’ reactions to facing death were not “directly relevant” to aggravating factors,
272
it was within the district court’s discretion to find that testimony about how the
witnesses felt when they nearly died provided appropriate context to a “full
presentation” of the case.
b. Witnesses’ uncertainty about what happened to their

family members
A number of survivors testified that they lost track of family members in the
chaos after the bombs exploded. Rebekah Gregory said that her “first instinct” was
to find her five-year-old son. 10.App.4066. Seventeen-year-old Sydney Corcoran said
she felt “panicked” at the thought of becoming “an orphan.” 10.App.4088. Karen
Rand explained that, due to a misidentification at the hospital, Krystle Campbell’s
parents were initially told that Campbell was alive, while Rand’s parents could not
locate her at any hospital and thought she might have died. 10.App.4109.63 Nicole
Gross described being separated from her family at the hospital, feeling “worried”
about what had happened to them, and feeling “helpless and alone.” 16.App.7185.
Eric Whalley testified that he and his wife each initially thought that the other had
died, and he described their joyful reunion at the hospital. 16.App.7255. Stephen
Woolfenden said that he was “terrified” when his three-year-old son was taken away
Tsarnaev cites (Br. 322) Rand’s testimony that Campbell’s parents were
63
“devastated” to learn that it was their daughter who had died. But that testimony was
relevant to the impact flowing from a victim’s death, and Tsarnaev does not challenge
that form of victim-impact evidence.
273
for medical treatment because he “didn’t know if [he] was ever going to see [his] son
again.” 16.App.7430.
This testimony was relevant to the grave-risk-of-death aggravating factor. In
most cases, family members became separated because so many victims were on the
verge of bleeding to death that they were evacuated as soon as possible. There was no
time to reunite families or to make sure that they were sent to the same hospital. See
10.App.4448-53 (describing the triage process, in which victims with critical injuries
were transported immediately to various hospitals to avoid overwhelming any single
one). The multiple family separations highlighted how “grave” the “risk” was. The
evidence therefore helped the jury determine the appropriate weight for that factor.
The victims’ uncertainty about their family members’ fate was also relevant to
show that Tsarnaev committed an “act of terrorism,” 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(9), and that
he “targeted the Boston Marathon,” which was “especially susceptible to
the . . . effects of terrorism” because of its “large crowds of men, women and
children,” 19.App.8683. For many people, nothing is more terrifying than to lose
track of one’s children or parents in a critical situation. Evidence that this occurred
underscores the terroristic effect that Tsarnaev intended to achieve. The fact that
victims felt afraid of dying, being left alone, and leaving behind their families is
directly relevant to these terrorism factors.
Finally, the testimony was admissible to provide context, especially since
concern about family members was for many witnesses their first and most important
274
thought after the blast. Tsarnaev’s position would require the survivors to recount
the “narrowly material facts,” Payne, 501 U.S. at 840-41 (Souter, J., concurring), in a
wooden and artificial way. Victims could describe what they saw and the details of
their physical injuries, but not what they felt or why they reacted as they did. That
position finds no support in the FDPA or in common sense.
c. Feelings of helplessness watching an injured child or

partner suffer
Some of the surviving witnesses testified that their own injuries left them
unable to help a loved one. Rebekah Gregory said that, right after the blast, she could
hear her five-year-old son Noah calling “Mommy!” repeatedly, and she felt “helpless
as a mother” because she could not go to him, but could only say a prayer for him
until someone set Noah down beside her. 10.App.4066-67. Jessica Kensky, who was
a nurse, described her frustration about being unable to care for her injured husband.
10.App.4323. Celeste Corcoran said it was “heartbreaking” to see her daughter
injured and in pain in the hospital and “not be able to get up and [help].”
16.App.7107-08. Nicole Gross said she felt “helpless and alone” at the hospital when
she was separated from her family. 16.App.7185. Stephen Woolfenden testified that,
after the bomb exploded, his three-year-old son Leo was “crying” and “screaming”
for “mommy” and “daddy.” 16.App.7429-30.
This testimony was relevant for the same reasons as the testimony about
families becoming separated. Victims’ inability to help their family members in the
275
bombing’s aftermath magnified the terror that Tsarnaev sought to create. The
testimony was therefore relevant to show the full weight of Tsarnaev’s act of
terrorism, which was aimed at an event with “large crowds of men, women and
children.” 19.App.8683.
Tsarnaev suggests (Br. 309, 331) that family members’ feelings of helplessness
in the hospital long after the attacks were not directly relevant. But the aggravating
factor that Tsarnaev committed an “assault with intent to maim” required proof that
Tsarnaev “intended to cause a permanent disability.” 19.App.8685 (emphasis added).
The same is true of the “mayhem” aggravating factor. 19.App.8686 (defining
“mayhem” as “permanently” depriving someone “of a limb, organ or part of his or
her body” with intent to “permanently disable or disfigure” the person). Accordingly,
family members’ inability to help each other in the recovery process underscored that
Tsarnaev caused permanent disabilities. Family members’ helplessness was also relevant
to the appropriate weight jurors should give to these aggravating factors.
d. Long-term implications of becoming an amputee
Several survivors described the long-term effects of their injuries. For example,
Roseann Sdoia told the jury that it made a “huge difference” that her amputation was
above the knee, which made it “extremely difficult” to relearn to walk and to “deal
with the snow.” 10.App.4236. Jessica Kensky testified that becoming a “bilateral
amputee” was “terrifying.” 10.App.4325. She said that she wanted to “paint [her]
toenails” and “put [her] feet in the sand.” 10.App.4325. She endured long-term
276
treatment for her burns and had 15 to 20 surgeries on her legs. 10.App.4324. She
testified that at one point she was “in a very dark place” and that she “was really not
wanting to live.” 10.App.4325-26. Adrianne Haslet-Davis said that her husband was
not attending the trial because he had admitted himself to a mental-health facility.
16.App.7282.
Testimony about the long-term physical and mental pain and disability caused
by the attacks was relevant to the existence and weight of the grave-risk-of-death
aggravating factor. The witnesses’ descriptions of multiple surgeries, infections,
amputations, and suicidal thoughts showed that the risk of death continued well past
the immediate aftermath of the bombing. Moreover, as explained above, the assault-
with-intent-to-maim aggravating factor and the mayhem factor expressly required
“permanent” disability, “permanent” disfigurement, and “permanent” deprivation of
limb. 19.App.8685-86. The long-term implications of the victims’ injuries were
directly relevant to the existence and weight of these factors.
The testimony by surviving victims undoubtedly was emotional. That is not
surprising in a case involving a terrorist bombing that killed or grievously maimed
dozens of people, including small children, and left multiple amputees. The
government is not required to present evidence that is “devoid of all passion.”
Williams v. Chrans, 945 F.2d 926, 947 (7th Cir. 1991); see also McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1221
(finding no error in admission of a “substantial amount” of victim-impact evidence
that was “poignant and emotional”). The jury would have been hampered in its ability
277
to determine the aggravating factors’ weight, significance, and scope if it had been
limited to considering the bare physical fact of the survivors’ immediate injuries.
Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 44 (“[T]he prosecution is entitled to considerable latitude in
deciding how to present its case.”). The district court did not err in admitting the
victims’ testimony.
D. The Federal Death Penalty Act does not prohibit testimony about
the effects of a capital crime on surviving victims.
As explained above, the government did not introduce victim-impact evidence
from surviving victims in this case. The victim-impact aggravating factor the
government alleged was expressly limited to the four victims who were killed. See
1.App.138; 19.App.8682-83. The government did not argue, and the jury was not
instructed, that “victim impact” as to surviving victims was among the aggravating
factors in this case or that the survivors’ testimony could be considered for that
purpose. The government offered the surviving victims’ testimony to prove
Tsarnaev’s guilt and to prove other aggravating factors. Accordingly, the government
never gave notice of any intent to introduce “victim impact” evidence for anyone
other than the deceased victims.
Tsarnaev contends that, because the survivors’ testimony was inadmissible for
any other purpose, it should be deemed “victim-impact” evidence even though it was
never offered for that purpose. But even if that were correct, Tsarnaev would be
entitled to no relief. First, Tsarnaev does not raise any claim based on lack of notice,
278
and any such claim is therefore waived.64 Instead, Tsarnaev bases his claim on the
premise that the FDPA flatly prohibits victim-impact evidence as to surviving victims,
regardless of whether notice is given. As explained below, that premise is incorrect.
Accordingly, even if the survivors’ testimony could be characterized as “victim-
impact” evidence, Tsarnaev cannot obtain reversal on his claim that admission of that
testimony violated the FDPA.
1. Payne and the FDPA authorize victim-impact evidence.
In Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, the Supreme Court held that states may, consistent
with the Eighth Amendment, allow evidence of a crime’s impact on the victim and
the victim’s family to be admitted at the penalty phase of a capital trial. In so doing,
the Court overruled its prior decision in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), which
had held that victim-impact testimony was “per se inadmissible in the sentencing phase
of a capital case except to the extent that it ‘related directly to the circumstances of the
crime.’” Payne, 501 U.S. at 818 (brackets omitted) (quoting Booth, 482 U.S. at 507
n.10).
The defendant in Payne was accused of stabbing to death a mother and her
daughter, and he challenged sentencing-phase testimony about the effect of the crimes
Even if Tsarnaev had not waived the issue by failing to raise it in his opening
64
brief, any error based on inadequate notice would not prejudice him because (1) the
evidence was relevant to provide context for the victims’ fact testimony and to
support other aggravating factors, and (2) the jury would have known even without
hearing testimony that injuries such as losing a leg would significantly affect the
victims.
279
on a surviving child, whom the defendant had seriously wounded. Payne, 501 U.S. at
811-13. The Court held that such evidence was admissible because “a State may
properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant’s moral
culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it . . . evidence of the specific
harm caused by the defendant.” Id. at 825. In addition, because a defendant is
constitutionally entitled to present almost unlimited mitigating evidence portraying his
uniqueness as a human being, the government has a “legitimate interest” in
counterbalancing such mitigating evidence by presenting the full extent of the harm
the defendant caused. Id. at 825-26 (quotations omitted). The Court accordingly
recognized that victim-impact evidence “serves [the] entirely legitimate purpose[]” of
“allowing the jury to bear in mind that harm at the same time it considers the
mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant.” Id.
In 1994, Congress passed the FDPA, setting forth the procedures applicable to
federal death penalty prosecutions. As relevant here, the FDPA requires the capital
jury to consider aggravating factors (provided they are proved unanimously and
beyond a reasonable doubt) and mitigating factors (if they are proved to any juror by a
preponderance of the evidence). 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c), (d). The government must
prove at least one of the “statutory” aggravating factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3592, and
the government is also permitted to prove “any other” non-statutory aggravating
factor. 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c).
280
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Payne, Congress has specified
that the government may allege victim-impact evidence as a non-statutory aggravating
factor under Section 3592(c):
The factors for which notice is provided under this subsection may
include factors concerning the effect of the offense on the victim and
the victim’s family, and may include oral testimony, a victim impact
statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and
scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim and the victim’s
family, and any other relevant information.
18 U.S.C. § 3593(a).
2. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a) does not limit the types of relevant

evidence that may be admitted to prove properly-noticed
aggravating factors.
Tsarnaev contends that § 3593(a), which says that the aggravating factors “may
include” evidence of the offense’s effect on the victim and the victim’s family,
prohibits “victim-impact evidence from surviving victims.” Br. 310. He reaches this
conclusion by relying on other parts of the FDPA, which use the term “the victim” in
relation to deceased victims. Br. 312-14 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591(a)(2), 3592(a)(7) and
(c)(5)).
Tsarnaev fundamentally misunderstands what § 3593(a) does. That provision
requires the government to file a pretrial notice that “set[s] forth the aggravating
factor or factors that the government . . . proposes to prove as justifying a sentence of
death.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a)(2). Another subsection of § 3593 provides that, at the
penalty phase, “information may be presented as to any matter relevant to the sentence” and
281
that the government may “present any information relevant to an aggravating factor
for which notice has been provided under subsection (a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c)
(emphasis added). Section 3593(a) makes clear that these aggravating factors “may
include factors concerning the effect of the offense on the victim and the victim’s
family” and “may include . . . a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the
offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim and the
victim’s family, and any other relevant information.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a) (emphasis added).
Far from limiting the kinds of information that may be introduced at a capital
sentencing, § 3593(a) clarifies that the FDPA’s already-expansive language—which
allows the government to prove as an aggravating factor “any matter relevant to the
sentence” for which it gives notice—includes the kind of victim-impact evidence
allowed by Payne. See Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 44 (“The FDPA broadly provides that the
government may present any information relevant to an aggravating factor for which
notice has been provided.” (quotations and brackets omitted)). Tsarnaev’s argument
fails to account for § 3593(c)’s broad authority to admit “any” relevant evidence for
which notice has been provided.
Tsarnaev’s argument also turns § 3593(a)’s expansive wording on its head.
That provision’s language—“may include factors concerning the effect of the offense
on the victim and the victim’s family . . . and any other relevant information,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3593(a) (emphasis added)—explicitly permits the admission of information beyond
the specific categories identified in the provision. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal,
282
536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (“[T]he expansive phrasing of ‘may include’ points directly
away from the sort of exclusive specification [respondent] claims.”); Environmental
Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1988) (“We are
reluctant to read the term ‘includes’ as meaning ‘is limited to.’”); United States v. Barrett,
496 F.3d 1079, 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[The FDPA’s] use of the phrases ‘may include’
and ‘any other relevant information’ clearly suggests that Congress intended to permit
the admission of any other relevant evidence . . . .”). Tsarnaev’s proposed limiting
construction of § 3593(a) is foreclosed by the statutory text.
3. Section 3593(a)’s use of the word “victim” is not limited to

victims who have died.
Even if Tsarnaev were somehow correct that § 3593(a) limits the types of
otherwise relevant evidence that are admissible, his claim would still fail because the
term “victim” in § 3593(a) is not limited to deceased victims. Tsarnaev’s construction
is inconsistent with the common-sense definition of “victim,” both in ordinary usage
and in federal criminal law. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guidelines for Victim and
Witness Assistance, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,774-02, 33,775 (“A ‘victim’ is generally defined as
someone who suffers direct . . . physical . . . harm as the result of the commission of a
crime.”); 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(2) (defining “victim” for purposes of the Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act as a person “directly and proximately harmed as a result of
the commission of an offense”); id. § 3771(e)(2)(A) (similar definition in Crime
Victims’ Rights Act); American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.
283
2019) (defining victim as “[o]ne who is harmed or killed by another”). As the district
court found, people who are seriously injured by a terrorist bomb attack would
“natural[ly]” be considered “victims” of the terrorism offense, along with the victims
who are killed. 16.App.7243-44.
Section 3593(a)’s wording suggests that Congress had both surviving and
deceased victims in mind. The provision includes not only the loss to the victim’s
family, which was at issue in Payne, but also “the extent and scope of the injury and
loss suffered by the victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). It would be odd to refer to the
“extent” of the victim’s “injury and loss” if the victim must always be dead.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 312-14) that “victim” must mean a deceased victim
because that is how the word is used elsewhere in the FDPA. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3591(a)(2) (referring to offenses in which the defendant “killed the victim,”
offenses that “resulted in the death of the victim,” and offenses in which the “victim
died”); 3592(a)(7) (listing as a mitigating factor the fact that the victim “consented to
the criminal conduct that resulted in the victim’s death”); 3592(c)(5) (providing for an
aggravating factor where the defendant created a grave risk of death to one or more
persons “in addition to the victim of the offense”). In light of these provisions,
Tsarnaev invokes the “normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used
in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.” Br. 311
(quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995)).
284
That principle does not apply here. The other provisions that Tsarnaev cites
do not use the word “victim,” standing alone, to mean a person who dies as a result
of the offense. They simply refer to a “victim”—a term that can encompass both
decedents and survivors—who was “killed,” “died,” or experienced “death.” These
provisions do not suggest that term “victim” means only a person who was killed. For
example, the federal kidnapping statute authorizes capital punishment “if the death of
any person results.” 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). But that does not mean that every other use
of “person” in the kidnapping statute refers to a deceased person.
Moreover, Tsarnaev ignores another provision in § 3593 that plainly uses
“victim” in a way that includes survivors. Section 3593(c) says, “[T]he fact that a
victim, as defined in section 3510, attended or observed the trial shall not be
construed to pose a danger of creating unfair prejudice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Section
3510, in turn, provides that in “[c]apital cases,” “any victim of [the] offense” has the
right to attend “the trial of a defendant accused of that offense,” even if the “victim
may, during the [capital] sentencing hearing, testify as to the effect of the offense on
the victim and the victim’s family or as to any other [aggravating] factor.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3510(b). The provision defines a “victim” by cross reference to 34 U.S.C. § 20141,
which states that a “victim” includes any person who has “suffered direct physical,
emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime.” 34 U.S.C.
§ 20141(e)(2); see 18 U.S.C. § 3510(c). To the extent the consistent-meaning canon
applies, it has particular force for words used in close proximity. See United States v.
285
Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 746-47 (8th Cir. 2008). Tsarnaev’s reference to other sections of
the FDPA therefore provides no support for his argument that “victim” is limited to
decedents throughout the FDPA.
Tsarnaev argues (Br. 314) that the legislative history supports his reading of the
statute. Because nothing in the plain text of § 3593, or anywhere else in the FDPA,
provides any express restriction on victim-impact evidence, resort to legislative history
is unnecessary. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 6 (1997) (where a statute is
“straightforward,” there is “no reason to resort to legislative history”). In any event,
the legislative history Tsarnaev relies on simply reflects the same “may include”
language as the statute. See Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, H.
Doc. No. 102-58 (Mar. 12, 1991) (available at 25.App.11640) (noting that “aggravating
factors for which notice is provided may include factors concerning the effect of the
offense on the victim and the victim’s family” and that “[t]he effect on the victim may
include the suffering of the victim in the course of the killing or during a period of
time between the infliction of injury and resulting death”). Tsarnaev cites no
legislative history that would support his restrictive reading of “victim” under the
FDPA.
4. Evidence of a capital crime’s impact on surviving victims is

relevant to the sentencing determination.
Tsarnaev contends that evidence about survivor’s injuries was inappropriate
because the jury’s role at the penalty phase was to “determin[e] the appropriate
286
sentence for the capital charges,” not for “the many non-capital charges Tsarnaev was
convicted of.” Br. 315. Tsarnaev is correct that the jury’s sentencing determination
was limited to the capital offenses in this case, which were all homicides. But that
does not mean, as Tsarnaev contends, that “Congress[ ] inten[ded] to limit victim
impact evidence to capital-homicide victims.” Br. 314. As already explained,
Congress did not do that in the FDPA, but instead provided for the admission of “any
information relevant to an aggravating factor” that “justif[ies] a sentence of death.”
18 U.S.C. § 3593(a)(2), (c). And Congress specifically authorized the use of victim-
impact evidence in § 3593(a) without limiting it to the impact on deceased victims. See
United States v. McVeigh, 944 F. Supp. 1478, 1491 (D. Colo. 1996) (“Congress expressly
provided for victim impact consideration in the [FDPA] but it did not put any limits
on what can be considered.”).
Tsarnaev argues (315-16) that Congress “understood” the “proper place” for
“consideration of the views of surviving victims” to be the “actual sentencing for the
non-capital crimes.” But he does not point to any language in the statute reflecting
this alleged understanding. Tsarnaev’s attempt to shunt all consideration of the
effects upon surviving victims to the non-capital counts ignores that fact that, as the
district court found, see 16.App.7243-44, Tsarnaev committed capital offenses that
both killed and maimed victims in the same course of conduct. Nothing in the FDPA
suggests that, in these circumstances, the effects on surviving victims may be
287
considered only when the district court is imposing sentence on separately-charged,
non-capital counts.
Moreover, Congress’s decision to allow testimony from injured survivors about
the effects of a homicide offense makes good sense. When a defendant commits an
offense that harms multiple victims, such as the mass-casualty terrorist attack here, the
effect of his crimes on grievously injured surviving victims is “information relevant”
to the sentencing determination. As Payne noted, “victim impact evidence serves
entirely legitimate purposes” by “informing the sentencing authority about the specific
harm caused by the crime” and allowing the jury “to assess meaningfully the
defendant’s moral culpability and blameworthiness.” Payne, 501 U.S. at 825-26. Payne
addressed the emotional impact that two victims’ deaths had upon a surviving victim.
See id. at 814 (grandmother’s testimony that surviving victim “cries for his mom” and
“cries for his sister” and “doesn’t seem to understand why [his mom] doesn’t come
home”). But Payne’s reasoning applies with equal force to a crime’s effects upon
surviving victims.
Tsarnaev’s construction of the FDPA would have the anomalous effect of
excluding from the jury’s consideration the full extent of the harm flowing from his
capital offenses. If, for example, a mass bombing instantly killed a recluse with no
family or friends, but severely injured dozens of others, Tsarnaev’s position would
preclude victim-impact evidence in the penalty phase entirely. In this case, Tsarnaev’s
position is that the jury was required to consider the full range of facts about
288
Tsarnaev’s own character and circumstances, but could not be told the full extent of
the harm he inflicted on dozens of grievously injured survivors. As Payne observed,
“there is nothing unfair about allowing the jury to bear in mind [the] harm [the
defendant caused] at the same time as it considers the mitigating evidence introduced
by the defendant.” Payne, 501 U.S. at 826.
Other courts have admitted evidence from surviving victims of terrorist
bombings. In McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1216, the court found no error where the
government called victim-impact witnesses, including “three injured survivors,” to
describe the impact of the Oklahoma City bombing. The court noted that the
government could have called numerous additional witnesses to testify “about the 168
victims who died in the blast and the impact of the explosion on the numerous
injured victims.” Id.
Similarly, in the trial of the terrorists accused of bombing U.S. embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania, the government sought to introduce evidence of “serious injury
to surviving victims” as a separate aggravating factor from “victim impact evidence.”
United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 290, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The district court
held that the two factors were “duplicative” because “[b]oth function to provide the
jury with details concerning the widespread human trauma allegedly caused by the
accused’s criminal conduct.” Id. The court recognized that the “deleterious effects”
on both surviving and deceased victims were “an appropriate subject of sentencing
consideration” under the FDPA and Payne. Id. The court accordingly struck the
289
duplicative “serious injury to surviving victims” factor and amended the “victim
impact evidence” factor to “include any ‘injury, harm, and loss’ suffered by victims
and their families, whether the victims are deceased or surviving.” Id. at 300-01 (emphasis
added).
These cases make clear that harm to surviving victims is “information relevant”
to a capital sentencing determination, 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c), and Tsarnaev cites no cases
to the contrary. His assertion that the FDPA prohibits evidence of “the impact of
survivors’ injuries on those survivors” is simply incorrect. Br. 305.
E. Any error did not prejudice Tsarnaev.
Even if the FDPA bars evidence about a capital crime’s effect on surviving
victims, and even if the evidence here was not admissible for other purposes, any
error did not prejudice Tsarnaev. There was therefore no reversible plain error (if the
error was unpreserved) or any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (if the
error was preserved). See 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2) (“The court of appeals shall not
reverse or vacate a sentence of death on account of any error which can be
harmless, . . . where the Government establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the
error was harmless.”); Jones, 527 U.S. at 402-03.
The outcome of the penalty phase would have been the same even if the
surviving-victim evidence Tsarnaev challenges had not been admitted. As Tsarnaev
acknowledges (Br. 336), the jury instructions and verdict sheet referred only to victim-
impact evidence about the four victims Tsarnaev killed. 19.App.8696. The district
290
court also instructed the jury not to consider aggravating factors that the government
had not alleged. See 19.App.8682 (“You’re not free to consider any other facts in
aggravation that you may think of on your own.”). According to these instructions,
then, the jury was not permitted to consider victim-impact evidence regarding
surviving victims unless it was relevant to another aggravating factor. In addition, at
the close of the penalty phase, the district court instructed the jury to avoid being
swayed by passion or prejudice. 19.App.8695-96. The jury is presumed to have
honored these instructions. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987). Moreover,
the jury’s verdict shows that the outcome did not depend on the surviving-victim
testimony Tsarnaev challenges. The jury heard testimony from several surviving
victims who were injured by the bomb Tsarnaev’s brother placed at the finish line, but
it did not impose the death penalty on any of the counts that were based on the
finish-line bomb. Add.96.
The surviving-victim evidence to which Tsarnaev objects generally concerned
the emotional and long-term physical effects of his crimes on the wounded survivors.
However, given the evidence jurors heard and saw of the devastating trauma that the
bombs immediately caused, which Tsarnaev concedes was admissible, the jury would
have well understood that the victims would suffer long-term physical and emotional
consequences, even if surviving witnesses had been barred from testifying to that
effect. Jurors were not likely to have been overawed by testimony confirming that
obvious fact.
291
Finally, numerous other factors, including the certainty of Tsarnaev’s guilt, his
lack of remorse, his creation of a grave risk of death to many people, his killing of an
especially vulnerable eight-year-old child, and the impact on the victims who were
killed, supported imposition of the death penalty in this case. See Jones, 527 U.S. at
402-03 (inclusion of two improper aggravating factors was harmless in part because
jury found other factors sufficient to impose death sentence). The jurors unanimously
found the existence of all four statutory intent factors, six statutory aggravating
factors, and five non-statutory aggravating factors, with respect to the counts on
which the jury imposed the death penalty. Add.79-96. Tsarnaev does not challenge
the evidentiary support for any of those factors. Given the aggravating evidence
showing the devastating effects of Tsarnaev’s terrorist attack on dozens of people,
this Court should find beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have imposed
the death penalty even if the challenged testimony had not been admitted. See, e.g.,
Jones, 527 U.S. at 404-05 (noting that an appellate court conducting harmless-error
review of a death sentence may consider whether “the jury would have reached the
same conclusion” in the absence of the error). Indeed, lack of prejudice is even more
apparent here than in Jones. This case does not involve juror consideration of any
invalid aggravating factor, see id. at 401-02, but instead the allegedly erroneous
introduction of discrete evidence of an aggravating factor that the jurors were not
instructed to consider. Under those circumstances, any error was harmless.
292
VIII. The District Court Properly Rejected Tsarnaev’s Untimely Request for
Information to Support a Potential Motion to Suppress the Whole Foods
Video.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 344-79) that the Court should remand for a hearing to
determine whether a surveillance video showing Tsarnaev shopping at a Whole Foods
store a half hour after the bombing was the “fruit” of allegedly involuntary statements
Tsarnaev made to FBI agents. That contention fails for four independent reasons.
First, Tsarnaev waived his challenge to the Whole Foods evidence because he
raised it for the first time during the trial, and he cannot establish any good cause for
failing to raise it before trial. Second, given the untimeliness of Tsarnaev’s claim, the
district court acted within its discretion by declining to order the government to
provide documentary proof that the video came from a witness other than Tsarnaev.
Third, compelling the government to provide documentation would have made no
difference because investigative records show that Tamerlan’s wife Katherine Russell
Tsarnaev (“Russell”) provided the information that led the government to search for
Whole Foods surveillance video. Fourth, even if it had been Tsarnaev’s statements,
rather than Russell’s, that led to the discovery of the Whole Foods video, the video’s
admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it was cumulative of
other evidence that overwhelmingly established Tsarnaev’s lack of remorse for his
crimes.
293
A. Background
1. Agents obtained the Whole Foods video following a tip from

Katherine Russell.
On April 21, 2013, six days after the bombing, two investigating agents went to
a Whole Foods store at 340 River Street in Cambridge. Doc. 1772-7 (Report of
Investigation). 65 The agents were investigating a lead provided by Tamerlan
Tsarnaev’s wife, Katherine Russell, who had informed investigators that Tamerlan had
been shopping for milk at Whole Foods between 3:00 and 3:30 pm on April 15, 2013,
the day of the marathon bombing. Doc. 1772-3 (report from FBI Orion database).66
They reviewed video recordings from surveillance cameras covering that time
window, but did not see anyone matching the description of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Id.
Two days later, on April 23, 2013, FBI agents went to a different Whole Foods
store on Prospect Street in Cambridge. 10.App.4468-72; 25.App.11683 (receipt for
April 15, 2013 milk purchase showing retrieval date of April 23, 2013). The agents
and the store manager reviewed surveillance video from April 15. 10.App.4468. The
Document 1772-7, as well as the other attachments to Document 1772 cited

65
in this section, are the subject of a pending (and contested) motion in the district
court to supplement the record. See Doc. 1772. The government moved to
supplement the record with two documents that had been made available in discovery
(Docs. 1772-2 and 1772-7), discovery letters documenting that discovery (Docs. 1772-
4, 1772-5, and 1772-6), and an unredacted version of one of the documents that had
been made available only in redacted form (Doc. 1772-3).
Orion is a database that the FBI used to record tips and send leads to
66
investigators. See Doc. 1772-1 (Declaration of Timothy D. Brown).

294
video showed Tsarnaev entering the store at 3:12 pm and buying a half gallon of milk,
then returning to get a different half-gallon. 10.App.4471; 1.Supp.App.83 (Gov’t Exh.
1502); Gov’t Exh. 1456 at 00:08-01:05 (Whole Foods surveillance video).
2. Agents interviewed Tsarnaev at the hospital.
FBI agents began interviewing Tsarnaev at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston on
the evening of April 20, about 24 hours after Tsarnaev arrived there. 23.App.10516-
17; S.Add.1, 6-7. Before they interviewed Tsarnaev, the nurse overseeing his care told
the agents that “the interview would pose no medical risk,” that Tsarnaev “had
suffered no brain injuries,” and that the antibiotics and painkillers he was taking
would not, “at their current dose, . . . inhibit his mental faculties.” 23.App.10516.
Near the beginning of the first interview, Tsarnaev admitted his responsibility
for the attacks. 23.App.10518; S.Add.1. He told the agents that he had personally
placed and detonated one of the bombs and that he did so to punish America for
killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq. 23.App.10518; S.Add.1, 5.
Tsarnaev repeatedly denied that
any other bombs existed or that anyone else was involved in the bombings.
295
23.App.10518; S.Add.1.
Tsarnaev told the agents that, on the way back to Cambridge after the
bombing, he and Tamerlan had stopped at a Whole Foods to buy milk. S.Add.10.
3. Tsarnaev moved to suppress his confession.
Before trial, Tsarnaev moved to suppress the statements he made to FBI agents
on April 20-22, while he was in the hospital recovering from his wounds.
23.App.10489. Tsarnaev argued, inter alia, that the statements were involuntary
because the agents allegedly exploited Tsarnaev’s weakened physical and mental
condition to obtain his confession. 23.App.10494-99.
The government opposed, arguing, as relevant here, that the agents did not
improperly coerce Tsarnaev into making statements against his will. 23.App.10521-
30. The government pointed out that “[t]here is no rule against interrogating suspects
who are in anguish and pain” because “police may have legitimate reasons, borne of
exigency, to question a person who is suffering,” including “ascertaining the
whereabouts of a dangerous . . . accomplice.” 23.App.10512-13 (quoting Chavez v.
Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 796 (2003) (Kennedy J., concurring)). The government noted
that, at the time of the interview, law enforcement had “strong reason to believe that
the public was at risk from additional bombs, bombers, or bomb plots.”
23.App.10512. For that reason, “[f]inding out if there were other bombs, other
bombers, or others plotting similar and coordinated attacks was a public safety matter
of the utmost urgency.” 23.App.10515. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657-58
296
(1984) (recognizing an exception to the requirement of Miranda warnings where there
is an ongoing “threat to the public safety”). The government also noted that
Tsarnaev told the agents that he could hear and understand them, that he could
respond notwithstanding his tracheostomy, and that he was not in too much pain.
23.App.10516. Finally, the government noted that Tsarnaev “appeared alert, mentally
competent, and lucid” throughout the interview. 23.App.10517.
All of these circumstances, the government argued, distinguished Tsarnaev’s
case from Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), because the defendant in that case
was “depressed almost to the point of coma,” complained of “unbearable pain,” and
resisted giving self-incriminating statements until the police wore him down.
23.App.10527 (quoting Mincey, 437 U.S. at 398-99). Tsarnaev, by contrast, was
“responsive, coherent, and clearheaded” throughout his interviews, and he “readily
answered questions about the Marathon bombings, even boasting of his success in
carrying them out.” 23.App.10528.
Finally, the government stated that, although “the public-safety interview” was
“non-coercive and fully justified by the . . . public threat, the government does not
intend to use Tsarnaev’s statements in its case-in-chief at trial or sentencing” because
“[t]he strength of the evidence against Tsarnaev” made using the statements
“unnecessary.” 23.App.10535.
297
In light of the government’s stipulation that it would not introduce Tsarnaev’s
statements, the district court denied Tsarnaev’s motion without prejudice on October
20, 2014. 20.App.9258.
4. The district court admitted the Whole Foods video without

objection.
During the guilt phase, the government called Kaytlin Harper, the manager of
the Whole Foods store on Prospect Street in Cambridge. 10.App.4466. Harper
testified that FBI agents came to the store, told Harper they thought that “someone
[had been] in the building,” and asked to see the surveillance video for the day of the
marathon bombing. 10.App.4468. Harper testified that she reviewed the surveillance
video with the agents and that Government Exhibit 1456, which showed Tsarnaev
buying milk at Whole Foods, was an accurate copy of the original. 10.App.4468-69.
Harper also testified that a member of her staff retrieved an electronic copy of the
receipt that was generated for Tsarnaev’s milk purchase. 10.App.4471; 1.Supp.App.83
(Gov’t Exh. 1502) (Whole Foods receipt). Tsarnaev’s counsel stated that Tsarnaev
had “no objection” when the government offered the Whole Foods video and the
receipt, and the district court admitted both exhibits. 10.App.4469-71.
Two trial days later, the government called FBI agent Chad Fitzgerald to testify
about Tsarnaev’s and Tamerlan’s movements during the week of the bombing based
on cell phone location information. 11.App.4674-75. As Agent Fitzgerald described
the Tsarnaevs’ cell phone activity and location just after the bombing, he explained,
298
“[A]t the time the investigation was occurring, we had received information, I believe,
from a witness that the people involved stopped at a Whole Foods.” 11.App.4704.
Over defense objections,67 Agent Fitzgerald testified further that he had
recommended that investigators go to Whole Foods to check the surveillance video
“between the 3:15 and 3:30 time period,” and that he learned the following day that
investigators had located video of one of the brothers at Whole Foods. 11.App.4704-
05.
During a conference the following day, defense counsel raised the issue of the
Whole Foods video. 21.App.9725. Counsel noted that it had not occurred to her
until Agent Fitzgerald’s testimony (two days after the video was admitted without
objection) that Tsarnaev had said in his “hospital statement” that “he’d gone to
Whole Foods.” 21.App.9725; see 21.App.9728 (counsel stating she “hadn’t really
thought about . . . how the FBI got to the Whole Foods video in the first place” until
Agent Fitzgerald’s testimony). Counsel said that, in response to her inquiry, the
prosecutor had informed her that the source of the information was not Tsarnaev’s
statement but an “independent tip.” 21.App.9725-26. She noted that, “[b]ecause the
issue of voluntariness has not been resolved, the issue of fruits remains potentially a
live one.” 21.App.9726. Defense counsel acknowledged that “[w]e probably have
[the independent tip] on our database of tips,” but she contended that “to the extent
67
Defense counsel did not state a basis for these objections.
299
the government is offering evidence that was derived from” Tsarnaev’s statements,
the government should provide “some notice” to give the defense “an opportunity to
raise the issue before the cow is out of the barn.” 21.App.9726.
The prosecutor responded that defense counsel’s request for notice was a
“nonissue” as applied to the Whole Foods video because the tip came from “someone
else entirely.” 21.App.9727. Regarding the “broader issue” defense counsel raised,
the prosecutor argued that it was the defense’s responsibility to preserve, before the
evidence was admitted, any argument that it was derived from the hospital statement,
rather than raising such an argument after the fact. 21.App.9727.
The district court stated that the government should be “particularly sensitive
to the source of that kind of information, that it does not trace back to [Tsarnaev’s]
statements.” 21.App.9728. The prosecutor responded that the government had
“been diligent throughout” by, for example, ensuring that “in none of [the dozens of]
search warrants did we ever put information that was derived from” the hospital
statements. 21.App.9728-29. The prosecutor argued, however, that if defense
counsel were not required to timely preserve arguments that evidence derived from
the statements, then any of these “subsequent law enforcement actions that were not
derived or dependent upon those statements still might be prone to this kind of
opportunistic attack.” 21.App.9729.
After the district court suggested that the issue might be “a hypothetical
problem,” defense counsel stated that “[i]t would be helpful if the government could
300
provide some documentation of the tip,” even if it had to be redacted. 21.App.9729.
The court stated, “I don’t think that’s necessary under the present circumstances.”
21.App.9729.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require parties to raise motions to
suppress evidence before trial if the basis for the motion is reasonably available. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C); United States v. Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1303, 1339 (2018). “[F]ailure to move to suppress particular
evidence before trial result[s] in ‘waiver’ of any objection,” Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d
at 9, although the district court may grant relief from such waiver for “good cause,”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). Where, as here, the basis for the motion was reasonably
available before trial and the defendant has not shown “good cause,” the claim is
waived and the defendant “is not entitled to any appellate review.”68 Walker-Couvertier,
860 F.3d at 9. While this Court has “suggested that unpreserved suppression
arguments may be merely forfeited,” more “[r]ecent precedent . . . shows a strong
inclination against plain-error review.” United States v. Oquendo-Rivas, 750 F.3d 12, 17
(1st Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702, 720 (1st Cir. 2014); United
States v. Crooker, 688 F.3d 1, 9-10 (1st Cir. 2012)).
Although Walker-Couvertier involved the pre-2014 version of Rule 12,

68
subsequent amendments “did not substantively change the rule” regarding the
“standard for untimely claims.” Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d at 9 n.1 (quotations
omitted).
301
government’s discovery of the video makes “a compelling threshold showing that the
video was the confession’s fruit.” Br. 371. But the facts demonstrating that
“temporal link” were available to him before trial. Thus, Tsarnaev had all the facts
necessary to seek a pretrial hearing if he wished to move to suppress the video as
“fruit” of his allegedly involuntary statements. But he failed to raise this claim until
after trial had begun and after the district court had already admitted the video into
evidence without objection. 21.App.9725-28. Because the basis for Tsarnaev’s
“fruits” argument was reasonably available, his failure to seek suppression on that
ground constitutes waiver.
The fact that defense counsel did not think to raise this issue until Agent
Fitzgerald testified about the Whole Foods video, two days after the video was
admitted into evidence, does not mean that the basis for a suppression motion was
not reasonably available before trial. Agent Fitzgerald’s testimony that a tip about the
Whole Foods video came from “a witness” did not materially add to the information
about the source of the evidence that defense counsel already had. Where else, after
all, would the tip have come from if not a “witness”? And Tsarnaev has pointed to
nothing in Agent Fitzgerald’s testimony, other than the timing information that
Tsarnaev already had before trial, suggesting that the “witness” was actually Tsarnaev
himself. Thus the defense’s allegedly “powerful showing” that the Whole Foods
video was “the confession’s fruit,” Br. 374, is based entirely on the fact that the
government obtained the video one or two days after Tsarnaev mentioned Whole
303
Foods in his second interview. Because the information establishing the timing of
those two events was available to Tsarnaev before trial, his motion was untimely
under Rule 12.
Although the district court’s denial of Tsarnaev’s pretrial motion to suppress
his statements was without prejudice and “subject to renewal,” 20.App.9258, that did
not excuse Tsarnaev from his obligation to challenge the Whole Foods video before
trial. Tsarnaev’s pretrial motion sought suppression only of the statements
themselves. He did not seek suppression of the Whole Foods video or any other
evidence as alleged “fruits” of those statements. See 23.App.10494-99. The court’s
order cannot plausibly be interpreted as authorizing Tsarnaev to wait until trial to
“renew” a motion to suppress particular pieces of physical evidence on the ground
that they derived from his statements, even where the basis of such a motion was
available before trial. See United States v. Bashorun, 225 F.3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 2000)
(holding that the defendant waived his claim when he sought suppression on a ground
not raised in his pretrial motion to suppress because “[a] litigant seeking to suppress
evidence cannot jump from theory to theory like a bee buzzing from flower to
flower” (quotations and brackets omitted)). Moreover, allowing Tsarnaev to renew
his suppression motion at trial, particularly as to evidence that was not mentioned in
the pretrial motion, would be inconsistent with the purpose of Rule 12’s pretrial-
motion requirement. As this Court has explained, if a defendant were “‘able to delay
such a motion until trial, he could prevent the government from appealing’ because
304
jeopardy would have attached at trial.” United States v. Castro-Vazquez, 802 F.3d 28, 32
(1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Barletta, 644 F.2d 50, 54-55 (1st Cir. 1981)); see
also id. (noting that preserving the possibility of appeal is the “main purpose” of the
pretrial requirement).
Tsarnaev has not shown that the basis for his “fruits” challenge was unavailable
before trial, nor has he demonstrated any other good cause for his failure to raise that
challenge before trial. That failure constitutes waiver under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3),
and it is therefore “fatal to the challenge that he now seeks to pursue.” Walker-
Couvertier, 860 F.3d at 9.
2. The district court properly declined to order the government

to produce additional evidence about the source of the tip.
Even if there had been no waiver, Tsarnaev cannot show that the district court
abused its discretion in refusing his belated request that the government provide
documentary evidence regarding the source of the Whole Foods video. Tsarnaev did
not expressly move to suppress the video as the fruit of his statements, nor did he
seek a hearing on that question. His only explicit request for relief was his counsel’s
statement that “[i]t would be helpful if the government could provide some
documentation of the tip,” 21.App.9729—even though he acknowledged that
information about the tip had “probably” already been provided in discovery, see
305
21.App.9726 (counsel acknowledging that “[w]e probably have [the independent tip]
on our database of tips, but [it] hasn’t been pointed out to me”). 69
Given the untimeliness of this request, it was within the district court’s
discretion to deny it. Tsarnaev’s request for documentation was effectively a
preliminary step toward a motion to reopen or to reconsider the admissibility of the
video. But at the time of Tsarnaev’s request, the Whole Foods video had already been
admitted without objection, there was no indication that the “witness” Agent
Fitzgerald referred to was actually Tsarnaev himself, and the government had
affirmatively represented that the “witness” was someone else. 21.App.9726-29.
Moreover, Tsarnaev did not show why he could not have made his request before
trial. In these circumstances, Tsarnaev cannot show that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing his request. See United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253-54 (1st
Cir. 1985) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion” under Rule 12
by declining to “reconsider during the government’s case-in-chief the pretrial denial of
defendant’s suppression motion” or to allow defendant to support his suppression
argument with evidence that had been introduced at trial, because the defendant
As explained in Part 3 below, defense counsel’s suspicion was correct. The

69
“database of tips,” which was made available to the defense before trial on a stand-
alone computer, see Doc. 1772-1, included documentation showing that agents had
received information that led them to look for surveillance video from a Whole Foods
(albeit the wrong store at first)
See Doc. 1772-2 (redacted Orion report referencing the Whole Foods tip
created at 2:24 p.m. on April 21).
306
“offered no legitimate explanation or excuse for his failure to present [the] evidence at
the suppression hearing.”); United States v. Kithcart, 218 F.3d 213, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2000)
(“[C]ourts should be extremely reluctant to grant reopenings.” (quotations omitted)).
Tsarnaev contends that the government bears the burden of establishing an
independent source for the video and that Agent Fitzgerald’s testimony and the
prosecutor’s representations did not satisfy that burden. Br. 373-75 (citing Murray v.
United States, 487 U.S. 533, 540 n.2 (1988); United States v. Rose, 802 F.3d 114, 123-24
(1st Cir. 2015)). But in the cases Tsarnaev relies on, the defendant timely raised his
suppression motion before trial. Where the defendant’s mid-trial suppression claim is
based on evidence that was available before trial, it is within the district court’s
discretion to refuse the defendant’s request to consider the suppression issue. Gomez,
770 F.2d at 253-54.
3. Katherine Russell, not Tsarnaev, provided the tip that led

the agents to Whole Foods.
Even if the district court abused its discretion in refusing Tsarnaev’s untimely
request for documentation, the error made no difference because Tsarnaev’s
allegation that the Whole Foods video was derived from his statements is incorrect.
Katherine Russell, not Tsarnaev, provided the tip that led investigators to search for
video evidence from Whole Foods stores in Cambridge.
307
, an agent created a
report in the FBI’s Orion database stating that, based on information received from
Katherine Russell, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “supposed to have been shopping for milk
at the Whole Foods on River Street in Cambridge” on the afternoon of the marathon.
Doc. 1772-3 at 1 (Orion report noting that it was “created” at 2:24 p.m. EDT on
April 21). Investigators went to the River Street Whole Foods store that same day
and reviewed surveillance video, but they found nothing because it was the wrong
Whole Foods location. Id.; see also Doc. 1772-7 (Report of Investigation summarizing
agents’ review of surveillance video from the River Street Whole Foods). The
timeline of events indicates that the information received from Russell, rather than
Tsarnaev’s hospital statement, was the original impetus behind the government’s
search for Whole Foods surveillance video.
Because the April 21 Whole Foods visit was prompted by information received
from Russell, it is reasonable to infer that Tsarnaev’s statement was not the “but-for”
cause of the April 23 visit to the correct Whole Foods store, during which agents
obtained the video. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 (2006) (a
“necessary . . . condition for suppression” is that the evidence would not have been
discovered but for the violation). Alternatively, the records establish that Russell’s
statement was an “independent source,” see Murray, 487 U.S. at 538-39 (holding that
evidence discovered in an unlawful search will not be suppressed if it was separately
acquired through a lawful, independent source), or, at the very least, that the video
308
would inevitably have been discovered if Tsarnaev’s statement had not occurred, see id.
at 539; Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984).
4. Any error was harmless.
In any event, any error in the admission of the Whole Foods video was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2); Jones v. United States,
527 U.S. 373, 388-89 (1999). Tsarnaev concedes (Br. 375) that the video was harmless
as to the guilt phase verdict, but contends (Br. 375-79) that the video was not
harmless in the penalty phase because the prosecutor referred repeatedly to Tsarnaev’s
relaxed demeanor at Whole Foods to show that Tsarnaev lacked remorse. But the
Whole Foods video was relevant only to whether Tsarnaev lacked remorse
immediately after the bombings. See 18.App.8031. The evidence on that point was
overwhelming—a remorseful Tsarnaev would not have gone on to murder Officer
Collier, kidnap Dun Meng, throw bombs at police, or write on a boat that his killings
were justified. Nor would he have relaxed with a friend at the gym and tweeted about
how he was a “stress free kind of guy” shortly after the bombing. Tsarnaev’s counsel
conceded at trial that Tsarnaev lacked remorse throughout the period when he and
Tamerlan were still at large; counsel argued only that Tsarnaev became remorseful
later, while he was in custody. See 19.App.8768-69. The Whole Foods video had no
bearing on that question.
309
a. The Whole Foods video was harmless because

overwhelming evidence showed that Tsarnaev lacked
remorse after the bombing.
At trial, the jury saw and heard overwhelming evidence, besides the Whole
Foods video, demonstrating that Tsarnaev was not remorseful in the immediate
aftermath of the bombings. First, Tsarnaev published a series of flippant tweets on
the afternoon of and the day following the bombing. See 1.Supp.App.64 (Gov’t Exh.
1313) (“Ain’t no love in the heart of the city, stay safe, people.”); 1.Supp.App.65
(Gov’t Exh. 1314) (“[A]nd they what ‘god hates dead people?’ Or victims of
tragedies? Lol [laugh out loud] those people are cooked.”); 1.Supp.App.66 (Gov’t
Exh. 1320) (“I’m a stress free kind of guy”). The day after the bombing, Tsarnaev
went to the gym with a friend to work out, and surveillance video showed him
chatting casually with his friend. 10.App.4476, 4480-82; Gov’t Exhs. 1181 to 1183.
While Tsarnaev’s casual manner suggested that he was untroubled by the fact
that he had recently killed or maimed dozens of people, the more powerful evidence
that he lacked remorse was his decision to continue his terrorist rampage three days
later. With Tamerlan, he murdered Officer Sean Collier, kidnapped Dun Meng and
drained Meng’s bank account, and attacked the police in Watertown with bombs.
Then, entirely on his own, he tried to run over the officers with Dun Meng’s SUV.
Those are not the actions of a man feeling sorry about the bombing.
If there could be any doubt that Tsarnaev had no regrets about the murders,
Tsarnaev removed it by writing a justification for his terrorist attacks while he was
310
hiding out in a winterized boat. Although Tsarnaev wrote that he did not “like killing
innocent people,” he declared that his killings were righteous and justified in order to
punish the evil deeds of the United States. 11.App.4556-57. He praised Tamerlan as
a martyr, chastised the United States government for killing Muslims, and proclaimed
that “I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished.” 11.App.4555-56. He considered
himself a mujahideen who could “look into the barrel of [a] gun and see heaven.”
11.App.4557. Those statements do not suggest any remorse whatsoever.
The evidence established overwhelmingly that Tsarnaev felt no remorse in the
hours and days after the bombing. His nonchalance at Whole Foods was cumulative
of that evidence, and its admission was harmless. This case therefore bears no
resemblance to United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996), relied on by
Tsarnaev (Br. 375-76, 379), where the inadmissible statements “were the only
evidence of [the defendant’s] unrepentance,” id. at 1102.
b. The video was harmless because Tsarnaev conceded

that he lacked remorse immediately after the
bombing.
At trial, defense counsel affirmatively conceded that Tsarnaev lacked remorse
while he was carrying out his crimes and while hiding in the boat. See 19.App.8768-69
(telling the jury that “[i]t’s okay if you make th[e] finding” that Tsarnaev “was not
remorseful during the time of the crime” up through when he “wrote in the boat”).
“The critical thing,” counsel argued, “is that Dzhokhar is remorseful today. He’s
grown in the last two years.” 19.App.8769. Whether Tsarnaev lacked remorse while
311
he was still committing the crimes was never in dispute—the defense theory was that
he became remorseful later, while he was in custody and awaiting trial. But the Whole
Foods video was irrelevant to whether Tsarnaev developed remorse during his time in
custody.
Defense counsel’s concession on this point is unsurprising. Tsarnaev could not
credibly claim that he felt remorseful at the same time he was tweeting about his
freedom from stress, killing Officer Collier, kidnapping Dun Meng, hurling bombs at
police, and proclaiming in his boat manifesto that his terrorist attacks were righteous
punishment for America’s misdeeds. Tsarnaev’s actions may or may not have spoken
louder than his words, but on the question of Tsarnaev’s pre-arrest lack of remorse,
the jury had the benefit of both. Tsarnaev’s murderous deeds and his defiant
declaration showed unmistakably that he felt no remorse in the days following the
bombing. Because the evidence of this fact was overwhelming and uncontested, the
admission of the Whole Foods video was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
IX. The District Court Appropriately Exercised Its Discretion by Admitting

Evidence of Tsarnaev’s Terrorist Ideology, and the Government
Committed No Misconduct in the Audio and Visual Presentations It
Used During Opening and Closing Arguments.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 380-415) that (a) the district court erred by allowing
expert testimony that mentioned the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist organization and
that the government committed misconduct by (b) using a slideshow presentation
during the government’s guilt-phase closing argument that juxtaposed the audio of an
312
Islamic song (nasheed) with pictures of Tsarnaev and the bombing victims, and
(c) displaying during the penalty-phase opening posters of the four homicide victims
beside a still photograph of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger to a security camera in a
detention cell. The evidence and arguments Tsarnaev challenges were proper, and
they had no effect on the jury’s verdict in any event.
A. The district court properly admitted expert testimony regarding

the global jihadist movement.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 396-402) that a government expert’s statements about
ISIS and the Syrian conflict were insufficiently probative and unduly prejudicial under
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
1. Background
During the guilt phase, the government called Dr. Matthew Levitt as an expert
witness on international terrorism. Levitt has testified as a terrorism expert in dozens
of cases. 13.App.5871; see, e.g., United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 489, 515-16
(5th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has relied on his work. 13.App.5871; see Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 30-31 (2010).
The government offered Levitt’s expert testimony to help the jury understand
the jihadist materials and worldview that Tsarnaev adopted, as well as the manifesto
Tsarnaev wrote in the Watertown boat. 25.App.11528. Near the beginning of
Levitt’s testimony, Tsarnaev renewed a motion in limine he had filed before trial
seeking to preclude expert testimony about jihadist materials unless the government
313
could show that Tsarnaev “personally endorsed and supported” the views expressed
in those materials. 13.App.5875; 25.App.11430, 33-35. The district court refused to
exclude the testimony categorically and ruled that Levitt could “testify about the
history of recent terrorist activity, particularly the encouragement of jihadi actions by
particular prominent figures.” 13.App.5877. But the court recognized that the
potential risk of unfair prejudice was “an important consideration,” and the court
cautioned the government not to “step too far” in questioning Levitt. 13.App.5875.
Levitt explained to the jury the concept of the “global jihad movement.”
13.App.5882. This movement, he said, had no formal organizational structure, but
rather was based on an “idea” going back “several decades” that “there is a need for a
global effort on behalf of Muslims to unite as a nation” and to “defend itself” through
“acts of violence.” 13.App.5882. Levitt said the movement’s ideology permitted the
killing of innocents and focused its anger on the United States. 13.App.5885-88.
Levitt explained that, while the global jihad movement had in the past recruited
followers to travel to foreign battlefields to fight for the cause, it had more recently
become “decentralized,” producing propaganda calling for attacks by individual,
home-grown extremists without a “command and control” relationship with a formal
group. 13.App.5892-93. Calling on followers to conduct independent terrorist
attacks “at home,” Levitt explained, has “become a major theme of radical
propaganda.” 13.App.5893.
314
Levitt explained that this was true not only of “al-Qaeda,” but “now [also] the
so-called Islamic state or ISIS.” 13.App.5894. Tsarnaev objected to “bringing in”
ISIS, but the district court ruled that “[a]s . . . general background I think it’s all right.”
13.App.5894. Levitt then stated that “ISIS is the latest incarnation of this global jihad
movement.” 13.App.5894. He explained that ISIS both fought and cooperated with
al-Qaeda. 13.App.5894. He explained further that “ISIS, like al-Qaeda, has glossy
magazines” and “very impressive online radical and radicalization literature” telling
supporters “you don’t have to come [to a foreign battlefield] – just do something back
home.” 13.App.5894-95.
Later in his testimony, Levitt described how the conflict in the Russian republic
of Chechnya had become a “rallying cry” that jihadists used to “radicalize people.”
13.App.5913. Levitt then testified that the “Syrian conflict,” which had begun “four
years” previously in 2011, had likewise “become a rallying cry around the world.”
13.App.5914. The district court overruled Tsarnaev’s objection to “the whole
discussion of Syria that goes beyond the date” of the indictment’s allegations.
13.App.5914. Levitt explained that “[s]ticking even to the first two years of the Syrian
conflict two years ago,” there were “different things that drew jihadis to this conflict,”
including “jihadi ideology and want[ing] to go fight with the next incarnation of al-
Qaeda.” 13.App.5914.
315
2. Standard of Review
Because the trial court “virtually always is in the better position to assess the
admissibility of the evidence in the context of the particular case before it,” a district
court’s “striking . . . of the Rule 403 balance between probative value and prejudicial
effect should not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion looms.” United States v.
Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). The “wide discretion”
that district courts generally enjoy for evidentiary determinations “is particularly true
with respect to Rule 403 since it requires an on-the-spot balancing of probative value
and prejudice.” Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008)
(quotations omitted).
3. Dr. Levitt’s testimony was admissible.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a district court may “exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair
prejudice.” Mehanna, 735 F.3d at 59 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403). In this context,
“unfair prejudice” means “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper
basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” Old Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997) (quotations omitted).
Levitt’s expert testimony about the global jihad movement was relevant to help
the jury understand jihadist materials that were, in turn, highly probative as to
Tsarnaev’s terrorist motive in committing the offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(9)
(defining as an aggravating factor committing the offense “after substantial planning

316
and premeditation to . . . commit an act of terrorism”); 19.App.8683 (non-statutory
aggravating factor that Tsarnaev “targeted the Boston Marathon, an iconic event that
draws large crowds of men, women and children to its final stretch, making it
especially susceptible to the act and effects of terrorism”); see also Mehanna, 735 F.3d at
60 (defendant’s jihadist materials were admissible to show his “motive and intent”).
In the context of that testimony, it was within the district court’s discretion to allow
Levitt to describe ISIS and its propaganda as a more recent manifestation of the
global jihad movement. That testimony was admissible to help the jury understand
the breadth and scope of the global movement that Tsarnaev saw himself as
advancing.
There was little danger of unfair prejudice. The totality of the ISIS testimony
Tsarnaev challenges is contained within two transcript pages (13.App.5894-95) out of
the 85 pages of Dr. Levitt’s testimony on direct examination. See.13.App.5864-74,
5881-5950; 14.App.5957-62. There were no graphic descriptions of ISIS violence and
no ISIS videos, photographs, or audio. Neither Levitt nor any other witness
suggested any connection between Tsarnaev and ISIS other than the “commonality . .
. in the motivational ideology” that Levitt described. Levitt’s academic description of
the jihadist movement is not the sort of evidence that is liable to inflame the jury’s
passions. Courts have routinely rejected Rule 403 challenges to far more potent
evidence. See Mehanna, 735 F.3d at 60-61 (rejecting Rule 403 challenge to jihadist
material including descriptions of videos in which terrorists beheaded American

317
civilians); El-Mezain, 664 F.3d at 509-10 (rejecting Rule 403 challenge to images of
Hamas violence found on computers of company accused of providing material
support to Hamas); United States v. Abu Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 113 n.12, 133-34 (2d Cir.
2010) (admitting terrorist videos defendant had ordered and materials from websites
he had visited as relevant to motive and intent, even though defendant had not yet
received the videos and government could not prove he actually viewed the website
materials).
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 396-98) that the ISIS testimony was irrelevant because
ISIS had only just come into being at the time of the Boston Marathon attacks. That
contention assumes that ISIS was a distinct, wholly new entity that had nothing to do
with the global jihad movement to which Tsarnaev subscribed. 70 But Levitt’s central
point was precisely the contrary. His expert opinion was that various separately
organized terrorist groups such as regional al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS itself arose out
of the same ideological movement. 13.App.5882-94. Because ISIS sought to advance
the same ideas as the other terrorist groups and leaders Levitt described, testimony
Tsarnaev’s assumption that ISIS was created ex nihilo in 2013 is undermined

70
by the U.S. State Department’s foreign terrorist organization designation of ISIS as an

alias of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was founded in 2004. See United States v. Elshinawy,
2018 WL 1521876, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2018) (noting that the Secretary of State
designated al-Qaeda in Iraq a foreign terrorist organization in 2004 and “amended the
designation to add various aliases, including . . . ISIS”), appeal filed, No. 18-4223 (4th
Cir.). At bottom, whether ISIS had any relationship to pre-existing jihadist
movements is a factual question that Tsarnaev could have challenged through cross-
examination or presenting his own evidence, but such factual disputes do not provide
grounds for excluding the testimony.
318
about ISIS could help the jury understand the movement’s characteristics, goals, and
destructive consequences. Cf. United States v. Felton, 417 F.3d 97, 101-02 (1st Cir.
2005) (“Unfortunately for the defendants, evidence of their [white supremacist] beliefs
and associations was highly relevant.”).
In addition, the jury could properly consider during the penalty phase
evidence about terrorism that occurred after the Boston Marathon in 2013 because
some mitigating and aggravating factors referred to possible terrorist threats in the
future. Tsarnaev claimed, as a mitigating factor, that he was “highly unlikely to
commit, incite, or facilitate any acts of violence in the future” while serving a life
sentence. Add.92. Similarly, the government alleged as a non-statutory aggravating
factor that Tsarnaev had “made statements suggesting that others would be justified
in committing additional acts of violence and terrorism against the United States.”
Add. 86. 71 Both of those factors turn, at least to some extent, on the status of the
threat posed by the global jihad movement after the Boston Marathon attacks.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 400-01) that this Court should not defer to the district
court’s decision because the court failed to conscientiously balance the proffered
evidence’s probative value against the risk of prejudice. Tsarnaev is incorrect. At the
beginning of Levitt’s testimony, the district court invited defense counsel to renew
The fact that the jury did not find this aggravating factor, Add.86,
71
undermines Tsarnaev’s claim that the jury was swayed by anti-Islamic religious
prejudice.
319
their objection, and the court engaged in a colloquy with counsel about the
appropriate boundaries of Levitt’s testimony. 13.App.5874-75. The district court
specifically noted that “[Rule] 403 is an important consideration” and cautioned the
government to be prudent. 13.App.5875. The court’s subsequent admission of
Levitt’s brief references to ISIS as “general background” shows that, in the court’s
judgment, those references were probative and not unfairly prejudicial because they
were part of the expert’s explanation of the global jihad movement’s broader context
and did not constitute an attempt to assert any direct connection between Tsarnaev
and ISIS. That on-the-spot judgment was reasonable and entitled to deference. See
Mehanna, 735 F.3d at 59 (“Only rarely—and in extraordinarily compelling
circumstances—will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district
court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and
unfair effect” (quotations omitted)); United States v. Shinderman, 515 F.3d 5, 16-17 (1st
Cir. 2008) (noting that balancing judgments under Rule 403 are “typically battlefield
determinations” that are afforded “great deference” on appeal).
In addition, evidence is generally not unfairly prejudicial where it is not “any
more sensational or disturbing than the crimes” with which the defendant has been
charged. See United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990); see also
United States v. Smith, 727 F.2d 214, 220 (2d Cir. 1984) (essential inquiry is whether
other-crimes evidence involves “conduct likely to arouse irrational passions”). Here,
Levitt’s testimony about ISIS was detached, academic, and dispassionate. It was not
320
nearly as “sensational” and “disturbing” as the aggravating evidence in this case. In
the face of the evidence that the jury saw and heard about Tsarnaev’s terrorist attack,
including his own explanation for why he did it, there was no realistic possibility that
the jury was “inflamed” by Levitt’s passing references to ISIS.
Tsarnaev’s reliance on United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008), is
misplaced. See Mehanna, 735 F.3d at 61 (rejecting a terrorism defendant’s reliance on
Al-Moayad because “[i]t is hen’s-teeth rare that two cases involving different parties,
different facts, and different scenarios will be of much assistance through a
comparative analysis of Rule 403 determinations”). In Al-Moayad, the Second Circuit
held that the district court should have excluded a witness’s description of his
experiences at an al-Qaeda training camp, including footage of Osama bin Laden
visiting the camp, because there was no connection between the witness and the
defendant and the witness went far beyond his proffered purpose of merely
authenticating a document. 545 F.3d at 163. Here, unlike in Al-Moayad, the
government’s case as to certain aggravating factors “depended on proving that the
defendant’s actions emanated from views” that aligned with terrorism. Mehanna, 735
F.3d at 62.
4. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless.
Even assuming the district court abused its discretion by permitting Dr. Levitt
to testify about ISIS, the error was harmless. See 18 U.S.C. § 3595(c)(2); Jones, 527
U.S. at 402-05. The testimony was brief, academic in tone, and unemotional. It was
321
entirely contained within two transcript pages. The government did not mention ISIS
in its closing argument. There is no indication that the testimony about ISIS inflamed
the jury.
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Tsarnaev was inspired by
radical Islamic propaganda, including by the Inspire magazine published by al-Qaeda,
13.App.5906-09, and lectures by Anwar al Awlaki, who was himself associated with al-
Qaeda, 13.App.5907, 5926; 1.Supp.App.61 (Gov’t Exh. 1266). Any suggestion that
Tsarnaev was inspired by another radical jihadist group (ISIS) would not have affected
the jury’s verdict.
Moreover, the jurors unanimously found the existence of all four statutory
intent factors, six statutory aggravating factors, and four non-statutory aggravating
factors for the counts on which the jury imposed the death penalty. Add. 79-96.
Tsarnaev does not challenge the evidentiary support for any of them. Given the
overwhelming force of the aggravating factors showing the devastating effects of
Tsarnaev’s large-scale terrorist attack on dozens of people, this Court should find
beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have imposed the death penalty even if
the brief, guilt-phase testimony about ISIS had been excluded. See, e.g., Jones, 527 U.S.
at 404-05 (noting that an appellate court conducting harmless-error review of a death
sentence may consider whether “the jury would have reached the same conclusion” in
the absence of the error).
322
B. The government’s audiovisual presentation at the guilt-phase

closing argument was proper.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 402-08) that the government committed prosecutorial
misconduct during its guilt-phase closing argument by using a PowerPoint
presentation that combined an audio clip of an Islamic song with photos of Tsarnaev
and the bombing’s aftermath.
1. Background
During closing argument at the guilt phase, the prosecutor argued that
Tsarnaev and his brother had been “radicalized to believe that jihad was the solution
to their problems.” 15.App.6918. The prosecutor reviewed the evidence of
Tsarnaev’s radical beliefs, which included Tsarnaev’s boat manifesto, as well as his
“library” of jihadist videos, writings, and inspirational songs, or “nasheeds,” that
Tsarnaev watched, listened to, and read on his computer and other devices.
15.App.6923. The government reminded the jury that after Tsarnaev and his brother
carjacked Dun Meng, they “went back to Watertown” to get “a CD containing those
jihad nasheeds on it” for some “portable inspiration” as they prepared to take Dun
Meng’s car to New York. 15.App.6910.
The government also noted that Tsarnaev created a twitter account with the
display name “Ghuraba.” 15.App.6926. The prosecutor quoted Tsarnaev’s
explanation for why he used that handle: “Ghuraba means stranger,” Tsarnaev wrote.
323
“Out here in the West, we should stand out among the non-believers.” 15.App.6926.
See 1.Supp.App.61 (Gov’t Exh. 1266).
Later in the argument, the government stated that Tsarnaev had “murdered
four people” and “wounded hundreds” in order to “make a statement” and to “be a
terrorist hero.” 15.App.6931. The government then stated, “[t]his is how the
defendant saw his crimes,” while displaying a PowerPoint presentation. 15.App.6931-
32; Add.248. Five slides of the presentation were accompanied by audio of a nasheed,
in which the singer chants “Ghuraba” repeatedly. Add.CD.ExcerptPP. The nasheed
played for up to 19 seconds. DE 1744, at 3-4. The five slides contained (1) a picture
of bomb-making instructions from Inspire magazine (Gov’t Exh. 1142-091 at 33); (2) a
photograph of Tsarnaev sitting in his room in front of a black flag with Arabic script
(Gov’t Exh. 1341); and (3) three photographs of the scene at the finish line in the
aftermath of the bombing (Gov’t Exh. 9, 12, 16). See 1.Supp.App.5-6, 8, 67;
2.App.210.
After the 19-second audio track ended, the prosecutor said, “But this is the
cold reality of what his crimes left behind.” 15.App.6932. The presentation then
showed a series of additional photographs of the aftermath of the bombing, including
Gov’t Exh. 17 (showing Krystle Campbell and Karen Rand lying together after the
blast), and Gov’t Exh. 20 (Jeffrey Bauman after the blast). Add.CD.ExcerptPP; see
1.Supp.App.9-10.
324
After the government concluded its closing argument, Tsarnaev moved for a
mistrial. Add.250-51. He argued that the “portion of the government’s presentation”
consisting of “the photo montage with the nasheed playing in the background” was
an attempt to “inflame religious or ethnic prejudice” without any “relevance to any of
the charges.” Add.250-51.
The government responded that both the audio file and the photographs had
previously been admitted into evidence and that Tsarnaev “consumed these audio
files” on all of his devices. Add.252-53. The government explained that the title of
the audio, “‘Ghuraba’ which is ‘Stranger,’” was “a theme that we’ve heard throughout
the entire case” and reflected Tsarnaev’s belief that he was “one of . . . a small
percentage of people in the [Muslim] faith who believes in terrorism.” Add.253. The
government argued that the combination of the audio and photographs had “a
legitimate purpose” because it “allow[ed] the jury to determine” the “defendant’s state
of mind, his radicalization,” and his “perspective” on the “horrific acts of terrorism”
he committed. Add.253. The government noted that its terrorism expert witness, Dr.
Levitt, had “explained the significance of . . . these nasheeds,” and that Tsarnaev’s
writings in the boat were consistent with the nasheeds and the other terrorist materials
that were in evidence. Add.254.
The district court agreed that these arguments reflected “the government’s
radicalization position,” and that the government’s audiovisual presentation “was not
improper.” Add.254.
325
2. Standard of Review
This court reviews de novo whether the government committed misconduct in
its closing or rebuttal. United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d 12, 38 (1st Cir. 2003);
United States v. Glantz, 810 F.2d 316, 320 n.2 (1st Cir. 1987).
3. The PowerPoint presentation was proper.
“The term ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ covers a broad swath of improper
conduct by the [government]’s attorney that may impair an accused’s constitutional
rights to a fair trial . . . .” United States v. Santos-Rivera, 726 F.3d 17, 27 (1st Cir. 2013).
When determining whether a claim of prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal, this
Court first considers whether the government’s actions were improper. United States v.
Duval, 496 F.3d 64, 78 (1st Cir. 2007). If they were, the Court asks whether the
misconduct “so poisoned the well that the trial’s outcome was likely affected.” United
States v. Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d 276, 283 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.
Kasenge, 660 F.3d 537, 542 (1st Cir. 2011)). In making that determination, the Court
considers “(1) the severity of the prosecutor’s misconduct, including whether it was
deliberate or accidental; (2) the context in which the misconduct occurred; (3) whether
the judge gave curative instructions and the likely effect of such instructions; and (4)
the strength of the evidence against the defendant.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting
Kasenge, 660 F.3d at 542). “The remedy of a new trial is rarely used; it is warranted
only where there would be a miscarriage of justice or where the evidence
preponderates heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Rodríguez-De Jesús, 202 F.3d
326
482, 486 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 136 F.3d 6, 12 (1st
Cir. 1998)).
The government is permitted to argue forcefully and to describe vividly the
defendant’s criminal conduct, so long as the government does not cross the line into
improperly seeking to inflame the jury’s passions through gratuitously pejorative and
inflammatory argument. See United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 159 (1st
Cir. 1989). The government has “broad latitude in the inferences it may reasonably
suggest to the jury during summation.” United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1183
(2d Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted).
The government’s audiovisual presentation was proper. The presentation
consisted of photographs and an accompanying audio file that had all been admitted
into evidence. See, e.g., United States v. De Peri, 778 F.2d 963, 979 (3d Cir. 1985) (noting
that a district court may permit the government to use visual aids at argument). By
showing those exhibits together, with the explanation that “[t]his is how the
defendant saw his crimes,” Add. 248, the prosecutor invited the jury to infer that
Tsarnaev saw the Boston Marathon bombing as an act of terrorist propaganda. The
government’s argument about Tsarnaev’s motive was consistent with the library of
jihadist materials recovered from Tsarnaev’s computer, see 1.Supp.App.35-45;
13.App.5916-39, 5945-49, as well as his own “Ghuraba” twitter account and his
writings in the boat. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16 (1985) (noting that claims
of improper argument must be reviewed in the context of “the entire record”); United
327
States v. Arias-Izuierdo, 449 F.3d 1168, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2006) (rejecting claim of
misconduct during closing argument where prosecutor’s comment was based on
photograph that had been admitted into evidence). The presentation was well within
the latitude afforded prosecutors during closing argument. See United States v. Vanvliet,
542 F.3d 259, 271 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting government’s “considerable latitude” to
“argue the evidence and any reasonable inferences”); United States v. Wall, 130 F.3d
739, 745 (6th Cir. 1997) (same).
Contrary to Tsarnaev’s contention, the “juxtaposition” of properly admitted
photographs and audio did not somehow transform the evidence into an
inflammatory appeal to jurors’ anti-Islamic prejudices. Rather, as the district court
recognized, the presentation was tied to the trial evidence about Tsarnaev’s
radicalization. Combining the nasheed with the photographs of Tsarnaev, the black
flag, and the Inspire bomb instructions allowed the jury to see and hear the
interconnected elements of the jihadist worldview that inspired the bombing. The
prosecutor thus used the presentation for a proper purpose—to argue that Tsarnaev’s
violence was motivated by his radical ideology.
Other courts have likewise permitted the government to juxtapose separate
exhibits in order to support proper argument. In United States v. McGhee, 532 F.3d 733
(8th Cir. 2008), the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by permitting the prosecution, during closing argument, to use a collage
containing a photograph of the robbery suspect, taken at the time of the robbery, with
328
an image of the defendant “in a similar pose, inserted next to the suspect.” Id. at 741.
The court explained that “[a]ll the photographs in the collage were previously
admitted into evidence. And although the collage included the ultimate conclusion—
that the bank robber [wa]s [the defendant]—this was not unfairly prejudicial [because]
closing argument may be argumentative and assert conclusions.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Tsarnaev is incorrect in asserting (Br. 405) that the nasheed was “unconnected
to the events of April 15.” The nasheed was saved to multiple folders on a computer
found in Tamerlan’s home that Tsarnaev used to browse the Internet. 13.App.5692,
5857. See 1.Supp.App.46-48 (Gov’t Exh. 1143-05) (file listing); Gov’t Exh. 1143-026
(“Ghurabaa” music video). The nasheed chanted the word that Tsarnaev had chosen
as his Twitter display name. 1.Supp.App.61; 15.App.6926. Dr. Levitt discussed the
importance of nasheeds as inspiration for home-grown extremists. 13.App.5908,
5934. And, as the prosecutor reminded the jury at argument, the Tsarnaevs
interrupted their carjacking of Dun Meng to drive back to Watertown to get their CD
containing nasheeds before executing their plan to drive down to New York.
15.App.6910. They then played the CD in Dun Meng’s car while the carjacking was
in progress, minutes before the brothers’ showdown with police in Watertown. See
11.App.4964 (Dun Meng testifying that the Tsarnaevs played a CD with religious
music while driving in his Mercedes). Thus there was substantial evidence in the
329
record for the government’s assertion that the Tsarnaevs used nasheeds as “portable
inspiration.” 15.App.6910.
Tsarnaev contends that the juxtaposition of the jihadist music and imagery with
photographs of his wounded victims was improperly inflammatory. But that is a
“function of the acts that the defendant[ ] engaged in.” Felton, 417 F.3d at 103.
Tsarnaev’s contention (Br. 402-03) that the audiovisual display was too “emotional
and frightening” founders on the fact that terror was the explicit purpose and
inevitable consequence of his attacks. As this Court has recognized, terrorism cases
generally involve emotional and frightening evidence. See Mehanna, 735 F.3d at 64
(noting that even “blood curdling” and “emotionally charged” terrorism-related
evidence was admissible because “much of this emotional overlay is directly related to
the nature of the [terrorist] crimes” (quotations omitted)). “It should not surprise a
defendant that proof of his participation in conspiracies to [commit terrorism
offenses] will engender the presentation of evidence offensive to the sensibilities of
civilized people.” Id.; see also id. (“Terrorism trials are not to be confused with high tea
at Buckingham Palace.”); El-Mezain, 664 F.3d at 511 (noting that, in a terrorism case,
“it is inescapable . . . that there would be some evidence about violence and terrorist
activity”). If that is true of Mehanna and El-Mezain, where the defendants themselves
did not commit any violent acts, it is all the more reasonable to expect emotionally
charged evidence and argument in this case, where Tsarnaev participated in terrorist
attacks that killed four people and grievously injured dozens more.
330
4. The presentation did not affect the trial’s outcome.
Even assuming the government’s presentation was improper, it did not so
poison the well that the trial’s outcome was likely affected. Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d
at 283. First, the allegedly improper juxtaposition was limited in scope because it
lasted for, at most, 19 seconds. See Doc. 1744 at 3-4; see also United States v. Zehrbach,
47 F.3d 1252, 1267 (3d Cir. 1995) (“the comments at issue were but two sentences in
a closing argument that filled forty pages of transcript”). Moreover, the nasheed was
played during summation, not rebuttal, giving Tsarnaev the opportunity to blunt any
effect during his own closing argument. See 15.App.6947 (defense closing argument
noting that the government “just played, to tug on your heartstrings, some nasheeds
. . .”). More importantly, the government played the nasheed only at the guilt-phase
closing argument, but Tsarnaev challenges its alleged effect solely on the penalty-
phase verdict. Br. 405, 410-15. Any effect of the nasheed was likely dissipated, if not
forgotten, in the intervening weeks of powerful testimony, and additional closing
arguments, that the jury saw and heard before it began deliberating at the close of the
penalty phase.
In addition, the district court’s instructions to the jury reduced any risk that the
nasheed affected the jury’s penalty phase verdict. At the close of the penalty phase,
the court instructed the jury to avoid being swayed by passion or prejudice.
19.App.8695-96. The district court also instructed the jury that the arguments of
counsel did not constitute evidence. 15.App.6976, 19.App.8650-51; see also United
331
States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding no reversible plain error
in inflammatory comments at closing argument because “the jury was clearly
instructed that the government’s argument was neither evidence nor law; that it must
avoid the influence of passion or prejudice; and that it must weigh all aggravating and
mitigating factors”), petitions for cert. filed, Nos. 18-7489 (Jan. 14, 2019), and 17-7835
(Feb. 4, 2019).
Moreover, as required by the FDPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 3593(f), the district court
instructed the jury that it could not consider Tsarnaev’s religious beliefs or national
origin in considering whether to recommend a sentence of death. 19.App.8700. And
as the FDPA also requires, the jury in its verdict specifically certified that
“consideration of the . . . religious beliefs, [or] national origin . . . of Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev . . . was not involved in reaching [the jurors’] individual decision.” Add.98.
The jury further certified that each of them, “as an individual, would have made the
same recommendation . . . regardless of the . . . religious beliefs, [or] national origin . .
. of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.” Id. These instructions and certifications blunted any
prejudice from the presentation.
Finally, the content of the nasheed, which contained only a single word, was
not by nature inflammatory, and in any event it was far less inflammatory than the
properly admitted jihadist propaganda in the case, including Tsarnaev’s own
manifesto. See Mikhel, 889 F.3d at 1056 (finding that improper comments at closing
argument were not “nearly as inflammatory as the graphic evidence of the murders, or
332
as powerful as the extensive victim impact testimony, which was quite properly before
the jury” (quotations omitted)); Felton, 417 F.3d at 103 (no error in referring to
defendant as a “terrorist” where the term was “a function of the acts that the
defendant[ ] engaged in”). In the context of this case, where the evidence of
Tsarnaev’s devotion to radical jihadist ideology was overwhelming and where his guilt
for horrific terrorist attacks that killed four people and wounded dozens was
unquestioned, the jury’s penalty-phase verdict was not affected by 19 seconds of
music that it heard weeks earlier.
C. The government did not plainly commit prosecutorial misconduct

in penalty-phase opening statements by displaying images of the
deceased victims alongside an image of Tsarnaev raising his
middle finger at a security camera.
Tsarnaev also claims (Br. 408-410) that the government committed misconduct
during its penalty-phase opening argument by displaying poster-sized photos of
Tsarnaev’s victims next to a still image of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger at a
security camera. That argument lacks merit.
1. Background
On July 10, 2013, Tsarnaev was brought to the federal courthouse for an
arraignment on the indictment. 16.App.7292-94. While in a holding cell there, he
climbed up on a bench near the security camera and flashed a “V” sign (with his palm
facing inward) and then his middle finger at the camera. 16.App.7294-95, 7309;
Add.CD.DX4001 (video); 1.Supp.App.90 (Gov’t Exh. 1595) (screenshot). A Deputy
333
U.S. Marshal confronted him and said that such behavior “was not going to be
tolerated.” 18.App.8446. When asked if he was going to continue being a problem,
Tsarnaev said, “No. I’m done. I’m sorry.” 18.App.8446, 8452.
Before the penalty phase, the government informed the defense that it intended
to introduce a still shot of Tsarnaev holding up his middle finger (Gov’t Exh. 1595)
and that it intended to use posters of that still shot and of photographs of the
deceased victims during the penalty-phase opening. Add.359, 367-68. Tsarnaev
objected to the introduction and use of the still shot on the basis that it was
misleading and more prejudicial than probative. Add.359, 367; 25.App.11582. After
reviewing the video from which the still shot was taken, the district court concluded
that it was “admissible” and that “the video can be shown to contextualize it.”
Add.365-67. Tsarnaev’s counsel also noted that the prosecutor intended to “use some
photographs of the victims in her opening” and observed that “it seems like the Court
ought to rule on the admissibility of those photographs if they’re not ones that are
already in evidence.” Add.368. The district court said it was excluding the
government’s “montages” of victim pictures as “a little too emotional” but said the
government could use “individual pictures.” Add.368.
During the penalty-phase opening statement, the prosecutor displayed on easels
three-foot by four-foot photographs of Lingzi Lu, Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, and
Martin Richard. Add.376. A fifth easel in the middle was covered by a black cloth.
334
16.App.7090; Doc. 1744 at 4 (stipulation). Near the end of the statement, the
prosecutor said:
On July 10th, 2013, almost three months after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had
murdered Krystle Marie Campbell, Lingzi Lu, Martin Richard, and
Officer Sean Collier, he was here in this courthouse. He knew the
United States had charged him for his crimes. In the room that he was
in, there was a video camera. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was alone. There was
no brother with him. And once more, just as he had done with the boat
on Franklin Street, he had one more message to send.
16.App.7089-90. The prosecutor then pulled the black cloth off the middle easel to
reveal a three-foot by four-foot photograph of Tsarnaev holding up his middle finger
in the holding cell. 16.App.7090; Doc. 1744 at 4 (stipulation). The prosecutor
concluded:
This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, unconcerned, unrepentant, and unchanged.

Without remorse, he remains untouched by the grief and the loss that he
caused. And without assistance, he remains the unrepentant killer that
he is. It is because of who Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is that the United States
will return and ask you to find that the just and appropriate sentence for
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is death.
Thank you.
16.App.7090.
After the opening statement, Tsarnaev’s counsel noted as a “point of record-
keeping” that the prosecution had displayed the pictures during the opening.
Add.376. Counsel asserted that the “prejudicial” and “inflammatory” effect “of what
we think was an out of context and . . . quite distorted still [shot] from the cell block
was greatly enhanced . . . by its juxtaposition between these very attractive and
335
touching photographs of the victims in life.” Add.376-77. But counsel did not
request any additional relief, and the court did not comment on the issue. Add.376-
77.
2. Standard of review
Tsarnaev failed to preserve his argument that the government’s use of photo
displays in its penalty-phase opening amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. His
counsel objected before the penalty phase to the admission of the holding-cell photo
and to its use in the government’s opening. Add.359, 367; 25.App.11582. After the
government’s opening, the defense noted for “record-keeping” purposes that the
government had displayed the photo alongside photos of the homicide victims and
noted the defense’s “view” that the holding-cell photo’s “prejudicial” and
“inflammatory” effect was “greatly enhanced” by being displayed alongside the
victims’ photos. Add.376-77. But counsel neither claimed that the government
committed prosecutorial misconduct nor moved for a mistrial. Tsarnaev’s renewal of
his evidentiary objection was insufficient to preserve a prosecutorial misconduct
claim. See United States v. Montas, 41 F.3d 775, 782-83 (1st Cir. 1994) (objection on
different basis does not preserve error); United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 673 F.3d
1136, 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) (objection for vouching did not preserve prosecutorial-
misconduct claim). Review of Tsarnaev’s prosecutorial misconduct claim is therefore
limited to plain error. United States v. Peña-Santo, 809 F.3d 686, 694 (1st Cir. 2015). To
336
the extent Tsarnaev’s argument could be construed as an evidentiary challenge, review
would be for abuse of discretion. Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 42.
3. The display was proper.
Tsarnaev argues that the government committed prosecutorial misconduct by
“juxtaposing an image of Tsarnaev raising his middle finger in a jail cell with images of
the homicide victims.” Br. 408. He argues that the government’s statement
“inappropriately exploited the jurors’ passions” and “blatantly mischaracterized a
split-second image of Tsarnaev in a courthouse jail cell, . . . calling it his obscene
‘message’ to the homicide victims.” Br. 408.
The government’s penalty-phase opening statement was not misconduct, much
less plainly so. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s repeated claims (Br. 40, 381, 389, 392, 408-09),
the prosecutor never said that Tsarnaev’s obscene gesture was a message “to his
victims.” Br. 381. Rather, the prosecutor explained that Tsarnaev’s obscene gesture
at the courthouse “almost three months” after the bombing was intended to convey
the same “message” that he sought to convey in his written manifesto in “the boat on
Franklin Street.” 16.App.7089-90. That “message” was that the bombings were
justified by a purported religious obligation to wage jihad against the United States.
See 11.App.4556; 13.App.5941 (statement in the boat that “[ou]r actions came with a
[me]ssage”). See 16.App.7086 (prosecutor’s reference to written statement in the
boat). The prosecutor argued Tsarnaev’s hand gesture showed that, even after plenty
337
of time to reflect, he remained “unconcerned, unrepentant, and unchanged.”
16.App.7090.
Tsarnaev’s argument hinges on the fact that his obscene gesture was displayed
alongside the victims’ pictures. From this, he draws the inference that the “message”
the prosecutor referred to was directed at Tsarnaev’s victims. But the Supreme Court
has observed that “a court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an
ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through
lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging
interpretations.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 647 (1974). That is especially
appropriate here, given the prosecutor’s reference to Tsarnaev’s “message” in the
boat, which was a message to the United States, not his victims personally. See
11.App.4555-57. The gesture showed that, three months after the bombing and
immediately before his arraignment on terrorism charges, Tsarnaev remained defiant
and unfazed by the gravity of his actions.
Moreover, Tsarnaev’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct is particularly
misplaced given that the government informed the defense beforehand of its intent to
use these pictures during its opening statement. See Add.359, 367-68. Two of the
victims’ photos had already been admitted into evidence. See 1.Supp.App.82, 91
(Gov’t Exhs. 1501, 1601-28). And the district court specifically ruled in advance that
the holding-cell photo and the remaining photos were admissible. Add.367. The
338
decision to use the photos in this context is hardly the kind of deliberate misconduct
that could give rise to a prosecutorial misconduct claim.
4. The display did not affect the trial’s outcome.
In any event, Tsarnaev cannot show that the alleged misconduct “so poisoned
the well that the trial’s outcome was likely affected.” Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d at
283 (quoting Kasenge, 660 F.3d at 542). This is so for a number of reasons.
First, any prejudicial effect was minimal in light of the other evidence in this
case. The gesture was crude and defiant, but hardly an uncommon sight for most
Americans. It was far less dramatic or prejudicial than other types of evidence that
are commonly displayed during capital sentencing proceedings without constituting
reversible error. See Strong v. Roper, 737 F.3d 506, 521-22 (8th Cir. 2013) (autopsy
photos); United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 365, 367 (6th Cir. 2016) (autopsy
photos); Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (use of mannequin
resembling victim bound with rope and with a bag over its head). And it was far less
dramatic than much of the evidence in this case, which included, for example, video
of Tsarnaev placing a bomb next to a row of children and walking away just before
detonating it, as well as videos and photographs of the carnage after the blast. See
1.Supp.App.11-13, 16-19 (Gov’t Exhs. 24-26, 32, 39-40); Gov’t Exhs. 22, 23 (videos).
Tsarnaev argues that the photo’s “effect was powerful,” citing news reports
that are not in the record. Br. 393. But even if those news reports are correct, the
fact that “a collective gasp” was audible in the overflow courtroom, Br. 393 (quoting
339
Catherine Parrotta (@CatherineNews), Twitter (Apr. 21, 2015, 8:05 a.m.,
https://twitter.com/CatherineNews/status/590531837862268929?s=17), is hardly
evidence of the photo’s actual effect on the jurors who had sat through both phases
of this trial and had seen all of the evidence, including the victims’ autopsy photos
that were shielded from the spectators. See 21.App.9796-99.
Second, Tsarnaev had every opportunity to contextualize, downplay, and re-
characterize the photo. The day after its penalty-phase opening, the government
called a Deputy U.S. Marshal to authenticate the still photo of Tsarnaev raising his
middle finger at the camera. 16.App.7292-95. On cross-examination, Tsarnaev
played several video clips, including the one in which Tsarnaev flashed his middle
finger, to contextualize the still shot. 16.App.7301-12. Tsarnaev later called another
Deputy U.S. Marshal to testify that Tsarnaev had apologized when confronted.
18.App.8446, 8452.
During the defense penalty-phase opening statement (deferred until after the
government presented its evidence), Tsarnaev’s counsel argued that the full video
from the holding cell showed that the “shocking gesture wasn’t quite as advertised.”
17.App.7503. Counsel argued that Tsarnaev was “using the plastic housing of the
security camera as a mirror” and “just for a split second, sticks out his middle finger.
To who? To himself? What did it mean? It meant that he was acting like an
immature 19-year-old is what it meant.” 17.App.7503. In closing argument, counsel
argued that the video showed “childish[ ] silliness” and “stupidity.” 19.App.8766.
340
And counsel even tried to turn the video to Tsarnaev’s advantage, arguing that he had
a clean prison record after two years, and that the most the government could come
up with was this “one second of [Tsarnaev] shooting the finger at the camera,” for
which he later “apologized.” 19.App.8765-66. See id. at 8766 (“[T]hat’s probably a
first. I doubt anybody has ever been written up for shooting a finger at the camera.”).
Thus, even if the government had suggested that Tsarnaev’s obscene gesture was
directed at his victims, the defense had every opportunity to argue that it was not.
Third, the district court instructed the jury that “[t]he lawyers’ summaries of the
evidence in their openings . . . are not part of the evidence.” 19.App.8650. The
summaries were “an attempt to marshal the evidence for you, to try to persuade you
to understand it in a way that is consistent with their view of the case.” 19.App.8650-
51. But, the court said, “it is your understanding and your assessment of the evidence
that controls.” 19.App.8651.
Finally, the other evidence in this case overwhelmingly established Tsarnaev’s
disdain for his victims and lack of remorse regarding their deaths. Far from simply
gesturing at them, he detonated a bomb designed to kill them by sending metal tearing
through their bodies. After the bombing, he flippantly tweeted that he was “a stress
free kind of guy,” 10.App.4496, and said, “[T]hey what ‘god hates dead people?’ Or
victims of tragedies? Lol [laugh out loud] those people are cooked.” 1.Supp.App.65
(Gov’t Exh. 1314). While hiding in the boat, he wrote that the bombings were
justified by the United States’ conduct toward Muslims. 11.App.4555-57. Thus, even
341
if the jury had understood the prosecutor as saying that Tsarnaev’s gesture was
directed at his victims, the prejudice from that inference would pale in comparison to
the evidence that he violently and intentionally killed them and experienced no
remorse. Tsarnaev cannot show that the photo and the prosecutor’s statement
“inflame[d] [the jury’s] passions more than did the facts of the crime.” Payne v.
Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 832 (1991) (O’Connor, J., concurring).
X. The Constitution Does Not Require the Government to Prove That the
Aggravating Factors Outweigh the Mitigating Factors Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt in Order to Justify a Death Sentence.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 416-24) that the district court erred in instructing the
jury that, to impose a death sentence, it must find that the aggravating factors
“sufficiently outweigh” the mitigating factors “to justify imposing a sentence of
death.” 19.App.8661-62. He contends that the jury’s ultimate determination under
the FDPA of whether a death sentence was justified based on the weighing of
aggravating and mitigating factors was a factual finding that, under Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the jury was
required to make beyond a reasonable doubt. As Tsarnaev acknowledges, this Court
has squarely rejected that argument. See Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 31-32. Contrary to
Tsarnaev’s contention, Sampson I remains good law, and nothing in the Supreme
Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), undermines Sampson I’s clear
holding that that the jury’s determination of whether a death sentence is justified is
not itself a factual determination that must be made beyond a reasonable doubt.
342
A. Background
Under the FDPA, capital sentencing has two aspects—an eligibility
determination and selection of the actual punishment from among the eligible
penalties—which are given “differing constitutional treatment.” Buchanan v. Angelone,
522 U.S. 269, 275 (1998). Eligibility involves the consideration of discrete aggravating
factors that determine whether the defendant falls into the narrow category of
defendants who qualify for the death penalty, while the selection decision is a “broad
inquiry” into all evidence relevant to the ultimate decision of what penalty to impose.
Id. at 276. The selection phase is “an individualized determination on the basis of the
character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime” of whether the
defendant should receive a death sentence. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879 (1983)
(emphasis omitted).
At the eligibility stage, the jury must make certain factual findings before it may
consider imposing the death penalty. The jury must find, for example, that the
defendant intended to kill the victim, intended to inflict serious bodily injury, or
intentionally engaged in violence knowing that it posed a grave risk of death. 18
U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D). The jury must also unanimously find
beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravating factor is present. Id.
§ 3593(e)(2); see also id. § 3592(c) (enumerating aggravating factors).
Once the jury makes these threshold determinations, the FDPA prescribes
additional procedures for the jury’s selection-stage determination of the appropriate

343
penalty. The jury must find any non-statutory aggravating factors unanimously and
beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c), (d). But a single juror may find a
mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence, and that juror “may consider
such factor established . . . regardless of the number of jurors who concur that the
factor has been established.” Id. § 3593(c), (d).
The FDPA provides that, after making these determinations, the jury must
determine what sentence is “justif[ied]” by weighing the factors that it has found. 18
U.S.C. § 3593(e). In conducting this weighing process, the jury must
consider whether all the aggravating factor or factors found to exist

sufficiently outweigh all the mitigating factor or factors found to exist to
justify a sentence of death, or, in the absence of a mitigating factor,
whether the aggravating factor or factors alone are sufficient to justify a
sentence of death.
Id. The jury may impose a death sentence only if it unanimously agrees that the
sentence is justified in light of the factors the jury has found. Id.
This Court has squarely held that the jury’s determination of whether a death
sentence is justified based on the FDPA’s weighing process is not itself a factual
determination that must be made beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi and Ring.
Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 31-32. Other courts of appeals have uniformly reached the
same conclusion. See United States v. Gabrion, 719 F.3d 511, 532-33 (6th Cir. 2013) (en
banc); United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475, 516 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Fields,
516 F.3d 923, 950 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 993-94 (9th
Cir. 2007); United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v.
344
Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 749-50 (8th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d
1079, 1107-08 (10th Cir. 2007) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to the
similar weighing determination required by the now-repealed capital sentencing
provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 848).
As this Court explained in Sampson I, by the time the jury reaches the weighing
prescribed by Section 3593(e), it “already ha[s] found beyond a reasonable doubt the
facts needed to support a sentence of death.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 32. The jury’s
determination of what sentence is justified is not a finding of fact in support of a
particular sentence but rather a determination of the sentence itself, within a range for
which the defendant is already eligible. Id.; see also Gabrion, 719 F.3d at 533. The
FDPA’s instruction that jurors determine what sentence is justified by weighing the
aggravating and mitigating factors simply prescribes a “process,” the outcome of
which “is not an objective truth that is susceptible to (further) proof by either party.
Hence, the weighing of aggravators and mitigators does not need to be ‘found.’”
Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 32; see also Mitchell, 502 F.3d at 993 (finding no indication “how
a beyond-reasonable-doubt standard could sensibly be superimposed upon this
process, or why it must be in order to comport with due process”); Fields, 483 F.3d at
346 (concluding that Ring “applies by its terms only to findings of fact, not to moral
judgments”); Purkey, 428 F.3d at 750 (explaining that the weighing process is not an
“elemental fact” the jury must find, but rather “the lens through which the jury must
focus the facts that it has found”).

345
Consistent with the FDPA and Sampson I, the district court instructed the jury
to conduct the “weighing” process as follows:
You must decide, in regard to that particular capital offense, whether the
aggravating factors that have been found to exist sufficiently outweigh
the mitigating factors found to exist for that offense so as to justify
imposing a sentence of death on the defendant for that offense; or, if
you do not find any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors
alone are sufficient to justify imposing a sentence of death on the
defendant for that offense.
19.App.8661-62.
This Court reviews a properly preserved claim that the jury instructions
inadequately explained the law de novo, “taking into account the charge as a whole and
the body of evidence presented at trial.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 29.
C. The jury instruction was correct.
Tsarnaev acknowledges (Br. 419) that his claim is foreclosed by Sampson I. He
contends, however, that Sampson I is no longer good law. In his view, Hurst v. Florida,
136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), establishes that the Sixth Amendment rule of Apprendi and Ring
applies to both the eligibility-stage factfinding of statutory aggravators and the
selection-stage determination of whether a death sentence should be imposed based
on the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. That contention lacks merit.
Hurst merely applied Ring to the Florida capital sentencing scheme and found that it
contravened Ring because it required a judge, not a jury, to make eligibility-stage
346
findings. Hurst did not expand Ring to require courts to superimpose the beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt standard on the selection-stage weighing process.
1. Hurst did not expand Ring .
The Florida sentencing statute at issue in Hurst provided that, in a capital
sentencing proceeding, the trial court would conduct an evidentiary hearing before a
jury and the jury would render an “advisory sentence.” 136 S. Ct. at 620. After
receiving that “advisory sentence,” the trial court was required to independently find
and re-weigh all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before entering a
sentence of life or death. Id. If the trial court imposed a death sentence, it was
required to set forth in writing the “findings upon which the sentence of death [was]
based.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court determined that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme
required the judge to independently find aggravating facts that were necessary to make
the defendant eligible for a death sentence. Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 620-21 (citing Ring’s
concern with judicial fact-finding at the eligibility stage of a capital sentencing
proceeding). Accordingly, the Court determined that, like Arizona’s scheme in Ring,
Florida’s scheme required the judge, not the jury, to make the “critical findings
necessary to impose the death penalty.” Id. at 622 (emphasis added). The Court held that
this “factfinding” violated the Sixth Amendment, which requires that “the existence
of an aggravating circumstance” necessary to render the defendant eligible for a death
sentence be based “on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s factfinding.” Id. at 624. Hurst did
347
not expand the rule of Ring to the selection-stage weighing process, which occurs after
the eligibility determination has been made.
The fact that Hurst did not address the weighing process is underscored by the
limited way in which the Court overruled its prior decisions in Hildwin v. Florida, 490
U.S. 638 (1989) (per curiam), and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984). In Spaziano,
the Court concluded there was no requirement that a jury impose the sentence in a
capital case. 468 U.S. at 460-65. And in Hildwin, the Court held that the Sixth
Amendment “does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of
the sentence of death be made by the jury.” 490 U.S. at 640-41. Hurst overruled those
decisions, but only “to the extent they allow a sentencing judge to find an aggravating
circumstance, independent of a jury’s factfinding, that is necessary for imposition of the
death penalty.” 136 S. Ct. at 624 (emphasis added). By limiting the manner in which
it overruled Hildwin and Spaziano, Hurst demonstrated that it did not intend for all
findings authorizing the imposition of a death sentence, including the weighing
determination, to be subject to the Sixth Amendment rule of Ring.
There is accordingly no merit to Tsarnaev’s claim that Hurst requires applying
the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to the ultimate sentencing determination.
Tsarnaev purports to find support for that assertion in the following sentence from
Hurst, which rejected the state’s characterization of the jury’s role under Florida’s
scheme: “The trial court alone must find ‘the facts . . . [t]hat sufficient aggravating
circumstances exist’ and ‘[t]hat there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to

348
outweigh the aggravating circumstances.”’ Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 622 (quoting Fla. Stat.
§ 921.141(3)). But the Court referenced the weighing stage merely to illustrate the
“central and singular role the judge play[ed] under Florida law.” Id. Nothing in
Hurst’s reasoning—much less its narrow holding that the jury must “find the existence
of an aggravating circumstance,” id. at 624 (emphasis added)—supports the sweeping
proposition that the ultimate, discretionary weighing process in capital cases
constitutes a “fact” that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. That single
sentence is far too thin a reed to support Tsarnaev’s assertion that Hurst implicitly
reversed the uniform holdings of this Court and every other court of appeals to have
reached the question.
Tsarnaev’s reliance (Br. 422) on United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995), is
also misplaced. Gaudin applied the principle that “criminal convictions [must] rest
upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime
with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt,” to the materiality element of
18 U.S.C. § 1001. 515 U.S. at 510. The Court held that a different result was not
warranted because the element could be characterized as a “‘mixed question of law
and fact,” particularly absent “historical support” for judicial determination of the
question. Id. at 512. Gaudin, however, did not suggest that the ultimate judgment as to
the appropriate sentence in a case is an “element” or a fact that must be found by the
jury applying a reasonable-doubt standard. As noted above, this Court’s post-Gaudin
decision in Sampson I compels the contrary conclusion. Moreover, while the Supreme
349
Court has held that a fact that increases the penalty for a crime must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, see Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, it has emphasized that, once
facts are found, States and the federal government have flexibility concerning the
manner in which sentencing determinations based on the facts are made. See, e.g.,
Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 175 (2006); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50
(2007).
2. Kansas v. Carr confirms that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt

standard does not apply to the weighing determination.
In Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633 (2016), decided one week after Hurst, the
Supreme Court confirmed that the weighing process in capital cases does not
constitute factfinding in any constitutionally relevant sense. In Carr, the Court held
that the Eighth Amendment does not “require[] capital-sentencing courts . . . to
affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 642 (quotations omitted). In reaching that
holding, the Court reaffirmed the discretionary nature of the weighing process and
ultimate sentencing decision:
[W]e doubt whether it is even possible to apply a standard of proof to

the mitigating-factor determination[.] . . . Whether mitigation exists . . . is
largely a judgment call (or perhaps a value call); what one juror might
consider mitigating another might not. And of course the ultimate
question whether mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating
circumstances is mostly a question of mercy—the quality of which, as we
know, is not strained. It would mean nothing, we think, to tell the jury that
the defendants must deserve mercy beyond a reasonable doubt; or must
more-likely-than-not deserve it.
350
Id. (emphasis added). 72 If the Supreme Court in Hurst had intended to impose the
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard on the weighing decision, as Tsarnaev maintains,
the Court would not have said the following week in Carr that instructing the jury to
apply that standard would “mean nothing.” Id.
3. Lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected Tsarnaev’s

reading of Hurst.
The only other court of appeals to have considered Tsarnaev’s Hurst argument
has rejected it. In Underwood v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2018), cert denied, 139 S.
Ct. 1342 (2019), a case Tsarnaev does not cite, the Tenth Circuit held that Hurst did
not reverse prior circuit precedent holding that the Apprendi/Ring rule does not apply
to the jury’s ultimate weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Id. at
1186. The court explained that, “[a]lthough Hurst contains some preliminary
discussion of Florida judges’ authority to both find and weigh aggravating
circumstances independently of the jury in capital cases, it invalidated Florida’s
scheme specifically ‘to the extent [it] allow[s] a sentencing judge to find an aggravating
circumstance . . . that is necessary for imposition of the death penalty.’” Id. (quoting
Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 622, 624) (original emphasis omitted, alternative emphasis added).
The court accordingly concluded that “because Hurst did not directly address
See also Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36, 51 (2001) (contrasting the jury’s
72
two roles under South Carolina law as “aggravating circumstance factfinder,” where it
“exercises no sentencing discretion itself,” and as sentencer, where it renders “the
moral judgment whether to impose the death penalty”).
351
Apprendi’s application to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances,” it
did not contravene circuit precedent holding that Apprendi does not apply to the
weighing process. Id.; see also Ybarra v. Filson, 869 F.3d 1016, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2017)
(“We are highly skeptical” of the argument that Hurst requires Nevada’s weighing
determination to be made beyond a reasonable doubt because “the weighing
determination is more akin to a sentence enhancement than to an element of the
capital offense.”); United States v. Bazemore, 839 F.3d 379, 393 (5th Cir. 2016) (per
curiam) (noting in a non-capital case that Hurst “applies only to statutory schemes in
which judge-made findings increase the maximum sentence that a defendant can
receive”); Garcia v. Davis, 704 F. App’x 316, 324 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
(rejecting habeas petitioner’s claim that Hurst expanded Ring to require the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of mitigating circumstances), cert. denied,
138 S. Ct. 1700 (2018).
The majority of district courts to have considered the Hurst claim Tsarnaev
raises here have also rejected it. See, e.g., United States v. Christensen, No. 17-cr-20037,
2019 WL 1976442, at *4 (C.D. Ill. May 3, 2019) (refusing to “read Hurst to require
instruction that the jury make a finding about the relative weight of the aggravating
and mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt”); United States v. Ofomata, No. 17-cr-
201, 2019 WL 527696, at *6-7 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 2019) (rejecting the argument that,
under Hurst, the weighing process mandated by the FDPA is a “fact” that must be
found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt); Garcia v. Ryan, No. cv-15-0025, 2017 WL
352
1550419, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 1, 2017) (“Hurst did not address the process of weighing
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”); United States v. Con-ui, No. 3:13-cr-
123, 2017 WL 1393485, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2017) (noting that “[n]othing in
Hurst” invalided the court’s previous conclusion that the weighing process is not a
“fact” under Ring and Apprendi); Runyon v. United States, No. 4:08-CR-1603, 2017 WL
253963, at *46-47 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2017) (rejecting an argument that Hurst requires
that the jury make the weighing determination beyond a reasonable doubt), appeal filed,
No. 17-5 (4th Cir.); United States v. Roof, 225 F. Supp. 3d 413, 419 (D.S.C. 2016)
(rejecting argument that Hurst required reversal of Fourth Circuit precedent holding
that the jury need not find that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors
beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Sanchez, No. 1:12-CR-155, 2016 WL
4769722, at *2 (D. Idaho Sept. 12, 2016) (distinguishing Hurst).
Of the two district court cases Tsarnaev relies on (Br. 423 n.160), only one
clearly states that Hurst requires applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to
the weighing process. See Smith v. Pineda, No. 1:12-CV-196, 2017 WL 631410, at *3
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2017). In the other case, United States v. Fell, No. 5:01-CR-12 (D.
Vt. May 1, 2017), the court relied on Hurst to hold that the Sixth Amendment’s
Confrontation Clause applies to the jury’s selection stage finding of non-statutory
aggravating and mitigating factors, but the court did not hold that the ultimate
weighing of those factors is a “fact” that must be found beyond a reasonable doubt.
See United States v. Fell, 2017 WL 10809985, at *5 (D. Vt. February 15, 2017) (previous
353
decision in the same case holding that “[t]he decision about whether these factors
outweigh the defense factors is a normative, moral determination, not a factual
finding”). Accordingly, there is virtually no support for Tsarnaev’s expansive
interpretation of Hurst, and this Court should reject it.
XI. The Jury Instructions Regarding Deadlock Did Not Unconstitutionally

Coerce the Jury into Recommending the Death Penalty.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 425-35) that the district court erred by not instructing
the jury that its failure to reach a unanimous recommendation on the death penalty
would result in the court automatically imposing a life sentence without the possibility
of release. As Tsarnaev acknowledges (Br. 430), the Supreme Court has held that
capital defendants are not entitled to an instruction on the consequences of a jury
deadlock. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381-82 (1999). In light of Jones, Tsarnaev
does not contend that the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the
consequences of deadlock, standing alone, constituted error. Rather, he argues that
the jury was misled by alleged inconsistencies in the instructions at different stages.
Specifically, Tsarnaev argues (Br. 431) that, because the jury was instructed that a lack
of unanimity on eligibility-stage findings would result in an automatic sentence of life
without release, the jury was misled into believing that a deadlock at the sentence-
selection stage would not result in a life sentence, but in a new capital sentencing
hearing before a different jury. That misimpression, Tsarnaev contends, could have
had an unconstitutionally coercive effect on jurors, who may have compromised on a
354
death sentence in order to spare the victims from the emotional trauma of a second
sentencing proceeding. Br. 433-35.
Because Tsarnaev did not raise his inconsistency argument in district court, he
cannot prevail unless he shows plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). There was no
error, plain or otherwise, because the jury instructions did not lead the jury to believe
that deadlock on the penalty recommendation would result in a retrial before a second
jury. And even if they did, Tsarnaev cannot show any likelihood of juror coercion
because the district court instructed the jurors repeatedly that each individual juror
was to make his or her own determination as to the appropriate penalty. Finally,
Tsarnaev cannot show that the asserted error affected his substantial rights because
the instructions that he claims should have been given would not necessarily have
helped him.
A. Background
1. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones
The FDPA provides that “[u]pon a recommendation under section 3593(e) that
the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility
of release, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Otherwise, the court
shall impose any lesser sentence that is authorized by law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3594. In Jones,
the Supreme Court interpreted § 3594 as requiring the sentencing determination to
pass to the district judge, for the imposition of a sentence other than the death
penalty, whenever the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict on punishment. Jones,
355
527 U.S. at 380-81. Thus, under Jones, if a capital sentencing jury deadlocks, the
district judge imposes a non-capital sentence—there is no mistrial or second penalty
phase before a new jury.
Jones further held that district courts are not required to instruct juries on the
consequences of deadlock. Jones, 527 U.S. at 381. The Court rejected the defendant’s
claim that the omission of such an instruction misled the jury about its role in capital
sentencing. Id. The Court explained that such an instruction “has no bearing on the
jury’s role” because it addresses only “what happens in the event that the jury is
unable to fulfill [that] role.” Id. at 382. The Court emphasized that the “very object”
of the jury system is to “secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by
arguments among the jurors themselves.” Id. (quotations omitted). “[I]n a capital
sentencing proceeding,” the Court explained, “the Government has a strong interest
in having the jury express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question
of life or death,” and instructing the jury about the consequences of deadlock “might
well have had the effect of undermining” those important interests. Id. (quotations
omitted). Accordingly, because of the “legitimate reasons for not instructing the jury
as to the consequences of deadlock,” the Court held that such an instruction is not
required under the Constitution, the FDPA, or the Court’s supervisory powers. Id. at
384; see also id. at 383-84 (finding “persuasive” a state court decision holding that
instructing on the consequences of deadlock amounts to “an open invitation for the
jury to avoid its responsibility and to disagree” (quotations omitted)).

356
2. Proceedings below
Before the penalty-phase jury deliberations, Tsarnaev requested that the district
court instruct the jury that the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of release if, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, the jury could not unanimously agree on a sentencing
recommendation. See Doc. 1412-1 at 31. Tsarnaev’s proposed instruction stated:
If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision in favor of either a

death sentence or of a life sentence, I will impose a sentence of life
imprisonment without possibility of release upon the defendant. That
will conclude the case. At this sentencing stage of the case, the inability
of the jury to agree on the sentence to be imposed does not require that
any part of the case be retried. It also does not affect the guilty verdicts
that you have previously rendered.
Id.
Tsarnaev acknowledged that Jones had “authorized district courts” to refuse
such instructions, but he urged the district court to give the instruction in this case as
a matter of “discretion.” 25.App.11610. He claimed that, without the instruction,
jurors might “wrongly assume that a failure to agree on sentence would require the
case to be retried before a new jury.” Id. at 11611. Tsarnaev contended that this
mistaken belief would have an “extraordinarily coercive” effect on jurors, who would
face pressure to give in to a majority of the jury in order to avoid “put[ing] the victims
and the survivors and the entire community through this entire case again.”
19.App.8819. Tsarnaev did not argue that his requested instruction was necessary to
prevent confusion allegedly caused by other instructions, such as the instructions that
357
informed the jury of the consequences of deadlock regarding the gateway and
statutory aggravating factors.
The district court rejected Tsarnaev’s proposed instruction. 22.App.10336.
The court reasoned, based on Jones, that the instructions should “encourage
unanimity” to the extent that such unanimity can be achieved consistent with “each
juror’s sound judgment.” Id. The court explained that Tsarnaev’s proposed
instruction could “undercut[]” the “process anticipated by the statute” by effectively
empowering “one juror” to “simply decid[e] that the decision was his” without
sufficiently engaging in the deliberative process. 22.App.10336-37. The court noted
that it would accommodate Tsarnaev’s concerns about potential coercion by giving “a
very strong instruction” that “each individual juror must give his or her own [verdict]
and not agree just to agree with others.” Id. at 10339-40.
Following the penalty-phase evidence, the district court instructed the jury that
it must determine whether the government had established beyond a reasonable
doubt at least one of the mental states specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c) (i.e., the
“gateway factors”) and at least one of the “statutory” aggravating factors enumerated
in the FDPA, 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e). 19.App.8663-69. The court explained that, if the
jury did not unanimously find one of the gateway factors, or one of the statutory
aggravating factors, then the court would sentence Tsarnaev to life imprisonment on
that count:
358
[F]or any capital count, if you do not unanimously find that the
government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence as to
that count of any of the four gateway factors, your deliberative task . . .
as to that capital count is over, and I will impose a mandatory sentence
of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
19.App.8666; see also 19.App.8669 (similar instruction for statutory aggravating
factors); Add.81 (verdict form providing that “if you do not unanimously find the
government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the above gateway
factors with respect to that count, then your deliberations are over as to that count”);
Add.85 (same as to statutory aggravating factors).
The district court further instructed the jury that, if the jury unanimously found
at least one “gateway” factor and at least one statutory aggravating factor, the jury
should then consider whether all of the aggravating factors found to exist sufficiently
outweighed all of the mitigating factors found to exist to justify a sentence of death.
19.App.8694-99; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e). The court instructed the jury that, after
the weighing process, if it unanimously found that death or life without the possibility
of release was the appropriate sentence, it should mark the corresponding section of
the verdict form. 19.App.8699. The court did not instruct the jury about the
consequences of deadlock in the weighing process, but instead instructed the jury:
In the event that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict in favor
of a death sentence or in favor of a life sentence for any of the capital
counts, please so indicate [in the verdict form]. Before you reach any
conclusion based on a lack of unanimity on any count, you should
continue your discussions until you are fully satisfied that no further
discussion will lead to a unanimous decision.
359
19.App.8699-8700; see also Add.96 (verdict form allowing the jury to indicate that it
was “unable to reach a unanimous verdict in favor of a life sentence or in favor of a
death sentence, for any of the capital counts”).
The district court also instructed the jurors repeatedly that each individual juror
was to make his or her own determination as to the appropriate penalty. The court
said that “[a]ny one of you is free to decide that a death sentence should not be
imposed,” 19.App.8698, that “[e]ach juror must individually decide” whether to
recommend a death sentence, 19.App.8695, and that “no juror is ever required to
impose a sentence of death,” 19.App.8697.
A properly preserved claim that the jury instructions misled the jury is reviewed
de novo, “taking into account the charge as a whole and the body of evidence presented
at trial.” Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 29, 32. But Tsarnaev did not raise below his current
contention that the district court’s instructions “affirmatively misled jurors about the
consequences of a non-unanimous verdict.” Br. 431. His claim is therefore reviewed
only for plain error. United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 249 (1st Cir. 1990).
To be sure, Tsarnaev did argue below that the district court should instruct the
jury on the consequences of deadlock. But that is insufficient to preserve the claim he
now raises on appeal because Tsarnaev sought that instruction on different grounds
than the one he now asserts in this Court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d) (requiring a party
“who objects to any portion of the instructions” to “inform the court of the specific
360
objection and the grounds for the objection before the jury retires to deliberate”); see
also id. (“Failure to object in accordance with this rule precludes appellate review,
except as permitted under Rule 52(b).”); Boylan, 898 F.2d at 249 (rejecting a
defendant’s claim that his challenge to an instruction on one ground could preserve
for appeal a challenge to the same instruction on a different ground). Tsarnaev’s
objection at trial focused on the reasons the district court should exercise its
discretion to explain the consequences of deadlock on the final determination of
sentence. See 25App.11608-12 (written memorandum in support of the proposed
instruction); 22.App.10336-39 (oral argument); 19.App.8817-21 (renewing objection
to district court’s denial of the instruction). But Tsarnaev did not object to the
instructions governing the “gateway” and statutory aggravating factors, nor did he
argue that, because the jury was told about the consequences of deadlock at those
earlier stages, the jury might be misled about the consequences of a non-unanimous
verdict at the final stage and thereby be unconstitutionally coerced. 73
By remaining silent about the allegedly misleading inconsistency in the
instructions at different stages, Tsarnaev deprived the district court of any opportunity
Tsarnaev’s claim of error on appeal is entirely dependent on the allegedly

73
misleading effect of the earlier instructions that, he claims, “explicitly told [the jury]
the consequences of deadlock” at the gateway and aggravating factor stage. Br. 431.
To the extent Tsarnaev raises on appeal any of the arguments he actually raised
below—i.e., arguments inviting the district court to exercise its discretion to instruct
the jury on the consequences of a failure to reach a unanimous decision without
relying on the allegedly misleading effect of the earlier instructions—those arguments
are foreclosed by Jones.
361
to cure the supposed problem. As courts have recognized, a party’s failure to raise
potential problems in the instructions with sufficient clarity to allow for correction
constitutes a failure to satisfy the specific-objection requirement. See Jones, 527 U.S. at
387-88 (noting that the requirement that “a party state distinctly his grounds for
objection” to an instruction “enable[s] a trial court to correct any instructional
mistakes before the jury retires and in that way help[s] to avoid the burdens of an
unnecessary retrial”); Boylan, 898 F.2d at 249 (holding that objections to jury
instructions “must be phrased with sufficient particularity to alert the trial court to the
grounds asserted”); United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008)
(reviewing for plain error where the defendant objected to the instruction’s definition
of “willfully” on “substantively different” grounds than the argument raised on
appeal).
Here, the district court could have corrected the alleged error either by
instructing on the consequences of deadlock at the weighing stage, as Tsarnaev
contends it should have done, or by deleting the instructions about the consequences
of deadlock at the earlier stages. That latter course would have been particularly
appropriate because Tsarnaev’s counsel conceded during the sentencing-phase closing
argument that the government had proved the gateway and statutory aggravating
factors and told the jurors to “check them off” on the verdict form. 19.App.8768.
Tsarnaev’s concession eliminated any realistic possibility of a deadlocked jury at those
362
stages, and thus deleting the deadlock instructions would not even arguably have
affected the case.
To prevail on plain-error review, Tsarnaev must establish an “error” that is
“plain,” that “affect[s] substantial rights,” and that “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson v. United States, 520
U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (quotations omitted).
C. Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate plain error
1. Tsarnaev cannot show a reasonable likelihood that jurors

drew a misleading inference from earlier instructions.
Tsarnaev contends that the district court’s jury instructions improperly led the
jurors to believe that, if they deadlocked on the penalty recommendation, there would
be a mistrial and a second penalty phase before a different jury. The jury instructions
contained no express statement to that effect. Tsarnaev argues, however, that the jury
was likely to reach that conclusion by drawing a “negative inference” from the
instructions at earlier stages (which informed the jury that deadlock would result in an
automatic sentence of life without release) and that this erroneous inference was, in
turn, likely to have a coercive effect on the jury’s deliberations. Br. 431-34.
A defendant who claims on appeal that the jury instructions are susceptible to
an erroneous interpretation must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood that the jury
has applied the challenged instruction[s]” erroneously. Jones, 527 U.S. at 390
(quotations omitted); see also Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990) (noting that,
363
although “[t]here is . . . a strong policy” favoring “accurate determination of the
appropriate sentence in a capital case,” there is an “equally strong policy against
retrials years after the first trial where the claimed error amounts to no more than
speculation”). Here, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the
instructions incorrectly.
First, the jury instructions Tsarnaev challenges were correct statements of the
law. The district court’s instructions that Tsarnaev would be sentenced to life without
release if the jury did not unanimously find one of the gateway factors, or one of the
statutory aggravating factors, were accurate. 18 U.S.C. § 3594; Jones, 527 U.S. at 380-
81. The district court’s decision not to instruct on the effect of deadlock on the
ultimate determination of sentence is explicitly authorized by Jones. Tsarnaev cites no
precedent establishing that, if the court instructs on the consequences of deadlock at
one stage, it must also do so at every other stage.
Second, Tsarnaev’s argument that the jury was likely to draw a negative
inference based on the instructions about the consequences of non-unanimity at the
earlier stages is speculative at best. Neither the defense nor the district court noticed
the alleged inconsistency or suggested that the jury might draw a misleading negative
inference from it. That is strong evidence that the jurors did not make the negative
inference Tsarnaev hypothesizes. The absence of a contemporaneous objection
suggests that “the participants in the trial did not perceive the challenged instruction
364
in the manner [Tsarnaev] now proffers.” Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1527 n.9
(11th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Tsarnaev speculates (Br. 432) that the jury may have applied the negative-
inference canon of statutory construction to infer that deadlock at the weighing stage
would result in a retrial. But Tsarnaev places too much weight on this technical
interpretive canon. “Jurors do not sit in solitary isolation booths parsing instructions
for subtle shades of meaning in the same way that lawyers might.” Brown v. Payton,
544 U.S. 133, 143 (2005) (quoting Boyde, 494 U.S. at 380-81). Juries apply a
“commonsense understanding of the instructions in light of all that has taken place at
the trial,” rather than “technical hairsplitting.” Id. (quoting Boyde, 494 U.S. at 381).
Tsarnaev’s negative-inference argument relies on the kind of “technical hairsplitting”
that jurors are presumed not to do.
Moreover, even assuming that the negative-inference canon of statutory
construction applies to the interpretation of jury instructions (which it does not), and
even assuming that jurors were aware of that canon (a dubious proposition, given that
none of the jurors was a lawyer), the canon would not support Tsarnaev’s argument.
See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002) (noting that the canon “is only a guide,
whose fallibility can be shown by contrary indications that adopting a particular rule
or statute was probably not meant to signal any exclusion of its common relatives”);
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929, 939 (2017) (noting that the canon “applies
only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the term left out must have
365
been meant to be excluded”) (quotations and brackets omitted). Here, nothing about
the context of the instructions suggests that the omission of a consequences-of-
deadlock instruction at the weighing stage was intended to signal that a deadlocked
jury at that stage would trigger a mistrial and new penalty phase. Indeed, even
indulging Tsarnaev’s speculation that the jurors drew any inference from the
omission, they were at least as likely to conclude that the consequences of deadlock
would be the same as at earlier stages. In other words, the jurors were as likely to
draw a positive inference from the earlier instructions as a negative one. In any event,
given the complexities inherent in Tsarnaev’s “negative implication” theory, and the
lack of any authority supporting it, his claim of error is hardly “clear” or “obvious”
within the meaning of the plain-error rule. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734
(1993) (quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court in Jones rejected a similar claim that a negative inference
from an alleged inconsistency across multiple instructions misled the jury about the
consequences of deadlock. The defendant in Jones argued that an alleged ambiguity in
the instructions might have led the jury to believe that, if it failed to reach a
unanimous sentence recommendation, the court might sentence the defendant to a
sentence less severe than life without release. Jones, 527 U.S. at 387. But the Court
rejected the defendant’s negative-implication argument, holding that the defendant
“parse[d]” the instructions “too finely” and that, considering the instructions as a
whole, the inconsistencies and inferences the defendant relied on did not “create a
366
reasonable likelihood” of confusion over the effect of deadlock. Id. at 391-92. This
Court should likewise reject Tsarnaev’s argument that the district court’s omission of
his proposed instruction on the consequences of deadlock—an omission explicitly
authorized by Jones—was rendered constitutionally infirm by ambiguous inferences
allegedly arising from the court’s earlier instructions.
2. Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that

the instructions had an unconstitutionally coercive effect.
Even if the jurors mistakenly believed that a deadlocked jury at the weighing
stage would result in a retrial, Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate that this misimpression
was likely to have had an unconstitutionally coercive effect. Jurors who believed that
deadlock would result in a retrial, rather than an automatic sentence of life without
release, might well feel less pressure to agree with a majority view, since hanging the
jury would merely defer the death penalty decision to a different jury rather than
definitively decide the question.
Moreover, Tsarnaev cites no authority holding that an instruction that is
consistent with Supreme Court precedent can be rendered unconstitutionally coercive
by ambiguous negative inferences drawn from other instructions. To the contrary,
the Court has held that even affirmative instructions that might be “ambiguous in the
abstract” can be cured in light of other instructions. See Jones, 527 U.S. at 391; Victor v.
Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1994) (problematic language in reasonable-doubt
instruction was cured by the remainder of the instruction). Accordingly, it was well
367
within the district court’s discretion to determine that it could mitigate Tsarnaev’s
concerns about coercion by giving “a very strong instruction” that “each individual
juror must give his or her own [verdict] and not agree just to agree with others.”
22.App.10339-40. Consistent with that determination, the district court instructed the
jury:
Any one of you is free to decide that a death sentence should not be
imposed so long as, based on the evidence and your sense of justice, you
conclude that the proven aggravating factors do not sufficiently
outweigh the mitigating factors such that the death penalty should be
imposed. Each juror is to individually decide what weight or value is to
be given to any particular aggravating or mitigating factor in the
decision-making process.
19.App.8698; see also id. (“[I]n carefully weighing these factors, you are called upon to
make a unique, individual judgment about the sentence Mr. Tsarnaev should
receive”); 19.App.8695 (“Each juror must individually decide whether the facts and
circumstances in this case as to each count call for death as the appropriate
sentence”); 19.App.8697 (“All 12 jurors must agree that death is, in fact, the
appropriate sentence in order for it to be imposed. And no juror is ever required to
impose a sentence of death. The decision is yours, as individuals, to make.”).74 In
Tsarnaev’s counsel emphasized these instructions in closing argument. See

74
19.App.8771-72 (“Whether a sentence of death is justified is your own individual

decision . . . . There is no law that ever requires that a sentence of death be imposed.
That is an individual decision for each of you . . . . You have an obligation to
deliberate with each other . . . to discuss with each other, [and] to hear each other’s
views. But the law values life, and you have no obligation to vote for death. Each
one of you individually, each of you, is a safeguard against the death penalty. Each
individual.”).
368
light of these explicit instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed, see
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 (1987), there is no basis for Tsarnaev’s
speculation that any jurors were coerced into voting for a capital sentence to avoid
causing a mistrial.
Tsarnaev notes (Br. 427) that some district courts have decided to inform juries
of the consequences of deadlock under the FDPA, even after Jones, to avoid the risk
of coercion. However, a district court’s discretionary decision to give a particular jury
instruction in one case is not binding on other courts, or even on the same court in a
future case. And those decisions are in tension with the Supreme Court’s observation
that a jury charge on the consequences of deadlock threatens to undermine
deliberations seeking unanimity. Jones, 527 U.S. at 382-84. As the Court explained,
society has “a strong interest” in encouraging the jury to deliberate with a view toward
reaching a unanimous sentencing decision, because such a verdict enables the jury to
“express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question” of whether a
death sentence should be imposed. Id. at 382 (quoting Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S.
231, 238 (1988)). There are therefore “legitimate reasons for not instructing the jury
as to the consequences of deadlock,” id. at 384, and omitting such an instruction is
entirely consistent with the purposes and traditions of the jury system. See id.; see also
Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854, 877 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that “[t]he Supreme Court
has chastised such instructions as encouraging deadlock and undermining the strong
governmental interest in unanimous verdicts”).

369
Other courts of appeals have likewise recognized that refusing to instruct on
the consequences of deadlock does not result in any improper coercion. See, e.g.,
United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 371-73 (6th Cir. 2016) (upholding a district court’s
refusal to tell the jury the consequences of deadlock in a capital case even when the
deliberating jury asked what would happen if it could not reach a unanimous verdict);
Lyons v. Lee, 316 F.3d 528, 534 n.8 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding no error in failure to
instruct the jury on the consequences of deadlock where the jury asked whether its
decision on recommending the death penalty had to be unanimous); Coe v. Bell, 161
F.3d 320, 339-40 (6th Cir. 1998) (rejecting claim that Constitution requires a jury
instruction on the consequences of deadlock); United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073,
1088-89 (11th Cir. 1993) (same); Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 309 (3d Cir.
1991) (same); Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1989) (same).
Tsarnaev’s suggestion (Br. 434) that instructing on the consequences of deadlock is
necessary to avoid juror coercion is contradicted by the case law.
3. Tsarnaev cannot show prejudice
Even assuming that the jury’s recommendation was influenced by an erroneous
understanding of the effect of deadlock, Tsarnaev cannot meet his burden of showing
that any such error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d
912, 925 (7th Cir. 1996) (plain-error review is “particularly light-handed in the context
of jury instructions,” since it is unusual that any error in an instruction to which no
party objected would be so great as to affect substantial rights).

370
Once again, Jones controls the outcome here. Jones concluded that, “even
assuming that the jurors were confused over the consequences of deadlock,” the
defendant could not show prejudice because he could not establish that “the
confusion necessarily worked to his detriment.” Jones, 527 U.S. at 394. As the Court
explained, “[i]t is just as likely that the jurors, loath to recommend a lesser sentence,
would have compromised on a sentence of life imprisonment as on a death sentence.”
Id. The Court therefore determined that speculation about the instruction’s potential
effect on the jury was insufficient to establish prejudice. Id. at 394-95.
The same is true here. Even if the instructions erroneously led the jurors to
believe that a deadlock would result in a new sentencing proceeding, Tsarnaev cannot
establish that he was prejudiced. Assuming the jurors wanted to avoid a new
sentencing proceeding, the instructions could just as easily have caused jurors to
compromise on a sentence of life imprisonment, see Jones, 527 U.S. at 394-95, or they
could have had no effect whatsoever. Moreover, there is no indication that any of the
jurors in this case in fact felt pressure to change their votes—much less actually did
so—based on the district court’s unanimity instruction. See Chandler, 996 F.2d at
1089. To the contrary, the jury’s verdict shows that the jury did not feel compelled to
return a death verdict. The jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on 11 of the
17 death-eligible counts. Tsarnaev cannot demonstrate that the jury was in any way
coerced in this case.
371
XII. The Cumulative Error Doctrine Does Not Justify Reversal.

Tsarnaev contends that, even if the errors alleged in issues V through XI do
not individually require reversal, they do when “[c]onsidered cumulatively.” Br. 436.
“Individual errors, insufficient in themselves to necessitate a new trial, may in the
aggregate have a more debilitating effect.” United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161,
1195-96 (1st Cir. 1993). But, as explained above, the district court committed no
errors. And “cumulative-error analysis is inappropriate when a party complains of the
cumulative effect of non-errors.” United States v. Stokes, 124 F.3d 39, 43 (1st Cir.
1997).
Even where the Court finds multiple errors to be individually harmless, reversal
based on cumulative error is justified only if the errors “call into doubt the reliability
of the verdict and the underlying fairness of the trial.” United States v. Delgado-Marrero,
744 F.3d 167, 210 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Sanabria, 645 F.3d 505, 519
(1st Cir. 2011)). Relevant considerations include “the nature and number of the errors
committed; their interrelationship, if any, and combined effect; how the district court
dealt with the errors as they arose . . . ; and the strength of the government’s case.”
Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1196. Here, even if the district court had committed two or more
harmless errors, the errors would not combine to require reversal.
372
XIII. The District Court’s Use of Ex Parte Proceedings to Address Sensitive

and Classified Matters Did Not Violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.
Tsarnaev contends (Br. 441-43) that the district court violated his Fifth
Amendment due process rights and Sixth Amendment right to counsel by conducting
certain proceedings ex parte and in camera. This Court and other courts have
recognized that such proceedings are appropriate for classified or otherwise
confidential material. These proceedings actually help protect a defendant’s due
process rights by allowing the district court to review and to rule on the
discoverability of information. They do not violate a defendant’s right to counsel,
which does not include a right to access otherwise undiscoverable information. And
even if the district court had abused its discretion, any error would have been
harmless because the ex parte information was neither favorable to the defense nor
material.
A. Background
During the course of Tsarnaev’s prosecution, the government filed a number
of documents ex parte, and the district court held a number of ex parte conferences
with the government, resulting in 26 ex parte docket entries, including four orders of
the court (Docs. 146, 435, 575, and 600), 16 government motions or notices (Docs.
145, 147, 411, 413, 429, 435, 574, 576, 599, 600, 601, 638, 1151, 1523, 1524, and
1525), and six transcripts of ex parte conferences (Docs. 1667 through 1672). In
February 2017, in anticipation of this appeal and with the district court’s approval, the
373
government voluntarily disclosed 13 of these ex parte filings to the defense. 75 See
Docs. 1713, 1717. Tsarnaev then filed a motion in the district court seeking
disclosure of the remaining ex parte filings, Doc. 1719, but the district court denied
that motion, Doc. 1732.76
Tsarnaev also filed a motion in this Court seeking disclosure of the ex parte
materials. See Motion to Disclose (1st Cir. Apr. 7, 2017). In opposing that motion,
the government argued that the ex parte materials were not discoverable. Opposition
to Motion to Disclose, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Apr. 27, 2017). The government
attached a sealed summary of each ex parte document with an explanation of why each
should remain ex parte. Sealed.App.199-203. This Court denied Tsarnaev’s motion
for disclosure. Order, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2017). After Tsarnaev filed his
opening brief, the government disclosed to Tsarnaev’s appellate counsel a lightly
redacted copy of an additional ex parte transcript (Doc. 1668) pursuant to a protective
order. See Docs. 1763, 1770, 1771.
The government disclosed Docs. 145, 146, 411, 413, 429, 435, 436, 574, 575,
75
599, 600, 1670, and 1671, as well as the cover sheets of Docs. 576, 601, 1667, and
1669. See Doc. 1716
Tsarnaev points out that the government “file[d] a 27th ex parte pleading
76
(DE.1730) in support of its opposition to disclosure.” Br. 441 n.168. The purpose of
that pleading was to describe the documents that remained ex parte and to justify their
continued non-disclosure.
374
Tsarnaev’s constitutional challenge to the district court’s ex parte procedures is
reviewed de novo. See United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 129 (1st Cir. 2014); United
States v. Lustyik, 833 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 2016). See Doc. 1719 at 3 (preserving
claim). Tsarnaev has not asked this Court to review the district court’s conclusion
that the materials submitted in camera were not discoverable, but to the extent the
Court conducts such a review, it should review for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Bulger, 816 F.3d 137, 153 (1st Cir. 2016).
C. The district court’s in camera and ex parte review of classified and

other sensitive information did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause.
This Court has recognized that, in a variety of contexts, the “requirements of
confidentiality [can] outweigh the interest in adversarial litigation and permit a court
to rule on an issue in camera and without the participation of an interested party.”
United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456, 487-88 (1st Cir. 1993). In particular, the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly authorize ex parte proceedings when the
governments submits material for the district court to determine whether it must be
disclosed to the defense. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) (“The court may permit a party
to show good cause [for an order restricting discovery] by a written statement that the
court will inspect ex parte.”). And this Court has noted that “[t]he Classified
Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. §§ 1-16, permits the ex parte submission
375
of affidavits by the government in support of a protective order authorizing the non-
disclosure of national security information.” Innamorati, 996 F.2d at 487.
Tsarnaev’s argument that the ex parte proceedings in this case violated the Due
Process Clause fundamentally misunderstands how criminal discovery works. “In the
typical case where a defendant makes only a general request for exculpatory material
under Brady . . . , it is the [government] that decides which information must be
disclosed.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 59 (1987). “Unless defense counsel
becomes aware that other exculpatory evidence was withheld and brings it to the
court’s attention, the prosecutor’s decision on disclosure is final.” Id. (footnote
omitted). Where it is “fairly debatable” whether information is subject to Brady and
the government wishes to withhold it, the government may submit the evidence to
the court for in camera review. United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1252 (11th Cir.
2003). But, far from violating due process, such procedures help protect a defendant’s
due process rights by allowing the district court to review the government’s otherwise
unilateral determination that materials are not subject to disclosure under Brady.
Aside from four documents involving a restitution-related issue that the district
court never ruled upon, the documents that remain ex parte in this case all relate to
either classified or otherwise sensitive material that the government submitted to the
district court for its determination whether the material should be protected from
disclosure or should instead be produced to the defense. Thus, the district court’s in
camera review provided an additional safeguard for Tsarnaev’s due process rights.
376
In Ritchie, the Supreme Court specifically endorsed the kind of in camera review
that took place here. There, a defendant charged with raping his minor daughter
sought access to records compiled by the state’s Children and Youth Services (CYS),
but state law protected those records from disclosure. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43. The
Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to see those records if they were
“material” to his defense. Id. at 58, 60. But it specifically rejected the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court’s conclusion that “defense counsel must be allowed to examine all of
the confidential information, both relevant and irrelevant, and present arguments in
favor of disclosure.” Id. at 59. Instead, the Court concluded that the defendant’s
“interest . . . in ensuring a fair trial can be protected fully by requiring that the CYS
files be submitted only to the trial court for in camera review.” Id. at 60.
Even before Ritchie, this Court upheld against constitutional attack the use of ex
parte proceedings to protect national security information under the Classified
Information Procedures Act (CIPA). United States v. Pringle, 751 F.2d 419, 426-28 (1st
Cir. 1984). In Pringle, the district reviewed the classified information ex parte and in
camera, determined that it was “neither relevant nor helpful to the defense,” and issued
orders protecting the information from disclosure. Id. at 426-27. This Court
concluded that “the [district] court’s ex parte in camera inspection of the documents was
authorized under § 4 of CIPA and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).” Id.
at 427. And the Court “reject[ed] defendants’ contention that the protective orders . .
. violated their due process rights.” Id. This Court “reviewed the classified
377
information” and “agree[d] with the district court” that it was neither relevant nor
helpful the defense and “was, therefore, properly excluded.” Id. at 427-28.
This Court has reviewed district courts’ ex parte discovery rulings in other cases
without any suggestion that ex parte proceedings are unconstitutional. See, e.g., Bulger,
816 F.3d at 154; United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32, 65-66 (1st Cir. 2013). And
other courts of appeals, like this Court, have upheld such proceedings against due
process attacks. See United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 995 (11th Cir. 2008)
(rejecting defendants’ claim that “the ex parte hearing [to consider classified
information] prejudiced them and violated their due-process rights”); In re Terrorist
Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (defendant’s
exclusion from CIPA hearing “did not violate [his] due process right to be present at a
crucial stage in his trial”); United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 458 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
(where court determines that withheld classified information is not favorable and
material under Brady, there is no due process violation); United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d
1086, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (rejecting defendant’s claim that CIPA’s procedures
“infringe upon procedural protections guaranteed him by the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments”); United States v. Aref, 285 F. App’x 784, 793 (2d Cir. 2008)
(unpublished) (rejecting due process challenge to ex parte review of classified
information).
In the face of this unanimous authority, Tsarnaev cites three inapposite cases.
In United States v. Claudio, 44 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1995), the government affirmatively
378
submitted ex parte reports in an attempt to defeat a defendant’s double jeopardy claim.
This Court said the defendant’s “position on appeal—that the government can never
affirmatively use information in court and withhold it from the defense—may
overstate the matter; but not by much.” Id. at 14. In this case, unlike in Claudio, the
government never attempted “affirmatively to use the sealed information in court as
evidence.” Id. And Claudio observed that the government may properly submit
information for in camera review of whether it is “privileged or outside the scope of
Brady” if there is “substantial cause” to keep it ex parte, such as a “state secret” or
“danger to an ongoing investigation.” Id. That is exactly what happened here.
The court in United States v. Minsky, 963 F.2d 870, 874 (6th Cir. 1992),
concluded that an ex parte bench conference during trial was inappropriate. But the
problem in Minsky was the timing—the middle of trial. Id. The court acknowledged
that an earlier “in camera review by the court was not only proper, but probably
required.” Id. Minsky does not suggest that the in camera review in this case was
inappropriate.
Finally, in Haller v. Robbins, 409 F.2d 857, 859 (1st Cir. 1969), this Court found
that “the prosecutor’s ex parte conveyance of prejudicial information” to the court
prior to sentencing “was a violation of due process.” The information at issue in
Haller related directly to the merits of the case, however, and this Court determined
that there was “no practical necessity” for the information to be conveyed ex parte. Id.
Like Claudio, Haller is inapposite because in this case the government did not try to
379
affirmatively use ex parte information against Tsarnaev. Rather, the government erred
on the side of caution by submitting certain information that it believed was not
discoverable to the district court for in camera review.
D. The ex parte proceedings did not violate the Sixth Amendment

right to counsel.
Tsarnaev’s claim (Br. 442) that the ex parte proceedings in this case violated his
right to counsel also fails. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance
of counsel can be violated where “judicial action before or during trial prevented
counsel from being fully effective.” United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981).
But in order to show a Sixth Amendment violation, a defendant ordinarily must show
that he was actually prejudiced. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 700 (1984).
A presumption of prejudice arises only where there is a “complete denial of counsel,”
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984); “counsel entirely fails to subject the
prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” id.; or “counsel is called upon to
render assistance under circumstances where competent counsel very likely could
not,” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 696 (2002) (citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45
(1932)). Here, Tsarnaev can show neither a complete denial of counsel sufficient for
prejudice to be presumed, nor any actual prejudice.
The district court’s decision to conduct limited ex parte proceedings to gauge
the discoverability of classified and other sensitive information did not deprive
Tsarnaev of the assistance of counsel. The right to counsel does not include a right to
380
inspect otherwise non-discoverable information simply because counsel would like to
litigate discovery issues. If it did, then other discovery obligations such as the due
process obligation recognized in Brady would be largely unnecessary. The Supreme
Court recognized in Ritchie that ex parte proceedings “den[y]” the defendant “the
benefits of an ‘advocate’s eye.’” Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 60. Yet the Court found no
constitutional problem because the trial court was “obligated to release information
material to the fairness of the trial.” Id. Counsel’s lack of access to information that
is not favorable and material cannot deprive a defendant of his right to effective
counsel.
Other courts of appeals have rejected claims that ex parte proceedings in similar
circumstances violated the right to counsel. For example, in Lustyik, 833 F.3d at
1269-70, the Tenth Circuit rejected the defendant’s claim that his counsel’s inability to
review classified information prior to sentencing violated his right to counsel. In
United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 910 (9th Cir. 2013), the court held that a
protective order that prevented defense counsel from using classified information at
trial “did not violate [the defendant’s] right to counsel or his right to present a
defense,” because the order was “justified by compelling national security concerns
and the restrictions were limited to a single document that was not relevant to the
charges.” And in United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 288-89 (4th Cir. 2010), the
court rejected the defendant’s challenge to a protective order that prohibited his
counsel from discussing classified exculpatory evidence with him. Where, as here, the
381
district court has determined that classified or sensitive information is not
discoverable, a defendant is not deprived of assistance of counsel simply because his
counsel could not review the non-discoverable information.
E. Because the withheld information was not favorable or material to

his defense, Tsarnaev suffered no prejudice.
Aside from the information related to Ibragim Todashev (discussed in issue V
above), Tsarnaev does not challenge the district court’s determinations that the
information it reviewed in camera was not discoverable, and he does not ask this Court
to review the information in camera. Instead, he puts all of his eggs in one basket,
asking this Court to drastically depart from precedent and hold that the ex parte
proceedings below were reversible error regardless of whether they involved any
information relevant or material to his defense. That claim fails.
But even if the ex parte proceedings below were somehow improper, Tsarnaev
suffered no prejudice because the information that was withheld would not have
affected the trial’s outcome. The government disclosed 13 of the originally ex parte
filings to the defense nearly two years before Tsarnaev filed his opening brief in his
Court, yet Tsarnaev does not claim on appeal that any of those filings were
improperly withheld or contained favorable and material information. He has
therefore waived any challenge to the non-disclosure of those documents.
The government previously provided both this Court and Tsarnaev with a
description of the remaining ex parte documents and a brief explanation for why they
382
should remain ex parte. Sealed.App.199-203. This Court can review those documents,
as well as the classified documents to which they refer. That review will confirm that
the district court correctly determined that the information withheld from Tsarnaev
was not discoverable under Rule 16, Brady, or any other basis. Thus, even if the
district court erred by conducting ex parte proceedings, any such error did not affect
Tsarnaev’s substantial rights and would not entitle him to a new trial.
XIV. The Grand and Petit Jury Wheels Did Not Underrepresent African-
Americans.
Tsarnaev argues (Br. 444-52) that the grand and petit jury wheels in the Eastern
Division of the District of Massachusetts underrepresented African-Americans,
resulting in a violation of the fair cross-section requirements of the Jury Selection and
Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861, and the Sixth Amendment. He recognizes, however,
that this Court’s precedent “forecloses this claim.” Br. 444. And although he argues
that this Court’s decisions “should be overruled,” Br. 451, he has not asked the Court
to hear this case en banc, nor does he explain how a panel of the Court could overrule
circuit precedent.
A. Background
The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1878, directs
each federal district court to devise and execute “a written plan for random selection
of grand and petit jurors,” § 1863(a), and provides a procedural mechanism through
which a criminal defendant may contest any “substantial failure to comply with” the
383
Act, § 1867(a). The Act provides that “[t]he plan for the district of Massachusetts
may require the names of prospective jurors to be selected from the resident list
provided for in chapter 234A, Massachusetts General Laws, or comparable authority,
rather than from voter lists.” 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(2).
Under the Plan for Random Selection of Jurors for the District of
Massachusetts, the Jury Commissioner selects names at random from the resident list
and transmits them to the Clerk of the Court, who then places at least 35,000 names
into the Master Jury Wheel, ensuring that each county is “represented in proportion
to the number of names on its resident lists.” United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts Jury Plan for Random Selection of Jurors § 6(a) (Mar. 3,
2009), available at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/pdf/general/
030309%20Gen%20Ord%2009-2,%20with%20Jury%20Plan.pdf. At certain intervals,
the Clerk draws a large number of names at random from the Master Jury Wheel and
sends summonses and qualification forms to those persons. Id. § 6(a), (c). Qualified
jurors who are not exempted or excused and who report when summoned become
available for service as grand or petit jurors. Id. §§ 9, 10(c).
Before jury selection in this case, Tsarnaev moved to dismiss the indictment,
arguing that African-Americans were underrepresented in the qualified jury wheel
from which the grand jury was drawn. Doc. 506. He included evidence that, from
2011 to 2013, African-Americans made up 6% of the jury-eligible population of the
District of Massachusetts’s Eastern Division but only 3.94% of the qualified jury
384
wheel. 24.App.11251. Tsarnaev acknowledged that this Court’s precedent required
applying an absolute disparity analysis that would foreclose his claim. Add.423; Doc.
506 at 12. Consistent with that precedent, the district court concluded that the
absolute disparity of 2.06% did not establish a prima facie claim under the Sixth
Amendment or the Act. Add.422-23.
Thereafter, Tsarnaev filed another motion to dismiss the indictment on the
basis that African-Americans were underrepresented in the qualified jury wheel from
which his petit jury was drawn. Doc. 1080. He included evidence that African-
Americans made up 6.14% of the jury-eligible population, but only 4.25% of the
qualified jury wheel for his petit jury. 25.App.11520. The district court denied this
motion, concluding that the 1.89% absolute disparity did not establish a prima facie
claim. Add.481-82.
When addressing fair cross-section claims, this Court “review[s] the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United
States v. Royal, 174 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999).
C. Tsarnaev concedes that he cannot prevail under the absolute

disparity analysis required by this Court’s precedent.
Both the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an “impartial jury” in a criminal case
and the Jury Selection and Service Act give criminal defendants the right to have a
petit jury selected from a venire representing a fair cross-section of the community.
385
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 526 (1975); 28 U.S.C. § 1861. This right extends to
the selection of the grand jury as well. United States v. Hafen, 726 F.2d 21, 22-23 (1st
Cir. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1861.
In order to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section
guarantee, a defendant must first establish a prima facie case by demonstrating
(1) “that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community,”
(2) “that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is
not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community,”
and (3) “that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in
the jury-selection process.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). If a defendant
establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the government to show that “a
significant state interest [is] manifestly and primarily advanced by those aspects of the
jury-selection process . . . that result in the disproportionate exclusion of a distinctive
group.” Id. at 367-68.
Tsarnaev cannot satisfy the second requirement for establishing a prima facie
case because he cannot show that African-Americans are underrepresented. This
Court has adopted an “absolute disparity analysis,” which “measures the difference
between the percentage of members of the distinctive group in the relevant
population and the percentage of group members on the jury wheel.” Royal, 174 F.3d
at 6-7. The Court has consistently rejected claims of underrepresentation where the
disparity is greater than the 2.06% and 1.89% absolute disparities present here. See
386
Royal, 174 F.3d at 10-11 (2.97% absolute disparity); United States v. Joost, 94 F.3d 640,
1996 WL 480215, at *8 (1st Cir. 1996) (table decision) (7.13% absolute disparity);
Hafen, 726 F.2d at 23 (2.02% absolute disparity). Cf. Duren, 439 U.S. at 365 (prima
facie violation was established where absolute disparity was 39%). Indeed, Tsarnaev
acknowledges that the district court’s denial of his fair cross-section claim was
“dictated by Royal and Hafen.” Br. 449.
Tsarnaev argues, however, that “Royal and Hafen should be overruled” and that
“this Court should assess fair cross-section claims using comparative disparity, either
alone or in conjunction with other statistical measures.” Br. 451. He argues (Br. 449-
51) that comparative disparity—which “is calculated by dividing the absolute disparity
percentage by the percentage of the group in the population,” Royal, 174 F.3d at 7—
provides a better measure. And he asserts that the comparative disparities of 34.29%
(grand jury) and 30.73% (petit jury) in this case would establish underrepresentation.
Br. 451.
Tsarnaev does not explain how this panel can “overrule[ ]” Royal and Hafen.
This panel is bound by those cases unless an intervening decision from the Supreme
Court or the en banc court has overruled them or called them into question. Royal,
174 F.3d at 9; United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60, 74 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct.
567 (2018). And Tsarnaev points to no authority overruling or undermining Royal and
Hafen. Nor has he requested an initial en banc hearing under Federal Rule of
387
Appellate Procedure 35. Therefore, this Court need not consider his claim any
further.
Even if the en banc Court were to consider the issue, Tsarnaev has not shown
sufficient reason to overrule Royal and Hafen. This Court has repeatedly “rejected
comparative disparity analysis,” and its “choice of absolute disparity over comparative
disparity . . . is in keeping with the choices made by many of [its] sister circuits.”
Royal, 174 F.3d at 7-8. Tsarnaev raises no arguments that this Court has not already
considered and rejected. See id. at 7-9; Hafen, 726 F.2d at 24.
This case would also be a poor vehicle for en banc review for two reasons.
First, Tsarnaev cannot show that he would be entitled to relief even under the
comparative disparity analysis adopted by other circuits. Some circuits have found no
underrepresentation where the comparative disparities were higher than the 34.29%
and 30.73% disparities here. See United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir.
2006) (noting the court had upheld selection procedures with comparative disparities
of up to 59.84%); Ramseur v. Beyer, 983 F.2d 1215, 1232 (3d Cir. 1992) (en banc)
(describing a comparative disparity of 40% as “borderline”).
Second, even if Tsarnaev could show underrepresentation of African-
Americans, he could not show that the underrepresentation resulted from “systematic
exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. As this
Court has noted, the Massachusetts residence lists provide “the broadest data
available,” and there is no evidence “that data more conducive to a fair cross section
388
are available.” United States v. Pion, 25 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 1994). Moreover, “since
the names included in the Master Jury Wheel are randomly drawn from the most
inclusive data available, and random selection also determines to whom juror
questionnaires are mailed, there can be no reasonable inference that the jury-selection
process itself systematically excludes” African-Americans. Id.
Tsarnaev asserted below that the underrepresentation of African-Americans
resulted from “systemic exclusion” because “Boston is under-represented in the
municipal resident lists.” Doc. 506 at 14; Doc. 1080 at 13. He provided no evidence
for this claim, and a court-appointed expert has previously found no evidence of such
underrepresentation in the residence lists. See United States v. Green, 389 F. Supp. 2d
29, 48, 59-60 (D. Mass. 2005), overruled on other grounds by In re United States, 426 F.3d 1
(1st Cir. 2005).
Moreover, there is evidence that the apparent underrepresentation of African-
Americans in the Eastern Division’s jury pool stems from other factors, including that
summonses are more often undeliverable or unanswered “in areas that contain[ ]
more poor or minority inhabitants.”77 In re United States, 426 F.3d at 4. See Royal, 174
F.3d at 5 (expert found that “summonses failed twice as often in areas in which more
than 50% of the population is black than they did in areas in which blacks make up
In 2007, the District of Massachusetts sought to mitigate the effect of

77
undeliverable summonses by requiring the Clerk, for each summons returned as

“undeliverable,” to summon an additional person from the same zip code. Jury Plan
§ 8.
389
less than 2% of the population”); Green, 389 F. Supp. 2d at 62 n.60 (noting that “[t]he
literature does suggest that minorities disproportionately fail to respond to jury
summonses”). Whatever the exact causes, the apparent underrepresentation is not
caused by a correctable systematic defect like those that the Supreme Court has found
sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment. See Taylor, 419
U.S. at 523 (women could serve on a jury only if they had previously filed a written
declaration of willingness to do so); Duren, 439 U.S. at 359-60 (women were granted
an automatic exemption from jury service upon request). Thus, even if this Court
were to grant en banc review and adopt a comparative disparity analysis, Tsarnaev
would not be entitled to relief.
XV. The Death Penalty Is Not Plainly Cruel and Unusual Punishment as
Applied to Tsarnaev Based on His Age (19) at the Time of His Offenses.
Tsarnaev’s final claim is that this Court should vacate his death sentence
because he “was just 19 years old when he committed the crimes” in this case. Br.
453. He asks this Court to “hold that those who commit their crimes as ‘emerging
adults,’ when they [a]re under 21 years old, are categorically exempt from the death
penalty.” Id. Tsarnaev failed to preserve this argument below, and it is effectively
foreclosed by Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), which drew a bright line for death
eligibility at age 18. Tsarnaev’s arguments do not support his contention that this
Court should—or could—modify Roper’s bright-line rule, particularly on plain-error
review.
390
A. Standard of review
Tsarnaev argued below that the FDPA was unconstitutional on several grounds
that he recognized were foreclosed by this Court’s precedent, including that the Act
violates the Fifth Amendment’s Indictment Clause and that it is applied in a racially
and geographically disparate manner. Doc. 291. See Sampson I, 486 F.3d at 20-29
(rejecting such challenges to the Act). But he never argued that a death sentence was
unconstitutional as applied to him based on his age. Because he forfeited this claim,
the Court’s review is limited to plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
B. Because the Supreme Court has specifically held that the death
penalty is permissible for those 18 or older at the time of their
offense, it was not plain error to apply the death penalty to
Tsarnaev.
In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the
Eighth Amendment “forbid[s] imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were
under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.” The Court found evidence
of a “national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles.” Id. at 564. At the
time, 30 states prohibited the death penalty for juveniles—18 states by “express
provision or judicial interpretation” and 12 states by “reject[ing] the death penalty
altogether”—and “in the 20 States without a formal prohibition on executing
juveniles, the practice [wa]s infrequent.” Id.
In concluding that the death penalty was a disproportionate punishment for
juveniles, the Court noted “[t]hree general differences” between adults and those
391
under 18 that justified its holding. Roper, 543 U.S. at 569. First, adolescents often
demonstrate a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility” that
“often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.” Id. (quotations
omitted). Second, “juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences
and outside pressures, including peer pressure.” Id. Third, “the character of a
juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult,” meaning that “[f]rom a moral
standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an
adult.” Id. at 570.
Roper recognized that “[d]rawing the line at 18 years of age” was “subject . . . to
the objections always raised against categorical rules.” Roper, 543 U.S. at 574. “The
qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual
turns 18.” Id. But “[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many
purposes between childhood and adulthood,” and it was, the Court concluded, “the
age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest.” Id.
Because Roper clearly drew the line for death eligibility at age 18, Tsarnaev
cannot show that it was error—much less a “clear or obvious” error—to impose a
death sentence on him. United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (quotations
omitted). And even if Tsarnaev had preserved this claim, it would fail on de novo
review. To accept Tsarnaev’s argument would require more than an extension of
Roper’s reasoning to a new situation. Cf. Los Angeles County, Cal. v. Humphries, 562 U.S.
29, 38 (2010) (noting that “[a] holding . . . can extend through its logic beyond the
392
specific facts of the particular case”). It would require this Court to say that Roper
drew the line in the wrong place. “[T]his court normally is bound by a Supreme Court
precedent unless and until the Court itself disavows that precedent.” United States v.
Richards, 456 F.3d 260, 262 (1st Cir. 2006). Indeed, even where Supreme Court
precedent “appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions,”
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989), or rests on
“increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations,” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20
(1997) (quotations omitted), it remains the “Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one
of its precedents,” id.
Tsarnaev contends that “[t]wo major changes” in the 14 years since Roper “have
altered the justification for a strict age-18 cutoff.” Br. 456. First, he asserts that
“scientific research has explained the effects of brain maturation, or the lack thereof,
on the behavioral and decision-making abilities of late adolescents in their late teens
and early twenties.” Id. But Tsarnaev cannot point to scientific research regarding
brain maturation that is substantially different from the research available when Roper
was decided. See Roper, 543 U.S. at 569, 573 (citing scientific sources). He first points
to a May 2017 report by the United States Sentencing Commission entitled “Youthful
Offenders in the Federal System,” https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/rese
arch-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170525_youthful-offenders.pdf.
That report states that “[t]he contribution that neuroscience has made to the study of
youthful offending is significant and continues to evolve,” and it notes that

393
“researchers agree that [brain] development continues into the 20s.” Id. at 6-7. The
report, however, relied primarily on studies conducted in 2002 and 2005, at or before
the time of Roper. Id. at 6-7 & nn. 29-32. And the report did not conclude that
offenders between the ages of 18 and 20 should be subject to lower penalties than
those age 21 or older. It simply cited the relevant research to explain why, “for
purposes of this study,” the Sentencing Commission “defined youthful offenders as
federal offenders 25 years old or younger at the time of sentencing.” Id. at 5.
Next, Tsarnaev points to the American Bar Association’s resolution calling for
the prohibition of capital punishment for those younger than 21 at the time of their
offenses. Am. Bar Ass’n Resolution 111 (2018), available at
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/mym2018res/111
.pdf. The resolution asserts that “the line drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court no longer
fully reflects the state of the science on adolescent development,” though it admits
that “there were findings that pointed to this conclusion prior to 2005.” Id. at 6-7. In
fact, the Supreme Court was fully aware at the time of Roper that “[t]he qualities that
distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18.”
Roper, 543 U.S. at 574. Yet the Court still concluded that 18 was an appropriate age at
which to draw the line. Id. The ABA’s contrary view does not indicate that Roper was
wrongly decided.
Second, Tsarnaev contends that there is a “growing national consensus against
the death penalty” for offenders between the ages of 18 and 20. Br. 460. He is
394
incorrect. In fact, as one of Tsarnaev’s sources points out, not a single state with an
active death penalty scheme prohibits the death penalty for 18- to 20-year-olds. 78
Brian Eschels, Data & the Death Penalty: Exploring the Question of National Consensus
Against Executing Emerging Adults in Conversation with Andrew Michaels’s A Decent Proposal:
Exempting Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds From the Death Penalty, 40 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc.
Change Harbinger 147, 148 n.11 (2016), available at
https://socialchangenyu.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/eschels-compliment-
piece_clean-copy_6-14-16.pdf. The best Tsarnaev can do is point out that “[t]wenty-
one jurisdictions do not have the death penalty at all,” Br. 461, but that hardly
demonstrates a consensus with respect to 18- to 20-year-old offenders.
Additionally, as another of Tsarnaev’s sources points out, “by exempting
eighteen- to twenty-year-olds from the death penalty, the United States would be
taking an unusual legal stance with respect to prevailing international norms.”
Andrew Michaels, A Decent Proposal: Exempting Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds from the
Death Penalty, 40 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 139, 159 & n.120 (2016). Only Cuba
and Iran draw the line at age 21. Id. Indeed, Roper noted that its holding was
supported by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
prohibits capital punishment “for crimes committed by juveniles under 18.” Roper,
In 2017, a Kentucky trial court held that the death penalty is unconstitutional
78
for offenders younger than age 21, but that decision is currently under review in the
Kentucky Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Bredhold, No. 14-CR-161 (Fayette
Circuit Court, 7th Div. Aug. 1, 2017).
395
543 U.S. at 576. Tsarnaev’s position is therefore inconsistent even with the
international consensus that Roper found “instructive.” Id. at 575.
Unable to show a legislative consensus against the practice, Tsarnaev asserts
that the death penalty is rarely imposed on those under 21. Br. 463. But the data on
which he relies do not support that claim. According to Tsarnaev’s own source, of
the 28 states that executed at least one adult between 2001 and 2015, 15 of those
states executed offenders who were between 18 and 20 years old at the time of their
offenses. Eschels, Data & the Death Penalty, at 152. This shows that more than half of
the states that used the death penalty during that period applied it to 18- to 20-year-
olds, even though that three-year age window is only a small fraction of the total adult
population. The same article indicates that 18- to 20-year-olds accounted for 17.8%
of total executions between 2001 and 2015, id., and the data upon which the article
relied show that 18- to 20-year-olds accounted for about 18.8% of the total arrests for
murder and non-negligent homicides in 2010. See Howard N. Snyder, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Arrest in the United States, 1990-2010, at 17-
18 (2012), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf (2116 of 11,201 such
arrests). This suggests that the states apply the death penalty to 18- to 20-year-olds at
a rate closely proportionate to their percentage of the overall relevant criminal
population.
Finally, Tsarnaev points out that from 2001 to 2015, “[a]pproximately 78% of
executions carried out . . . on those who had been emerging adults at the time of their
396
crimes occurred in just four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Ohio.” Br. 463.
Considering that three of those same states led the way in executions of those 21 years
old and older, however, this is hardly surprising. See Eschels, Data & the Death Penalty
at 152 (noting that “the top four full-adult executing states (which were the same, save
the substitution of Florida for Virginia) accounted for . . . 61.17% of executions”).
And mere geographic concentration does not demonstrate a nationwide consensus
against applying the death penalty to 18- to 20-year-old offenders. Indeed, more than
half the states that used the death penalty between 2001 and 2015 executed at least
one person who was 18, 19, or 20 years old at the time of his offense. Id.
Roper held that 18 is “the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to
rest.” Roper, 543 U.S. at 574. Tsarnaev has not pointed to scientific or consensus-
related data that undermines this conclusion, and even if he did, it would not provide
grounds for this Court to take the extraordinary step of saying that Roper drew the
wrong line. See Khan, 522 U.S. at 20. At the very least, Tsarnaev cannot show that the
district court committed clear or obvious error by failing to take that step sua sponte.
397
CONCLUSION
This Court should affirm the judgment of the district court.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDREW E. LELLING BRIAN A. BENCZKOWSKI

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
NADINE PELLEGRINI MATTHEW S. MINER

Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Assistant Attorney General
District of Massachusetts
s/William A. Glaser
JOHN C. DEMERS WILLIAM A. GLASER
Assistant Attorney General Attorney, Appellate Section
National Security Division Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
JOSEPH F. PALMER 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Attorney Washington, DC 20530
National Security Division (202) 532-4495
[email protected]
398
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the Court’s order granting the government
leave to file an oversized brief because this brief contains 101,283 words, excluding
the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief
has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in
Garamond 14-point type.
s/ William A. Glaser
WILLIAM A. GLASER
399
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 27, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit using the
CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF
users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
s/ William A. Glaser
WILLIAM A. GLASER

Tsarnaev Brief 06-27-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tsarnaev Brief 06-27-19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tsarnaev Brief 06-27-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 16-6001 Document: 00117457031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2019 Entry ID: 6263968

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

REDACTED BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE UNITED STATES

ANDREW E. LELLING BRIAN A. BENCZKOWSKI

NADINE PELLEGRINI MATTHEW S. MINER

8. Tsarnaev hid for 18 hours in a shrink-wrapped boat, where

d. Even if Tsarnaev could establish a presumption of

1. Tsarnaev’s first motion in limine ..................................................... 255

1. Payne and the FDPA authorize victim-impact evidence. ............ 279

a. The Whole Foods video was harmless because

3. The display was proper. .................................................................. 337

XIII. The District Court’s Use of Ex Parte Proceedings to Address Sensitive

Antwine v. Delo, 54 F.3d 1357 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 147

Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (1962) ...................................................................... 88, 104

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ........................................................................................ 380

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) ....................................................................... 232

Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).............................................................................. 279

Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990) ..................................................................... 363, 365

Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005) ................................................................................. 365

Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) ........................................................................ 343

Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) ........................................................................ 242

Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)........................................................................ 108

Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) ..................................................................... 107

Carter v. Gibson, 27 F. App’x 934 (10th Cir. 2001) .......................................................... 208

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ........................................................ 214, 217, 240

Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) .................................................................... 242, 245

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) ....................................................... 283

Clagett v. Commonwealth, 472 S.E.2d 263 (Va. 1996)......................................................... 162

Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)................................................................... 338

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)........................................................ 194, 195, 196

Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)............................................................................. 197

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) ...................................................................................... 65

Ex Parte Taylor, 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995) ....................................................................... 162

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) ............................................................................ 350

Garcia v. Davis, 704 F. App’x 316 (5th Cir. 2017)............................................................ 352

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) ........................................................................ 215

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ................................................................................. 209

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) ........................................................................... 245

Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ..................................................................... 284

Henderson v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1309 (11th Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 89

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) .................................................................... 153

Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (1989) ............................................................................. 348

Hitchcock v. Duggar, 481 U.S. 393 (1987) ........................................................................... 216

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) ................................................................... 243

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...................................................... 313

Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) .............................................................................. 153

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) ........................................................................... 308

In re Abdur’Raham, 392 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 145

In re Tsarnaev, 775 F.3d 457 (1st Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 59

In re United States, 426 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 389

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) ..................................................................... 363

Jones v. State, 539 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 2000)........................................................................... 209

Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633 (2016) ......................................................................... 350, 351

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) ................................................................................ 350

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) .................................................................................. 222

Lawrence v. State, 846 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2003) .................................................................... 208