In a decision that could provide a framework when it considers the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a federal appeals court in Boston on Monday ordered a new trial for a Puerto Rico man who had asked that his trial be moved because the jury pool had been tainted by pretrial publicity….
The Puerto Rico case, which involves a murder committed by the well-known son of a judge, raised comparable arguments to what will be the focus of Tsarnaev’s appeal of his conviction in the Boston Marathon bombings, and his lawyers will want to argue that there is no difference between the cases, according to legal analysts and the parties involved. Both cases claim that the potential jurors were so inundated with news media coverage of the crime that they could not be unbiased, so the trials should have been moved.
I said back in May that (to quote bob-gardner’s phrasing) the argument that “[i]f this wasn’t a case that called for a change of venue there is no such thing” was “exactly the argument I’m most worried about in terms of appeals.” Now, it appears, the very federal appeals court that will eventually hear the Tsarnaev case – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston – has issued an opinion (PDF) that may strengthen that argument.
There are some important differences between the Puerto Rico case and Tsarnaev, so this isn’t a slam-dunk for the defense. Indeed, the opinion issued yesterday distinguishes the facts of the case from Tsarnaev at a couple of different points. (Specifically, the court described Puerto Rico as a “compact, insular community” that depends heavily on local media, whereas Boston is a “large, diverse metropolitan area” that depends on multiple news sources; the court noted that only two months had elapsed from the prejudicial publicity to the federal trial in the case before it, whereas two years had elapsed in the Boston case; and the defendant in the Puerto Rico case was largely unknown outside Puerto Rico, whereas Tsarnaev was well known nationwide). Nonetheless, it seems clear that the legal case for prejudicial publicity requiring a change of venue is stronger now than it was two days ago.
We won’t know the outcome in the Tsarnaev case for some time; new trial motions are still pending before the trial court, and once they are decided, the appeals process will take several months. I continue to think it very unfortunate that the U.S. Attorney’s office decided to seek the death penalty. Had it not done so, instead settling for life in prison without the possibility of parole (as the youngest victim’s family wanted), Tsarnaev would never be in the news again, and the prospect of a new trial would be nonexistent.
Look, if we’re just going to be shredding the constitution in regard to due process with this no-fly list, give up privacy and all kinds of other things…
If this isn’t a case that calls for ignoring the bill of rights and saying “too bad, no new trial”, then I don’t know what is.
that’s not really how our system is supposed to work.
I’d make that even stronger: that’s REALLY not how our system works! There is an almost sacrality to the Bill of Rights that raises legitimate questions as to whether any of it it – and least of all the personal liberties guaranteed in the first 8 Amendments – could be amended away even by Constitutional Amendment, As I recall, there was considerable discussion about this by Constitutional scholars back in late 70’s/early 80’s, during the height of the “Moral Majority” era, when anti-abortion activists threatened to attempt call a Constitutional Convention if Congress failed to act on their proposed then-named “Human Life Amendment”. Fortunately, these efforts failed, but not before many of the experts who weighed in on this opined that even such a convention would be powerless to amend away the Bil of Rights – at least not without essentially abolishing our entire system of government as we know it.
I thoroughly agree with Bob’s down-thread observation. Like so many other over-prosecuted cases in recent memory, an unappealable life sentence would have ended this tragedy once and for all.
where defense witnesses were staying?
Mistake #1: Trial in Boston. A first-year law student could have won that trial even if it was held in Hawaii or wherever else is as far as one can get from Boston and still be in the US. Mistake #2: Tsarnaev should have been buried alive with a life sentence, not allowed to hog the limelight with years of death penalty appeals. Ortiz, who will forever be identified primarily for her management of the Aaron Swartz prosecution, has never appeared especially effective.
we would have been spared this discussion today. Instead, motivated by the desire to try and win the “big one”, and also allow the legal network in Boston to be the one to convict him, this is the result.
Wasn’t the motion for a change of venue not only made, but also appealed, during the trial itself, and denied all along? Even with another case from Puerto Rico after the fact I fail to see how another appeal is either proper or effective.
Jury selection was not even complete at that point. It was a 2-1 decision with a vigorous dissent. And the standard of review will be different now that the trial is complete. You can read the first opinion here.
Yes, I can understand the need to move the trial, but I really want to be spared the breathless news coverage of another Tsarnaev trial.
The last person to receive a federal death sentence in Massachusetts (Gary Lee Sampson, in 2003) is awaiting a sentencing retrial. That sentencing retrial is awaiting a final decision on the prosecution’s motion to require the trial judge to recuse himself.
Under what circumstances could the Governor or President commute this to a life sentence? I understand politically it’s probably impossible, but is it possible from a procedural standpoint? Probably not the Governor because it’s a federal case, what about the President?
I just want to spare the families of the victims and survivors anymore grief, and I certainly want to spare our local news from plastering this assholes face all over town again. Better to lock him up, throw away the key, and forget he existed than give him the martyrdom he sought. I never understood the argument for why he the death penalty makes any sense here, outside of cheap politics.
…when it comes to pardons and commutations for federal crimes, at least constitutionally. In practice, there is a procedure and an office that addresses possible action in this regard. Not to reopen the debate since I’ll just refer people to previous comments, but if there is death penalty, multiple casualties in a terrorist act is pretty much THE thing it is for IMO.
is not a good US Attorney. It’s well known around town that she only got the job because she has a compelling life story. If that’s the criteria, fine. But, she was not a good AUSA either. They should have tried the case elsewhere. If the conviction gets reversed, it’s just a gigantic waste of resources.