Legal Analogies to Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Update 7:40 pm ET: CNN reports Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is awake and answering law enforcement's questions. No wonder the U.S. Attorney didn't file charges today. They didn't want a lawyer appointed who could demand to see him and advise him not to sign any waivers. The Boston Police Commissioner said today the brothers acted alone. Where's the continuing public safety threat? An internal FBI policy memo that extends the public safety exception beyond what the Supreme Court has authorized is not controlling law.

Can the Federal Defender file a "miscellaneous action" and ask to be appointed now for the limited purpose of advising him of his rights and request an order directing the FBI to allow them to meet with him before it attempts to secure any waivers?

Update 1:18 pm: It looks like the feds won't be able to use the Faisal Shahazad scenario with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He cannot speak at all due to being shot in the throat. Thus, it's unlikely he can be questioned at all, or that he would be able to provide a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to timely appear before a judge and be appointed counsel after charges are filed and before presentment. Due to his injuries and inability to be questioned, reports now say charges will be filed, perhaps today, a judge will advise him at the hospital, and the public defender's representation would be effective upon advisement. [More...]

Original Post

I mentioned in an earlier post that I think the case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to set off explosive devices in Times Square on May 1, 2010, may be an indicator of how the Government will proceed with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. If so, he won't be meeting with a lawyer or seeing a judge anytime soon. He'll be whisked from the hospital to a safe house where he'll be convinced to sign waivers and consent to interrogation for up to two weeks -- if not longer.

Shahzad is a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been in the U.S. for ten years. He left the bombs in his car in Times Square on May 1. On May 3, he was arrested on a plane at JFK, before takeoff. Charges were filed (a complaint) on May 4.

Shahzad was not taken to a jail or before a judge. The Joint Terrorism Task Force took him to a safe house. They began interrogating him without providing Miranda rights. After a few days, they advised him of his rights. But they also convinced him to waive both his Miranda rights and his right to timely presentment before a judge (where he would be appointed counsel.) They kept him in the safe house, interrogating him, until May 18, when he finally appeared in front of a court and was appointed counsel. In a press release, U.S. Attorney Preet Baheera said:

Following his arrest, Shahzad spoke with officers of the Joint Terrorism Task Force for almost two weeks. During those weeks, Shahzad admitted that he had purchased all of the components of the bomb; built the bomb; and loaded it into his SUV. Shahzad also said that he believed that his bomb would kill about 40 people — and that he had been prepared to conduct additional attacks until he was captured or killed.

By May 18, when the Federal Defender was finally appointed, he'd already confessed.

The Indictment was returned on June 17, 2010. Four days later, Shahzad pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. His change of plea transcript is here.

In October, 2010, he was sentenced to life in prison (there is no parole). The transcript is here. He did not appeal and is serving his sentence at Supermax in Florence, CO.

At sentencing, for the first time, he complained that the Government violated his rights during his interrogation.

I had a firsthand experience when on the second day of my arrest I asked for the Miranda. And the FBI denied it to me for two weeks, effecting [threatening] harm to my kids and family, and I was forced to sign those Mirandas.

Of course, at sentencing, it's too late to raise that argument for the first time.

Attorney General Eric Holder explained the FBI's public safety exception policy in this 5 page letter to Congress about why it Mirandized underwear bomber Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab after two days:

The initial questioning of Abdulmutallab was conducted without Miranda warnings under a public safety exception that has been recognized by the courts. Subsequent questioning was conducted with Miranda warnings, as required by FBI policy, after consultation between FBI agents in the field and at FBI Headquarters, and career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and at the Department of Justice.

Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him, however. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence. The Department of Justice has a long track record of using the prosecution and sentencing process as a lever to obtain valuable intelligence, and we are actively deploying those tools in this case as well.

Holder used these two cases to push Congress to pass a law officially recognizing the public safety exception. When his efforts met with resistance, the FBI published its own memo on how it would use the public safety exception, which the New York Times published here.

The federal circuit courts of appeal have been divided in their view of the scope of the public safety exception:

The First, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits apply a broad approach to the exception. This approach allows the exception to apply when there are “inherently dangerous circumstances posing a material threat to officers or the public, without regard to an immediate or objective threat.”

A narrow approach is taken by the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits. Under this approach, courts require officers to have actual knowledge of an imminent threat to public safety before utilizing the exception.

...The remaining Circuits, the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh, have either “failed to properly address the issue or have inconsistently applied the Quarles exception.”

The Supreme Court has not yet resolved the differences. It should. The FBI memo is problematic. While it begins by tracking NY v Quarles, it goes much further. It provides:

There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.

....Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment.

That's what they did in Shahzad. Shahzad had lived here for 10 years. He worked as a financial analyst for Elizabeth Arden for 5 years. He had an MBA. Why would an intelligent, educated person waive his right to presentment before a judge, where he would be appointed counsel? Waiving Miranda is perhaps understandable if he wanted to brag about what he had done. But waiving his right to presentment and counsel? Followed by a straight-up guilty plea to all charges knowing he would get a life sentence, almost certainly at Supermax, Alcatraz of the Rockies?

How did they get him to do that? The only answer that comes to my mind is promises or threats. Promises to keep his family safe and/or threats there would be no protection for his family if he didn’t agree to their requests for more information and delayed presentment.

Shahzad spent two weeks undergoing questioning in a safe house by the FBI’s High Value Detainee Group, with no contact with the outside world, no lawyer, continuously being told what would happen to his family in Pakistan if he didn’t play ball. To call this a “public safety” exception makes a mockery not just of Miranda and the 5th Amendment right to remain silent and due process, but the 6th Amendment right to assistance of counsel.

The same strategy could easily be in play for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Consider the FBI’s unusual insistence on controlling the information about his medical condition. Is this so it can whisk him to a safe house, rather than a jail, for questioning, without the media finding out? Will it keep telling the public he is in serious condition in the hospital until well after he has been moved to his undisclosed location? After which they will present his signed waiver of his right to presentment before a judge (where a lawyer would be appointed) and waiver of Miranda rights? If Shazad is any indication, I think it is a clear possibility.

What will the interrogation team promise him in exchange? (Any promises would have to be made with the approval of DOJ since only proseuctors, not law enforcement agents, can make binding promises once charges are filed.) They could allow him to plead guilty to all charges, before a death penalty notice is filed, ensuring he gets a life sentence, rather than death. They could tell him horror stories about what might befall his parents or relatives here and in Russia if he refuses to waive his rights. They could scare him with descriptions of physical atrocities that will be inflicted on him by other inmates in a maximum security prison, given his age and size. He is 19 years old. He won’t know he’d never be put in general population at a detention facility while awaiting trial. Or that after conviction, if sent to Supermax, he’ll be in isolation for years before being allowed contact with other inmates.

It took 14 days for the federal court in New York to appoint counsel for Faisal Shazad due to his waiver. That is unacceptable. If the Government plays its cards the same way with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and files charges, and then a waiver of his right to presentment and Miranda rights before his first appearance, I don’t know how the federal court in Massachusetts will respond. I hope it responds by appointing the Federal Defender’s office immediately upon the filing of charges, and directing the Government to make Dzhokhar available to meet with counsel before accepting any such waivers as having been made knowingly, voluntarily and free of coercion.

The Government’s combined use of the public safety exception and presentment and Miranda waivers goes far beyond the issue of the admissibility of uncounseled statements at trial. By using the pretext of public safety to gather intelligence information, after it is satisfied the particular suspect no longer poses an immediate threat to public safety, and insisting the suspect waive his constitutional right to representation by counsel at the initiation of judicial proceedings, the Government is violating the most basic of all constitutional protections. It is going far beyond the bounds of the Supreme Court's ruling in Quarles.

Keeping the country safe from a 19 year old suspect in custody, whose alleged partner in crime is dead, when police believe the two acted "together and alone" does not justify shredding the Constitution.

< Shots Fired at Denver's 4/20 Marijuana Rally | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for explaining, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:44:17 AM EST
    Do you agree most of the other commentaries that simply object to the decision not to inform Tsarnaev of his Miranda rights, fail to convey what the actual concern is. I mean, if he recovers and is promptly taken before a judge, it wouldn't be problematic that the government hasn't told him what his rights are, would it?

    I'm not sure I understand (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:26:16 AM EST
    the second part of your question. As to the first, yes I agree.

    If there is a real risk that he was working with others besides his brother and has  knowledge these associates are about to launch a similar crime,  the public safety exception allows them to ask it. If he tells them they acted alone there were no other  operational bombs or bombs they had stashed,  and they didn't know of any others that would step into their place and continue their operation if they were jailed or killed, that should be the end of the public safety exception. questioning. If those are the answers the got, there is no justification for continuing the interrogation to inquire about what motivated him, why he did this, how he got into it, etc, unless he agrees to be questioned on these points after consulting with counsel who advises him before he waives Miranda and his right not to continue interrogation.

    Since it sounds like they have enough physical evidence to link him to the crime, they don't need to use his statements against him in court. They can make the case without them.

    If they want more than public safety questions, they should go through his lawyer so his lawyer, who has only his interests at heart, can give him the pros and cons.

    As Holder said in the letter I linked to:

     In fact, there is no court-approved system currently in place in which suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual to talk to the government that has been proven more effective than the criminal justice system. Moreover, while in some cases defense counsel may advise their clients to remain silent, there are situations in which they properly and wisely encourage cooperation because it is in their client's best interest, given the substantial sentences they might face.

    I am more concerned about a suspect being made to provide waivers to Miranda rights and to agree to delay their  presentment to a judge where they will be appointed counsel as soon as legal proceedings are initiated. In my Circuit, the 10th, I remember cases where the chief Judge would appoint the public defender as soon as the court got word they were close to capturing a dangerous person -- even before charges were filed, so the FBI couldn't play these tricks.  

    As Holder points out in the letter I linked to, when it is clear the person is in deep doo-doo, their lawyer may end up joining in the recommendation to talk. But these are two rights that are among our most basic and a 19 year old should hear what his lawyer says such a waiver means, and his lawyer's opinion on it, before making up his own mind. It's crazy that we ask a 19 years old with no prior experience with the criminal justice system to make these decisions which will impact the remainder of his life, without counsel, and with one-sided cajoling from the agents, who don't even know the law. The last person who should be advising them on waivers is his  antagonist who benefits if he convinces him.


    Jeralyn, you say (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    "the public safety exception allows them to ask..." But what, if anything, disallows them to ask whatever they want? There's a difference, I think, between being required to inform an arrestee of Miranda rights, and denying an arrestee who wants an attorney the right to have one. That's what the second part of my previous question was about. Let me reword it: If they don't inform him of his Miranda rights, but they do take him before a judge within whatever the required amount of time is under the circumstances, would the government be violating his rights? In other words, is there any statute or court ruling that explicitly states an arrestee must be informed of Miranda rights? Or is it just that whatever evidence is obtained from a non-Mirandized witness is inadmissible? If the latter, why are you saying "the public safety exception allows them to ask..." as if they're not otherwise allowed?

    they are two different rights (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    One is the right to remain silent and not answer questions without counsel present (Miranda). The public safety exception allows them to question him before advising him of his Miranda rights for an undefined period of time.

    It is during this period of unMirandized questioning they would try to convince him he's better off continuing to talk and agreeing to waive his right to appear before a judge and be appointed counsel under Rule 5. Once they believe they've convinced him of that, they provide him his Miranda rights, he signs a waiver and agrees to continue talking. He would also be asked to waive his right to appear before a judge under Rule 5. Since that's the hearing where he would be appointed counsel, by agreeing to delay presentment, he doesn't get appointed counsel.

    That's what they did with Shahzad. They first questioned him without Mirandizing him, then they Mirandized him, at which time he waived his Miranda rights and his right to appear before Magistrate Judge for advisement and appointment of counsel.

    My concern is more with the second waiver, the waiver of his right to appear before a judge upon the filing of charges.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#24)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    Thank you!

    So if I understand you correctly, it seems the real issues are the duration of confinement, and the opportunity to go before a judge. Which is to say that if those rights are upheld, it's a red herring as to whether or not the arrestee has been informed of Miranda rights. A red herring, that is, apart from determining what evidence is admissible. If evidence is admitted that shouldn't be admitted, it would be a judge who violated his rights. The government might be guilty of employing bad strategy, but not necessarily of violating his rights.

    Is that about right?


    no, the judge is not violating (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    his rights if he waives them.

    Waiving the right to have a lawyer present during questioning is different than waiving the right to appear before a magistrate at the earliest opportunity.

    My point is the interrogation team can use the period in which they are questioning him under the public safety exception to cajole him into a second waiver -- a waiver of his right to immediately appear before a magistrate and be appointed counsel.

    I'm saying the judge shouldn't accept the second waiver before the public defender meets with him and determines the waiver is voluntarily made, free of coercion.

    I think when the government files the second waiver and asks presentment be delayed, because he has agreed to waive Miranda and his right to immediate presentment and appointment of counsel, the judge should direct the government to make him available to the federal defender so the federal defender can advise the court if his waiver of his right to immediate presentment and appointment of counsel is voluntary. Only if the federal defender reports back that it is voluntary, should the court accept it.


    Got it (none / 0) (#26)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    Thank you. Much appreciated.

    I meant to say (none / 0) (#19)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    non-Mirandized arrestee.

    You are right, C-Jeff (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    The Quarles "public safety" exception, however interpreted and applied, overrides the Miranda rule, so as to make admissible any otherwise-voluntary statements that the arrestee may make, notwithstanding the absence of warnings.  Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 5 requires that the suspect -- if arrested by or in collusion with federal authorities -- be taken without unnecessary delay before a judicial officer, and if not arraigned within 6 hours (absent physical impossibility, such as hospitalization in "serious" condition), then statements taken outside the 6-hour safe harbor, as well as any "involuntary" statements, are inadmissible. But nothing legally prevents law enforcement from questioning the arrestee.  Even Miranda, which states that upon the suspect's invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel all questioning must cease, has been interpreted to mean only that that any statements obtained in violation of that rule will be inadmissible in a criminal case as direct evidence against that person.

    Peter G (none / 0) (#23)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Thank you!

    I read (none / 0) (#8)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:08:31 AM EST
    that Federal Defenders will be assigned to him once charges are filed.

    The federal public defender's office in Massachusetts said it has agreed to represent Tsarnaev once he is charged. Miriam Conrad, public defender for Massachusetts, said he should have a lawyer appointed as soon as possible because there are "serious issues regarding possible interrogation."

    If they wait to file, then he won't have anyone working on his behalf and I think that is obscene.  

    Look, I think they have the right person but he is still a person with rights.  I know they want to find out who else may be involved. It sounds more like Gitmo-ish right now.



    That there may be public safety concerns (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    arising out of unanswered questions about the scope, seriousness, and dangerousness of the arrested person's suspected criminal behavior does not distinguish this case from hundreds of others, to say the very least, Lawstudent.  The stated holding and rationale of Quarles do not go nearly so far as you suggest, and the implications of your reasoning are truly frightening to contemplate.  Our Constitution was established, in part, to "secure liberty."  Yes, risks to public safety exist in a free society.  Our system is predicated on the belief that the dangers of a police state are far greater.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by lawstudent on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    I disagree that this is not a case for the public safety exception, and no one posting on this website has any basis to state at this time that the exception is being abused.  Until we see any evidence of the latter, why are we even discussing this?  On the former, I think there are plenty of judges who would agree with me.  

    you've stated your opinion (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    and I just deleted an offensive comment by you. One more and you will be banned. Either discuss the topic civilly and state your opinion as such or comment on a different site.

    Offensive? (none / 0) (#50)
    by lawstudent on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 06:08:48 AM EST
    If calling out pure speculation is offensive, then ban me.  I am tolerant of different opinions, but it seems you are not.

    Public safty? (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by redwolf on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:37:27 AM EST
    The FBI was warned this guy was a danger 2 years ago.  Giving such an incompetent bunch extra constitutional powers is horrible expansion of the police state.

    it was his brother that it was (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:52:00 AM EST
    warned about, and he's dead.

    I thought that it began as an inquiry (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:50:10 AM EST
    from overseas, that the FBI investigated, could find nothing untoward or suspicious, and asked the foreign agency involved for more information - and never got it.

    Exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    But it's hard to play politics if you don't put a little air in the football, first.

    sorry for the grammar/typos (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:14:31 AM EST
    my glasses are upstairs and my eyes are telling me they've had enough!

    Do what I do... (none / 0) (#6)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:04:33 AM EST
    ...blame your keyboard for not being able to spell as well as your pencil.

    lol; I scapegoat any nearby cats... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:03:07 AM EST
    Good job, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:06:32 AM EST

    a few points here (none / 0) (#11)
    by lawstudent on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:28:14 AM EST
    1 - Even if Tsarnaev is not read his rights, he still has the right to invoke them.  As a 19-year old American citizen, I'd bet he's well aware that he has the right to remain silent. (Reports of his medical condition state he is uable to talk anyway.)
    2 - Miranda is really only relevant here as to the admissibility of any statements he gives that can be used against him.  It certainly seems like the case against Tsarnaev is there without any incriminating statements -- he is apparently on video planting the bomb; he was on video at the 7-11 right before the MIT officer was shot; the carjacking victim is both a witness to the carjacking and has said that both brothers confessed to the marathon bombing in the car; and Tsarnaev engaged in a firefight with law enforcement, and there are probably dozens of officers who can testify to that fact.  
    3 - If there were ever a case for the public safety exception, this sounds like a good one.  And, if law enforcement sticks to the exception's purpose, i.e., asking about any still-existing threat to public safety in the nature of undetonated devices or future attacks, as opposed to using the exception to build its case against Tsarnaev, this should not be a problem.  

    I completely agree that we need to be cautions not to erode the rights we all enjoy by taking advantage of the public outrage in this unique, rare, and isolated situation, but if we're going to discuss Miranda and the public safety exception, let's be fair and look at all the surrounding facts and circumstances.  

    Might I suggest (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    that the most important thing this young man needs right now is the guiding hand of counsel?  If he gives up all information he has, then there is no way he can make any deal that might save him from the death penalty or life in AdMax?  
    Sure, he may have heard about rights, but so very few people who have not been in trouble before understand what they mean or their importance.  And remember, the people who may advise him of the rights or who respond to any request he might make are allowed to lie to him and to make those rights sound unnecessary.  Police do sneer at "lawyering up" or accuse people of getting smart and tell the accused that their only chance is to tell all now and the police might help them - no promise, which promise a lawyer could try to get in exchange for information.  

    Not to be snide (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:03:10 PM EST
    but the most important thing he needs right now is a very good doctor.

    Since he is in the hospital, (none / 0) (#42)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    I have to believe that is covered?

    His request for a lawyer during (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    initial questioning can be denied if they are invoking the public safety exception. That's what the public safety exception is.

    The problem is they don't intend to limit questioning to whether there is an immediate threat to public safety. They want to question him about his motives and contacts, etc. That's beyond ameliorating any immediate threat to public safety.

    It doesn't matter whether he asks for a lawyer or not. Under the public safety exception the request could be denied. It's during this questioning they would try and convince him to agree to continue talking and delay presentment. Shahzad said at sentencing he asked for a lawyer and was denied.

    This is not a good case for an extended public safety exception because they do not believe he and his brother acted in concert with others, his brother is dead and he's in custody. So there is no basis for believing he represents a continued threat of danger to the public, which is what the public safety exception is designed to protect against.


    Get him a lawyer (none / 0) (#13)
    by ICantBelieve on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:50:11 AM EST
    Has anyone given any thought to raising some money to get this kid a lawyer right now?  That seems to be the one thing we could do to make sure that his rights are not trampled upon.

    If a good lawyer had been hired immediately in 2010, I don't think we'd be facing this issue now.

    It seems like a daunting fundraising task, but maybe some lawyer will step up and do it pro-bono.

    He has lawyers in his family (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    including the outspoken aunt who, per reports, helped the rest of the family come here.  So, he probably is aware of how to reach a lawyer -- but he cannot speak, owing to his injuries, according to Deval Patrick.

    But that report seems carefully worded, so how capable the suspect is of communicating in writing is unclear.  Not being able to speak does not mean that he is not being questioned, it seems to me.  But I have not seen this point raised elsewhere.


    Look, just like any defendant (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    is "innocent until proven guilty," we have no choice but to accept the government's word that their motive in this dangerous, but not illegal, tactict is what they say it is. No one has been more critical of some government behavior than I have, but it looks like they are in the old, "damned if you do, damned if you don't,' position here.

    Not every single move they make has to be devious and/or unscrupulous. I'm pretty certain they feel they have enough evidence on the young man already, and with such unprecedented scrutiny of every move they make, the government would be beyond stupid to take illegal advantage of this public safety exception here.

    As a quick hypothetical, what if Tsarnaev and his brother had, or knew of, some other accomplice, mentor, facilitator, whatever, and knew of an escape plan he/she had preplanned? Wouldn't that be a good bit of knowledge to have at this point in time? If they had to go through the time consuming steps a normal arrest compels, by the time they discovered this imaginary "co-conspirator" he/she could be in "godforsaken-stan," flipping us the bird right about now?

    I'm not gonna puke just yet; i think I'll wait to see if ole Uncle Sam puts his grimy finger down my throat first.

    the police commissioner (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    says they acted alone. Please don't make up scenarios that have been discredited.

    What (none / 0) (#33)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    happened to the other people / person who were arrested (3?) in someway connected to the brothers?  I have not heard a peep about them.  I remember one female in cuffs so that is why the question mark above.

    It's all over the British press (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:28:02 PM EST
    Multiple stories, including photos of the arrest of the three people and reporters writing under their own names claiming the FBI says they are looking for a 12 person cell. I've found out far more about this story (including things later verified on here or in the American press and including tons of photos) from foreign press than from our own.

    I think Jeralyn is being cautious, but not very skeptical of the official story. I certainly don't take the police chiefs answer as being the final word esp as I think if I recall correctly he said that 2 or 3 days ago.


    Got some links, Slayer? (none / 0) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    I'm not disputing your comment. i'd like to read some of these reports.

    Go to the Mirror.co.uk (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:35:50 PM EST
    There were 2 or three others as well.
    I'd post the links but I'm not sure that Jeralyn would like it. If she decides this is all too speculative or makes the site look bad or whatever she might delete the links anyway and I'd rather not put her to that hassle.
    The story is from the 21st.

    The Mirror isn't considered a brilliant source (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    in the U.K., but here's the story, which is pretty thin.  

    You're right to look at foreign news sources; our media is way too pliant.

    No sign of such unattributed speculation in the Guardian, which is a good source, and to which I subscribe.  

    You've got to support the press, folks.  If it dies off we'll be left nothing but bloggers regurgitating Government PR and amplifying other bloggers' frothings.


    Do you know (none / 0) (#36)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:02:48 PM EST
    whether or not the FBI agrees?

    Gotcha, (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:31:32 AM EST
    hadn't read all the prior posts first, sorry.

    BTW, I appreciate the explanation why a post is wrong, or unacceptable, rather than just deleting it unilaterally.


    I believe the takeaway from all of this (none / 0) (#29)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    is that the government will do whatever it wants any time it wants regardless of the rule of law or due process or the US Constitution. The US government has shown time and again that there are no rules if that's the decision they have made. It's all in the name of "national security" yadda yadda yadda. And even if there are rules, they will be immediately changed if that's what the government wants to do.

    This is no longer the country I learned about in history and civics classes in high school (40 years ago). This is not the country founded in 1776.

    The obvious defense is that he was under duress... (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:54:56 PM EST
    and the spell of his older brother. Patty Hearst-esque kind of defense.

    I look forward to analysis here on how that would play out and what this kid will have to show.

    Traditionally, duress is not a defense (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    Do we know if the 3 bombing victims were at the same site, or did each brother detonate a bomb that killed someone? Also, might he be charged with his brother's death, seeing as how he ran over him?

    Is that a fact? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tamta on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:07:31 PM EST

    Schoenfeld  did not address police's assertion that Tsarnaev was run over by a car driven by his brother as he fled the gunfire.
    (one of the doctor's who helped treat the older brother)



    doubtful he would be charged (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:56:20 PM EST
    with killing his brother. Did you see his autopsy photo? His body was riddled with bullets and he sustained severe trauma from explosives. If it is true he backed over or ran over his brother when driving off, he was probably already dead. By most accounts I've read, the older brother had gotten out of the car, advanced towards the officers with guns blazing and got hit. The younger brother stayed in the car and drove off. Of course, none of this was apparent from the live video we were shown. Until we see the video showing him driving over his brother, I'm not convinced it's true.

    As for which brother detonated which bomb, it doesn't matter. The penalty for conspiracy is the same as the penalty for the substantive crime.


    Felony murder doctrine? Not (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09:35 AM EST
    that the prosecution will need additional charges.

    A purported eyewitness (none / 0) (#49)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 03:52:50 AM EST
    called in to a Boston talk radio show, and said it was a cop who ran over the brother:

    He is awake. Here (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tamta on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:08:42 PM EST