Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted for Boston Bombings

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Massachusetts. Among the charges are use of weapons of mass destruction. He is also charged in the killing of four people.

There will be a press conference at 3 pm ET.

The 74 page indictment is here.

< Zimmerman: Rachel Jeantel Finishes Testimony, For Now | Martin Family Attorneys Now Say Case Not About Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here you go (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    What do people think of indictment? (none / 0) (#2)
    by TycheSD on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    There are a few new revelations.  The downloaded material is new info and incriminating.  I still question the inside the boat confession.  Seems very ambitious for someone on verge of dying.

    I would like to get legal view of strength of indictment and whether people think case will go to trial.

    Why change of judge to Justice George O'Toole Jnr? (none / 0) (#3)
    by cate999 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:49:55 AM EST
    Thanks for your coverage of this - Why is Justice George O'Toole Jnr hearing the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev arraignment hearing and not Justice Marianne Bowler who has been hearing the case to date?

    Does this mean that if/when it goes to trial he will be the judge?

    Do they not need a probable cause hearing now the grand jury has provided the indictment?

    There is no probable cause hearing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:12:22 AM EST
    in federal court after an indictment is returned. The indictment by the grand jury is a finding of probable cause.

    Judge Bowler is a Magistrate Judge. Once the case is indicted, a District Court judge is assigned to the case by random draw. The assignment went to Judge O'Toole.

    Judge O'Toole issued an order assigning certain pre-trial matters to Magistrate Bowler, including the arraignment, so she will be handling the arraignment. An arraignment is a hearing at which the defendant pleads not guilty or guilty. Deadlines will be set (speedy trial.) Usually in a protracted case the district court sets discovery, motions deadlines and a trial date.

    It is unlikely the public will know much about what is filed in this case. Unlike other districts where dockets list the filing of a sealed pleading (just not the contents of the pleading) in MA, the docket just skips the numbers of sealed pleadings. There is no way to tell what was filed by either side, or how the court ruled. There are no entries for pleadings/orders #18 to 26,  #27 to 42 (except 31 and 37), or #47 to 58. That's roughly 30 filings prior to indictment with absolutely no reference as to what they were. I'm surprised the media hasn't challenged this.


    thanks - missing dockets (none / 0) (#5)
    by cate999 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 05:22:06 AM EST
    Thanks for explaining that - so Justice O'Toole also heard the Tarek Mehanna case I understand. Do you think that is an indication of his approach to terrorism/possible fbi entrapment cases?

    With the missing docket entries - that means more than half of the orders/pleadings have not been listed. It seems the media are not asking a lot of important questions here. No doubt that approach will continue as the case proceeds. Where is the line between national security and public interest?