Lawyer will fight for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev' life

[morningfog]

Federal prosecutors are facing a legal obstacle course — including a highly experienced anti-death-penalty defense attorney, a largely liberal Massachusetts jury pool and multiple appeals — before they can win an execution order against accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Tsarnaev has a powerhouse advocate in attorney Judy Clarke, who won life sentences for several high-profile mass killers who were facing the death penalty — Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Tucson, Ariz., mass shooter Jared Loughner.

Famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Clarke is more than capable of winning over even a Boston jury.

“She’ll have two or three 
jurors in tears by the time this case is over, because she’s 
really that good,” Dershowitz said. “And she’s an expert in this. … In Boston, she has a much 
easier job than she had in other parts of the country. Bostonians have very diverse views on the death penalty.”

During the sentencing trial, also known as the “Death Trial,” that will follow a conviction, the normal federal rules of evidence take a backseat, and defense 
attorneys and prosecutors can try to pull on the jurors’ heartstrings, according to Peter White, a former U.S. attorney.

At that stage, marathon bombings victims can tell jurors their stories and show their life-altering injuries. Tsarnaev may testify about his own life — or any mitigating factors not 
directly related to the evidence in the case.

“As a defense 
attorney, you have to gather the evidence and present it to the jury in a way that humanizes the 
defendant,” White said.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/01/lawyer_will_fight_for_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_life

The exorbitant costs of the process, alone, makes this a stupid decision from Holder. Seeking to take a life makes it arcane and barbaric.

[SCUBANOW]

1. Sorry I have no problem with the death penalty in this case.

[JJChambers]

2. The only two problems with the DP

1. We need to eliminate the risk of executing an innocent by raising the standard for cases in which the DP is applicable, such as cases where there is indisputable evidence such as video or DNA.

2. After we complete step 1, we need to eliminate the lengthy appeals process. Allow the condemned one appeal, and then once that appeal is exhausted, the condemned is to be summarily executed by one of the following methods, and is allowed to pick for himself or herself:

A. Hanging
B. Firing squad
C. Lethal injection
D. Electric chair
E. Gas chamber
F. Method that was used by the condemned upon his or her victim(s)

[morningfog]

4. There is almost never indisputable evidence.

And that says nothing to the questions of law.

I would like to see the standard raised to "beyond ALL doubt" in all cases, especially those eligible for death or life in prison.

Te lengthy appeals process is necessary to ensure that the convicted is factually guilty and that legal procedures were followed.

The easier solution is no death penalty.

[JJChambers]

5. I disagree

There is no need for a lengthy appeals process if the crime is captured on video or DNA removes all doubt. Swift execution reduces cost and eliminates one of the major gripes about the DP. Raise the standard and hasten the time on death row to a matter of weeks after sentencing, at the most.

[morningfog]

6. DNA and/or video evidence is almost never indisputable.

The only crimes eligible for DP are those in which someone was killed. Rarely are killings captured on video where the identity ad the circumstance are perfectly captured. DNA rarely comes into play if there is no rape or struggle. Even then, DNA evidence does little more than prove a person was at the scene or with the victim. It is never as open and shut as you hypothesize. You are making case against the DP.

[JJChambers]

12. I think you're stretching

You're underestimating the availability of concrete physical evidence. I agree that the DP should be rare, as I think it should require a higher standard than mere conviction, so I am not troubled by the thought that it would be rare. I also think you're dismissing the sheer amount of evidence available today that hasn't been in the past -- when eyewitness identification too often lead to innocents being convicted.

Here is a realistic and, sadly, a common scenario to consider:

A woman's body is found bound and naked. She has been raped and then shot - executed. Video is discovered in the area of her body that shows a man dumping the body; the vehicle is clear enough to be identified as belonging to a person with a history of violent sex crimes. The suspect DNA is located under the victim's fingernails and, in addition, a hair from the suspect is found in the tape used to bind the victim. Further investigation reveals that the suspect's cellular phone plotted at the scene. And finally, a firearm is located in the suspect's possessions when he is apprehended and ballistic analysis shows it is a match to the murder weapon.

Is that degree of physical evidence available in every murder case? No, it isn't, which is why the death penalty should be limited and the standard raised. But cases with that much evidence (and more) are probably more common than you think. In such cases execution should swiftly follow conviction and sentencing.

[linuxman]

7. I disagree.

"Beyond all REASONABLE doubt" is the standard for a reason.

Beyond ALL doubt is an impossible standard to follow. Followed to the letter, nobody would be convicted of anything. Ever. Even the most seemingly airtight case would result in an acquittal every time.

[morningfog]

3. I have a problem with DP in EVERY case, but especially

When the defendant is young. If the bombing had occurred just a little more than a year earlier, he would not be eligible for the DP. I think using the age 18 a the cutoff is arbitrary and kit supported by science.

[davidpdx]

8. As his lawyer should fight for his life

Hopefully they will be successful at preventing him from getting the death penalty. A long prison term is much more fitting.

I'm wondering if there was an offer and the defense flat out said no in hopes of getting him acquitted.

[Walk away]

9. They will never get the Death Sentence ...

It only takes one juror to vote "no". I'm not on the jury so it doesn't matter how I feel about it but I would make book on at least one person unable to send a teenager to the gallows.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Isn't this what any attorney should do for their client?

In this country, even the most heinous criminal deserves a fair trial. Present the evidence on both sides and let the jury decide the case.

[Iggo]

11. Good. That's his job, and he should do it to the best of his ability.

Who's got a problem with that?