No. 20-443 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JEFFREY B. WALL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOHN C. DEMERS Assistant Attorney General BRIAN C. RABBITT Acting Assistant Attorney General ERIC J. FEIGIN Deputy Solicitor General CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL MICHAEL R. HUSTON Assistants to the Solicitor General WILLIAM A. GLASER JOSEPH F. PALMER Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that respondent’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the district court, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard, or seen about respondent’s case. 2. Whether the district court committed reversible error at the penalty phase of respondent’s trial by ex- cluding evidence that respondent’s older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which respondent was convicted. (I) RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D. Mass.): United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 13-cr-10200 (Jan. 15, 2016) (amended judgment) United States Court of Appeals (1st Cir.): In re Tsarnaev, No. 14-2362 (Jan. 3, 2015) (denying first mandamus petition) In re Tsarnaev, No. 15-1170 (Feb. 27, 2015) (denying second mandamus petition) United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 16-6001 (July 31, 2020) (resolving direct appeal) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 2 Statutory provision involved ........................................................ 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 14 A. The court of appeals erred in applying an inf lexible voir dire rule to respondent’s case ............... 15 1. The district court’s extensive jury-selection procedures appropriately and effectively ensured that respondent received a fair trial ........ 16 2. The court of appeals wrongly invalidated respondent’s capital sentences based on a previously unmentioned and inflexible voir dire rule .............................................................. 21 B. The court of appeals erred in finding reversible error in the penalty-phase exclusion of evidence of independent crimes by respondent’s brother .......... 26 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the Waltham evidence ....................... 27 2. Any error in excluding the Waltham evidence was harmless ............................................................. 29 C. The questions presented warrant review ..................... 30 Conclusion ................................................................................... 33 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (July 31, 2020) ...... 1a Appendix B — District court order regarding discovery (Apr. 17, 2014) ........................ 189a Appendix C — District court opinion and order regarding venue (Sept. 24, 2014) ........... 190a Appendix D — District court opinion and order regarding venue (Jan. 2, 2015) ............... 202a Appendix E — Court of appeals order regarding mandamus (Jan. 3, 2015) ........................ 216a Appendix F — District court opinion and order regarding venue (Feb. 6, 2015) .............. 221a (III) IV Table of contents—Continued: Page Appendix G — Court of appeals order regarding mandamus (Feb. 27, 2015) ...................... 230a Appendix H — District court opinion and order regarding post-trial motions (Jan. 15, 2016) .......................................... 303a Appendix I — District court prospective-juror questionnaire (Mar. 17, 2015) ................. 350a Appendix J — Statutory provision ..................................... 384a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) .............................. 10 Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408 (1895) ................... 17 Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) ...................................... 33 Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019) ................... 32 Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633 (2016) .................................. 32 Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) ................... passim Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1022 (1969) .......................................... 11, 21, 22, 23 Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) ................................. 31 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) ................... 17 Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981)........................................................ 18, 31 Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010)..................................................... passim United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) ................... 25 United States v. Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1120 (1997) .......................... 31 United States v. Lawes, 292 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002) ................................................ 32 V Cases—Continued: Page United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000).............................................................. 31 United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) .................. 32 United States v. Medina, 761 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1985) ................................................. 23 United States v. Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................. 23 United States v. Umaña, 750 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 576 U.S. 1035 (2015) .......................... 27 United States v. Vest, 842 F.2d 1319 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 965 (1988) ....................................... 23 United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) ........................ 31 Constitution, statutes, and rule: U.S. Const. Amend. VI .......................................................... 17 Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 3591 et seq. .......................................................... 27 18 U.S.C. 3593(c) ............................................. 13, 27, 384a 18 U.S.C. 3595(c)(2) ......................................................... 29 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2012) ...................................................... 6, 11 18 U.S.C. 2332a ........................................................................ 6 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(a) ........................................................... 17 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Acting Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 188a) is reported at 968 F.3d 24. The court’s order denying respondent’s first petition for a writ of manda- mus (App., infra, 216a-220a) is reported at 775 F.3d 457. The court’s order denying respondent’s second petition for a writ of mandamus (App., infra, 230a-302a) is re- ported at 780 F.3d 14. The order of the district court denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal (App., infra, 303a-349a) is reported at 157 F. Supp. 3d 57. The district court’s orders denying re- spondent’s motions for a change of venue (App., infra, 190a-201a, 202a-215a, 221a-229a) are not published in (1) 2 the Federal Supplement but are available at 2015 WL 505776, 2015 WL 45879, and 2014 WL 4823882. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on July 31, 2020. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED The full text of 18 U.S.C. 3593(c) is reprinted in the appendix to this petition. App., infra, 384a-385a. STATEMENT Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respondent was convicted of 30 offenses for perpetrating the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing—“one of the worst” acts of terrorism on United States soil since September 11, 2001. App., infra, 1a. The attack killed three people, including an eight-year-old boy, and caused “horrific, life-altering injuries” to many others. Ibid. On the jury’s recommendation, the district court sentenced respondent to death on six counts, and also imposed 20 sentences of life imprisonment. Id. at 18a. The court of appeals affirmed 27 of respondent’s convictions, re- versed three convictions, vacated his capital sentences, and remanded for a new penalty proceeding. Id. at 1a- 188a. 1. a. Respondent is a “[r]adical jihadist[ ] bent on killing Americans.” App., infra, 1a. In 2012, while in college in Massachusetts, respondent obtained an elec- tronic copy of an al Qaeda publication that included in- structions on making bombs and exhortations from al Qaeda leaders for “Muslims in the West” to commit ter- rorist attacks. Gov’t C.A Br. 8 (citation omitted). In late 2012, respondent told a friend