Verdict Reached in Boston Bombing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Had Murdered Krystle Marie Campbell, Lingzi Lu, Martin Richard, and Officer Sean Collier, He Was Here in This Courthouse
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-6001 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Daniel Habib, with whom Deirdre D. von Dornum, David Patton, Mia Eisner-Grynberg, Anthony O'Rourke, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Clifford Gardner, Law Offices of Cliff Gardner, Gail K. Johnson, and Johnson & Klein, PLLC were on brief, for appellant. John Remington Graham on brief for James Feltzer, Ph.D., Mary Maxwell, Ph.D., LL.B., and Cesar Baruja, M.D., amici curiae. George H. Kendall, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Timothy P. O'Toole, and Miller & Chevalier on brief for Eight Distinguished Local Citizens, amici curiae. David A. Ruhnke, Ruhnke & Barrett, Megan Wall-Wolff, Wall- Wolff LLC, Michael J. Iacopino, Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey, Benjamin Silverman, and Law Office of Benjamin Silverman PLLC on brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae. William A. Glaser, Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom Andrew E. Lelling, United States Attorney, Nadine Pellegrini, Assistant United States Attorney, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, John F. Palmer, Attorney, National Security Division, Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, and Matthew S. Miner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for appellee. July 31, 2020 THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. OVERVIEW Together with his older brother Tamerlan, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated two homemade bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, thus committing one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks since the 9/11 atrocities.1 Radical jihadists bent on killing Americans, the duo caused battlefield-like carnage. -
Notes on a Terrorism Trial •Fi Preventive Prosecution, Â
Notes on a Terrorism Trial – Preventive Prosecution, “Material Support” and The Role of The Judge after United States v. Mehanna George D. Brown* Abstract The terrorism trial of Tarek Mehanna, primarily for charges of providing “material support” to terrorism, presented elements of a preventive prosecution as well as the problem of applying Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) to terrorism‐related speech. This Article examines both aspects of the case, with emphasis on the central role of the trial judge. As criminal activity becomes more amorphous, the jury looks to the judge for guidance. His rulings on potentially prejudicial evidence which may show just how much of a “terrorist” the defendant is are the key aspect of this guidance. If the defendant is found guilty, the sentence imposed by the judge can have a profound impact on future preventive prosecutions. Particularly important is the judge’s handling of the Sentencing Guidelines’ “Terrorism Enhancement.” As for speech issues, there is enough ambiguity in HLP to let lower courts formulate and apply its test differently. HLP emphasizes co‐ordination with a foreign terrorist organization before speech can be criminalized. There is now movement toward a concept of one‐way coordination that can turn speech prosecutions into a form of general prevention of potential terrorists. All of these issues were central to Mehanna. The Article’s analysis of how the trial court handled them is meant to increase understanding of them, and to highlight the central role of the judge. I. Introduction -
[Do Not Publish] in the United States
Case: 19-10245 Date Filed:(1 of 23)06/19/2020 Page: 1 of 22 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10245 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cv-00919-CEM-GJK ESTATE OF IBRAGIM TODASHEV, by Hassan Shibly, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ibragim Todashev, and for the Survivors, Abdulbaki Todasheve, Father, and Zulla Todasheva, Mother, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AARON McFARLANE, individually, CHRISTOPHER JOHN SAVARD, individually, CURTIS CINELLI, JOEL GAGNE, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (June 19, 2020) ∗ Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. ∗ The Honorable William B. Traxler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 19-10245 Date Filed:(2 of 23)06/19/2020 Page: 2 of 22 PER CURIAM: Hassan Shibly, as personal representative of the estate of Ibragim Todashev and on behalf of Todashev’s survivors, (the “Plaintiff”), brought this action against the United States of America, FBI Special Agent Aaron McFarlane, Joint Terrorism Task Force Officer Christopher Savard of the Orlando Police Department, and Massachusetts State Troopers Curtis Cinelli and Joel Gagne. The lawsuit arises out of a joint federal and state investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings and a triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts, which led to Todashev being shot and killed by Agent McFarlane. Count I asserted claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, for the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of McFarlane, and for the wrongful death of Todashev. -
Aaron's Law: Bringing Sensibility to the Computer Fraud and Abuse
AARON’S LAW: BRINGING SENSIBILITY TO THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT Mark Murfin* I. INTRODUCTION “Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.”1 With those words, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz celebrated the indictment of twenty-four-year-old Aaron Swartz for allegedly downloading and distributing a substantial proportion of JSTOR’s digitized academic journal archive.2 Eighteen months later, Aaron Swartz tragically committed suicide.3 While the exact reasons for his actions will probably never be clear, his family claims that the prosecutors wanted to make an example out of Swartz, and the overzealous attack they mounted against him contributed to his depression and suicide.4 The case against him rested on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), a law enacted well before the coming of age of the Internet and the dawn of the information age.5 If given the maximum sentence allowed by the CFAA, Aaron Swartz would have spent thirty-five years in prison; more days than he had seen in his entire life.6 To an Internet prodigy who made significant contributions to it by the age of fourteen,7 this shadow of imprisonment might as well have been a death sentence. * Mark Murfin is a third-year law student expecting his J.D. from Southern Illinois University School of Law in May 2014. 1. -
Boston Marathon Bombings
ϐ ͳͷǡ ʹͲͳ͵ Prepared by the Inspectors General of the: 10 APRIL 2014 NOTE: This report is an unclassified summary of a 168-page classified report that was also issued today, 10 April 2014, by the Inspectors General for the Intelligence Community, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security. Redactions in this document are the result of classification and sensitivity designations we received from agencies and departments that provided information to the OIGs for this review. As to several of these classification and sensitivity designations, the OIGs disagreed with the bases asserted. We are requesting that the relevant entities reconsider those designations so that we can unredact those portions and make this information available to the public. I. INTRODUCTION On April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs placed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon detonated within seconds of each other, killing three and injuring more than two hundred people. Law enforcement officials identified brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as primary suspects in the bombings. After an extensive search for the then- unidentified suspects, law enforcement officials encountered Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Watertown, Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot during the encounter and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who fled the scene, was apprehended the following day and remains in federal custody. A decade earlier, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev immigrated to the United States from Kyrgyzstan with their parents Anzor Tsarnaev and Zubeidat Tsarnaeva. Anzor Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen, his wife Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, and their son Dzhokhar Tsarnaev arrived in the United States from Kyrgyzstan in 2002. -
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
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. -
Terrorism Research Institute Denying the Link Between Islamist Ideology
Terrorism Research Institute Denying the Link between Islamist Ideology and Jihadist Terrorism “Political Correctness” and the Undermining of Counterterrorism Author(s): Jeffrey M. Bale Source: Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 7, No. 5 (October 2013), pp. 5-46 Published by: Terrorism Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26297006 Accessed: 03-07-2018 14:08 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms This article is licensed under a Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Terrorism Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives on Terrorism This content downloaded from 132.229.180.47 on Tue, 03 Jul 2018 14:08:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 7, Issue 5 I. Articles Denying the Link between Islamist Ideology and Jihadist Terrorism: “Political Correctness” and the Undermining of Counterterrorism by Jeffrey M. Bale “[I]f your enemy is a terrorist and he professes to be an Islamist, it may be wise to take him at -
ACLUM's Reply to the Government's Opposition & Motion for Summary
Case 1:14-cv-11759-ADB Document 72 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-cv-11759-ADB v. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; and CARMEN ORTIZ, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendants. ACLUM’S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Case 1:14-cv-11759-ADB Document 72 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................7 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................9 I. The FBI fails to identify a single technique or procedure that would be revealed by disclosing the withheld documents. ..........................................9 II. The FBI must demonstrate, but has not demonstrated, a reasonable risk of circumvention of the law. ..........................................................................12 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................18 2 Case 1:14-cv-11759-ADB Document 72 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abdelfattah v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 851 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 2012) .........................................................................................11 ACLU of Mich. v. FBI, No. 11-13154, 2012 WL 4513626 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2012)........................................11, 13 ACLU of N.J. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 11-2553, 2010 WL 4660515 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2012) ..........................................................13 ACLU of Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 09–0642, 2011 WL 1900140 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2011) ..............................................16 ACLU of Wash. v. U.S Dep’t of Justice, No. 09-0642, 2011 WL 887731 (W.D. -
Revisiting the Public Safety Exception to Miranda for Suspected Terrorists
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 107 | Issue 3 Article 3 Summer 2017 Revisiting the Public Safety Exception to Miranda for Suspected Terrorists: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the Bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon Hannah Lonky Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Hannah Lonky, Revisiting the Public Safety Exception to Miranda for Suspected Terrorists: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the Bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon, 107 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 393 (2017). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol107/iss3/3 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 3. LONKY (JWM Final) (Corrected Page 393) 7/20/2017 12:24 PM 0091-4169/17/10703-0393 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 107, No. 3 Copyright © 2017 by Hannah Lonky Printed in U.S.A. REVISITING THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO MIRANDA FOR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS: DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV AND THE BOMBING OF THE 2013 BOSTON MARATHON Hannah Lonky* This Comment examines the application of the public safety exception to Miranda to cases of domestic terrorism, looking particularly at the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. By comparing the Department of Justice’s War on Terror policies to the Warren Court’s rationale for Miranda, this Comment argues that courts should require law enforcement officers to have reasonable knowledge of an immediate threat to public safety before they may properly invoke the Quarles public safety exception. -
Cryptome Messages 1
Cryptome 27 February Timothy Felix Miltz (BillCaseyHoneyPot) A sends: Re: http://cryptome.org/2015/02/wapo-BillCaseyHoneyPot.htm The commenter "BillCaseyHoneyPot" has made other postings dating back to 2010. I saved them as text files. Publish them if you're interested. FYI, a commenter on this blog post - http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-billcaseyhoneypot- mystery.html - claims that "BillCaseyHoneyPot" is Timothy Felix Miltz, "a software engineer who first started working for CIA in the 'Bush Sr era', which would've been 1975-1976. He says he left the Agency before 'Homeland (Security)' was created, i.e. before 2002." Messages 1 http://business.time.com/2013/01/14/mit-orders-review-of-aaron-swartz-suicide- as-soul-searching-begins/ [article omitted] paindeer Jan 14, 2013 I wonder what US DoD projects at MIT are pretty much a waste bin now. This Prosecutor needs to step down before this evolves into some serious repercussions. Ollie North ? gets off - Aaron gets 35 years. Wow - really ? DOJ is LIKELY going to be getting some very angry calls from the DoD on this one - I suspect it's HIGHLY LIKELY - YOU NEVER CAN TELL. Little surprises here and there PROBABLY- ALL EXPLICITLY TAGGING BACK TO Aaron. Hey- maybe those hypothetical people will get FIFTY YEARS ! Actually, it's probably a GOOD IDEA to reveal just what kind of KILLING IS GOING ON - and who built what and and who Say- southern tribal region in Waziristan ? REAL SMART MOVE ON THIS ONE DOJ - 35 years for abusing a LIBRARY'S NETWORK SERVICES - wow - I signed the petition to get this clown out of office, I'm making some calls and going to see if the heat can be turned up on Ortiz. -
American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat
American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat /name redacted/ Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism February 19, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R41416 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat Summary This report describes homegrown violent jihadists and the plots and attacks that have occurred since 9/11. For this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, lawful permanent residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. The term “jihadist” describes radicalized individuals using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate, or jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph. The term “violent jihadist” characterizes jihadists who have made the jump to illegally supporting, plotting, or directly engaging in violent terrorist activity. The report also discusses the radicalization process and the forces driving violent extremist activity. It analyzes post-9/11 domestic jihadist terrorism and describes law enforcement and intelligence efforts to combat terrorism and the challenges associated with those efforts. Appendix A provides details about each of the post-9/11 homegrown jihadist terrorist plots and attacks. There is an “executive summary” at the beginning that summarizes the report’s findings. Congressional -
Boston Marathon Bombings
ϐ ͳͷǡ ʹͲͳ͵ Prepared by the Inspectors General of the: 10 APRIL 2014 NOTE: This report is an unclassified summary of a 168-page classified report that was also issued today, 10 April 2014, by the Inspectors General for the Intelligence Community, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security. Redactions in this document are the result of classification and sensitivity designations we received from agencies and departments that provided information to the OIGs for this review. As to several of these classification and sensitivity designations, the OIGs disagreed with the bases asserted. We are requesting that the relevant entities reconsider those designations so that we can unredact those portions and make this information available to the public. I. INTRODUCTION On April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs placed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon detonated within seconds of each other, killing three and injuring more than two hundred people. Law enforcement officials identified brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as primary suspects in the bombings. After an extensive search for the then- unidentified suspects, law enforcement officials encountered Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Watertown, Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot during the encounter and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who fled the scene, was apprehended the following day and remains in federal custody. A decade earlier, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev immigrated to the United States from Kyrgyzstan with their parents Anzor Tsarnaev and Zubeidat Tsarnaeva. Anzor Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen, his wife Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, and their son Dzhokhar Tsarnaev arrived in the United States from Kyrgyzstan in 2002.