OPINION | This article contains opinion. This site is licensed to publish this content.
The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reimpose the death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
A federal appeals court ruling initially voided the penalty on grounds that the judge at Tsarnaev’s 2015 trial improperly restricted the questioning of prospective jurors and was wrong to exclude evidence of a separate crime two years before the bombing.
Despite this attempt, the high court shot down the argument in his final ruling.
Tsarnaev was convicted of planting and detonating two pressure-cooker bombs at separate spots near the marathon finish line in 2013.
The blasts killed three people and left hundreds of others with serious injuries.
Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were born in Kyrgyzstan and are of Chechen descent.
The two brothers became Islamic extremist radicals. Tamerlan was shot and killed by police during the manhunt following the bombing that shocked the state and the nation.
The manhunt occurred in Boston’s suburbs.
The surviving brother attempted to flee and hid in a boat in a backyard in Watertown, Massachusetts.
Authorities located and arrested him.
More on this story via Daily Wire:
After being found guilty and sentenced to death, the bomber’s attorney argued that while he did act as an accomplice, “he was easily manipulated by his brother, who they called the mastermind,” NBC News reported. The bomber’s legal counsel also argued the judge in the original case acted improperly in several ways:
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ordered a new sentencing hearing, ruling unanimously that U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. failed to allow enough questioning of potential jurors about how closely they followed extensive news coverage of the bombings.
The appeals court also said the judge should have allowed [the bomber’s] lawyers to bring up a 2011 triple homicide in the Boston suburb of Waltham that investigators suspected was committed by [the elder bomber]. The defense wanted to use the earlier crime to show that the younger [bomber] was dominated by his violent older brother and therefore was less responsible for the bombings, because of his influence.
Yet, the Justice Department under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden argued that the death sentence was appropriate and that the earlier evidence purportedly showing a pattern of violent abuse from the older brother should be inadmissible.
— Advertisement —
“The Justice Department said the evidence of who committed the Waltham killings was unreliable,” NBC News reported. “[The older bomber] and another man suspected of having been at the crime scene were both dead by the time of the bombing trial, so there was no way to know for certain what happened.
Likewise, the DOJ “argued that holding a new sentencing hearing would further traumatize the Boston community,” according to NBC. Attorney General Merrick Garland has placed a moratorium on executions but did not apply that order in this case.
