Connect with us

National Security

Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty Option for Boston Marathon Bomber

Published

on

boston marathon bomber us appeals court

A huge Supreme Court ruling came down to reinstate the potential for a death sentence to be handed down to the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. The Justices voted 6-3 to reinstate the death sentence for the terrorist.

An earlier court’s ruling was tossed out that jurors should have been informed of the role his brother played as an accomplice. The defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, committed the April 2013 terror attack at the Boston Marathon.

The terror attack occurred towards the finish line of the Boston Marathon where the two brothers placed homemade bombs make out of pressure cookers into backpacks.

The attack killed three and severely injured 255. Writing the opinion of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote “The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one.”

Daily Mail reports:

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled in 2020 that the trial judge improperly excluded evidence that could have shown Tsarnaev was deeply influenced by his older brother, Tamerlan, and was somehow less responsible for the carnage. Tamerlan was shot dead by cops in the Boston suburb of Watertown four days after the terror attack.

The appeals court also faulted the judge for not sufficiently questioning jurors about their exposure to extensive news coverage of the bombing, but the Supreme Court has now ruled that this was a moot point. 

Three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing when “death is at stake…particular judicial care” is required. “In my view, the Court of Appeals acted lawfully in holding that the District Court should have allowed Dzhokhar to introduce this evidence,” Breyer wrote.

Daniel Habib, a lawyer for Tsarnaev, declined to comment about the ruling. Tsarnaev was found guilty in 2015 for the deaths of Lingzi Lu, a 23-year-old Boston University graduate student from China; Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant manager from Medford, Massachusetts; and 8-year-old Martin Richard, of Boston.

Continue Reading
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. BARBARA

    March 5, 2022 at 3:23 pm

    SORRY , BUT HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THE HARM AND DEATH THAT IT BROUGHT. – YES HE SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY -IT WAS AN ACT TERRORISM. AND TO GIVE US A FINGER. SHOWS HE HAS NO REMORSE OF WHAT HE DID.!!! SO BE IT.

  2. catherine

    March 5, 2022 at 6:49 pm

    Someone CUT his finger off. he deserves the death penalty.

  3. Oliver Harris

    March 7, 2022 at 9:36 am

    Supreme Court to Tsarnev: ‘We’re not dzhoking.Three strikes and you’re out’

  4. Pherbia Sstephens

    March 7, 2022 at 10:59 am

    He got what he deserved. Why should he live after taking lives and leaving so many injured?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Immigration

BREAKING: Senate votes down both articles of impeachment against Mayorkas in party-line vote

Published

on

Mayorkas

The Senate voted down two articles of impeachment Wednesday which alleged Department of Homeland Security Secretary  Alejandro Mayorkas engaged in the “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” regarding the southern border in his capacity as DHS secretary. The second claimed Mayorkas had breached public trust.

What resulted in a party-line vote, began with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., proposing a point of order declaring the first article unconstitutional, to which the majority of senators agreed following several failed motions by Republicans. The article was deemed unconstitutional by a vote of 51-48, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voting present.

Fox News reports:

Schumer’s point of order was proposed after his request for unanimous consent, which would have provided a set amount of time for debate among the senators, as well as votes on two GOP resolutions and a set amount of agreed upon points of order, was objected to by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Schmitt stated in his objection that the Senate should conduct a full trial into the impeachment articles against Mayorkas, rather than the debate and points of order suggested by Schumer’s unanimous consent request, which would be followed by a likely successful motion to dismiss the articles. 

Republican senators took issue with Schumer’s point of order, as agreeing to it would effectively kill the first of the two articles. Several GOP lawmakers proposed motions, which took precedence over the point of order, to adjourn or table the point, among other things. But all GOP motions failed. 

After another batch of motions to avoid voting on Schumer’s second point of order, which would deem the second article unconstitutional, the Senate agreed to it. The vote was along party lines 51-49, with Murkowski rejoining the Republicans. 

Continue Reading

Trending