Mark Bezy

Mark Bezy testified for the defense on Day 59 and Day 60 about the restrictive confinement Tsarnaev could face. A retired Bureau of Prisons official and correctional consultant, he described special administrative measures, or SAMs, including monitored calls, screened mail, noncontact visits and media restrictions. He explained single-cell housing in ADX's H unit and opined that, if Tsarnaev were placed at ADX, his monitoring classifications would keep him there even if SAMs were not renewed.

Cross-examination focused on the basis and certainty of that account. Steven D. Mellin elicited that Bezy had never worked at ADX or administered or monitored SAMs, and that 95 percent of his company's income came from capital cases. Bezy defended his familiarity with ADX by describing institutional visits and reviews. He acknowledged that SAMs can end and, based on interview information, that nine terrorism-convicted ADX inmates had restrictions removed or not renewed since 2009. He also clarified that Tsarnaev's current monthly telephone allowance was a minimum, not a maximum, while emphasizing that additional contact and advancement require approval.

On redirect, Bezy distinguished H unit phases from the broader ADX step-down program. He said renewals were tracked, knew of no terrorism-convicted inmate whose SAMs ended through a forgotten renewal, and explained that Phase 3 required Department of Justice modification of SAMs. His continued-placement opinion rested on special supervision, broad publicity and his assessment that other inmates would threaten Tsarnaev's safety. On recross, he acknowledged reliance on an FBI expert for his account of court action concerning SAMs, accepted that other classification factors could override those discussed, and confirmed that Bureau of Prisons professionals, not he, made placement decisions.

The defense sought a mistrial over Bezy's cross-examination, alleging improper cost references and misleading impressions about future confinement and earlier defense challenges to SAMs. The court denied the motion, interpreting the cost questions as explaining institutional incentives for step-down rather than advocating a sentencing choice. It called for clarification of confinement conditions, including the distinction between ADX general population and an ordinary penitentiary.