Nadine Pellegrini

Nadine Pellegrini presented survivor accounts, physical exhibits and medical evidence for the prosecution, then delivered its penalty-phase opening and requested a death sentence. During jury selection, she clarified employment hardship, objected to questioning that emphasized victims' gender and a child victim, and opposed a defense juror challenge as resting on speculative emotional effects.

Her guilt-phase examinations connected witnesses' experiences of the explosions with photographs and recordings. She questioned survivors about blast injuries, emergency aid and their positions at the scene, including Karen McWatters's last exchange with Krystle Campbell and William Richard's account of his family's injuries and Martin's death. Questioning of responders developed attempts to resuscitate Krystle, treatment of Jane Richard's amputation and medical aid outside the Forum. Witnesses authenticated visual exhibits, which the court admitted during these examinations.

Pellegrini also developed the handling and location of physical evidence. Her questioning covered Black Falcon intake safeguards, scene surveying, mapping accuracy and links between recovered items and photographs. The court initially allowed the interactive scene graphic as a chalk rather than evidence, then admitted specified portions during Sarah De Lair's examination. Other examinations developed Collier's firearm and retention holster, ATM records documenting a withdrawal from Dun Meng's account, Watertown observations with identification limits, and authentication of a recovered CD, a Mercedes photograph and currency taken from Tsarnaev. She established the identity of inscribed boat slats through photographs and physical inspection. Dorm-room questioning identified Tsarnaev's side of the room and introduced recovered items, including BBs and a firework, with prior defense objections preserved.

In disputes over graphic evidence, Pellegrini argued that autopsy photographs remained necessary to prove the extent and cause of fatal injuries despite the defense's position that deaths were not contested. The judge initially reserved decision and later required facial masking. She agreed to omit similar street photographs but defended Forum stills as useful for identifying precise video moments; the court overruled objections while requiring fewer cumulative images. Her examination of Henry Nields used clothing and enlarged autopsy photographs to illustrate Martin Richard's fatal injuries and included questions about pain and recovered material.

On Day 49, Pellegrini previewed the deceased victims' lives, continuing family losses and aggravating-factor evidence. She urged jurors to assess Dzhokhar's own beliefs and actions rather than determine punishment through comparison with Tamerlan. Her subsequent questioning developed Krystle Campbell's family relationships and continuing grief, and traced Adrianna Haslet-Davis's experience from the bombing through amputation and lasting injuries. She elicited David King's testimony about blood loss, surgical risks, Martin's pain and his vulnerability to blast injuries. The court limited aspects of King's proposed testimony, later denied a defense mistrial motion, and cautioned prosecution counsel to control extended answers. Pellegrini also authenticated a courthouse surveillance still through Gary Oliveira. Although she had characterized the image as showing an unrepentant defendant in her opening, Oliveira later acknowledged under defense questioning that he could not explain Tsarnaev's gestures.

Her mitigation cross-examinations tested how far witnesses' observations could support conclusions about Dzhokhar. She emphasized the nine-year gap between Robert Ponte's classroom observations of Tamerlan and the bombing, Sam Lipson's limited childhood contact, and Amanda Ransom's acknowledgment that she had never met Dzhokhar. She questioned Alexa Guevara about marijuana and fireworks; the court struck secondhand drug-sale testimony and limited text questioning. With Jay Giedd, she elicited limits on individual maturity assessments from brain scans and group averages, alongside acknowledgment that young people can plan and understand consequences. She also argued that admitting a remorse statement without cross-examination would constrain the government's response. The court excluded the statement and accompanying email while deferring its decision on Sister Helen Prejean's testimony. At sentencing, Pellegrini announced that the victim-impact presentation was complete.