Sister Helen Prejean

Sister Helen Prejean testified for the defense during the penalty phase on Day 61 about her meetings with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and her belief that he was genuinely sorry. She estimated that they met five times, beginning in early March and continuing until a couple of days before her testimony. She described respectful religious discussions and an easily established rapport. Her opinion rested on his spontaneous response about the victims' suffering, lowered eyes, pain in his voice, and the trust developed through their meetings.

The court permitted Prejean to give a lay opinion based on her observations, not an expert assessment grounded in experience with death-row prisoners. It allowed a limited defendant statement as a basis for that opinion, while restricting other statements, moral judgments, and predictions of future growth or lifelong regret. During direct examination, the court repeatedly limited broader explanations as Weinreb objected.

On cross-examination, Weinreb explored Prejean's categorical opposition to capital punishment, organizational roles, public advocacy, and ministry funding. On redirect, she acknowledged that her opposition influenced her opinion but clarified that she would not tell the jury Tsarnaev was sincerely remorseful unless she believed it. She denied defense payment for her appearance and defense payments or donations to her order or ministry. After she was excused, the defense rested.

Her testimony became a disputed basis for the penalty-phase closing arguments. Clarke relied on it to argue present remorse and potential for redemption; the judge cautioned her when she invoked Prejean's experience. Weinreb argued in rebuttal that Prejean's advocacy and the ambiguity of Tsarnaev's reported words limited their significance. Conrad objected that the prosecution was criticizing testimony the defense had been barred from eliciting. The court upheld the rebuttal and denied a defense reply and the requested curative instruction concerning Prejean.