Stephen Silva

Stephen Silva testified for the prosecution on Day 34 that he lent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whom he called Jahar, a Ruger P95 and ammunition around February 2013. He identified the firearm admitted as Exhibit 928 and described repeated unsuccessful requests for its return, including at their last meeting in early April. His account concerned personally supplying the gun, not witnessing its later use. Before his testimony, the court allowed context about intended drug-business use as part of the government's narrative rather than evidence offered for Rule 404(b) purposes.

Silva described a close friendship beginning in eighth grade. On direct examination, he recalled comments about American foreign policy, Chechen identity, and one occasion when Jahar called him a kafir, while qualifying his understanding and recollection. On cross-examination, he agreed that Jahar was kindhearted, said he had never seen him act violently or fight, and described their religious discussions as occasional and not in depth. Silva had never met Tamerlan. The court limited questions about the brothers' relationship and struck an answer that went beyond the permitted inquiry.

Miriam Conrad tested the gun account and Silva's prior statements. Silva placed the borrowing conversation sometime in January or February and said his belief that Jahar still possessed the gun rested on Jahar's statement and its nonreturn. He admitted withholding information about his own robbery and making false statements to look better, but denied lying to obtain his deal. His guilty plea and hope for sentencing consideration were also explored: after initially emphasizing the judge's authority, he acknowledged the prosecutor's discretion over a substantial-assistance motion.

On redirect, Silva explained the cooperation agreement's truthfulness requirements and sentencing limits and corrected an answer about authorship of an interview report. On recross, he said the government had not told him his admitted lies would result in cancellation of the agreement or refusal to seek a sentencing reduction. He confirmed his understanding that he faced a five-year minimum without the government's motion and was then excused. The court later instructed jurors to evaluate his testimony with great care and caution because cooperation could reduce his sentence.