William W. Fick

William W. Fick challenged how prosecutors presented and interpreted computer records while representing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a federal public defender. He also opposed cutting written panels from the boat where Dzhokhar was found, seeking preservation of the intact boat and a jury view. Fick argued that the physical setting mattered to evaluating Dzhokhar's state of mind; no ruling was recorded in that exchange.

For digital exhibits, Fick objected to missing image thumbnails and a presentation that did not distinguish carved, recovered files from active folders. The court admitted exhibits over defense objections but agreed to presentation corrections. On cross-examination, he contrasted 151 Sony sub-exhibits with roughly half a million underlying files and tested timestamps, shared access, and deletion dates. Kevin Swindon acknowledged that he had not selected the material and could not resolve conflicting dates without further analysis or establish several proposed user or device links. On recross, he could not identify the Windows artifact behind the record-date column. The court excluded Fick's proposed Samsung inquiry into Tamerlan's motive and preparation.

Fick tested the context of translated phrases and messages. Olga LaFond rejected his alternative reading, and the court limited further wordplay questioning. Muna Shishani agreed that Arabic expressions could be used without Arabic fluency; Heidi Williams could not identify Tima as Tamerlan and corrected Fick's characterization of a message. Through Mark Spencer, Fick contrasted the laptops' search histories and developed evidence suggesting that Complete Inspire passed between them through a missing Patriot drive. He requested the complete Samsung search history to avoid selective presentation, but the court favored targeted excerpts. On redirect, Spencer qualified what Sony search artifacts could show, and the court admitted 13 Samsung pages over the prosecution's scope objection.

In the penalty phase, Fick argued that Tamerlan's alleged violence and coercive control bore on his dominance within the sibling relationship. During the Waltham-evidence dispute, he argued that reliability concerns went to weight while acknowledging gaps in electronic corroboration; no ruling was recorded. His examinations developed accounts of Tamerlan's angry mosque interruptions, objection to halal Thanksgiving turkey sales, and store visit after the explosions. Gerald R. Grant, Jr. authenticated emails, YouTube activity, and phone records during Fick's examination; the court permitted a contested video involving Tamerlan and his daughter. Fick returned to Spencer to compare the brothers' computers, examine encrypted Samsung files, and distinguish desktop images from browser-cache storage.

Fick sought access to overseas witnesses, proposing a deposition or video testimony from Magomed Kartashov and protections against renewed interviews through Russian security authorities that he feared would deter family witnesses. The court reserved the disclosure and immigration-assistance dispute and later allowed Kartashov's interview report with a caution about reliability and weight. It denied Fick's request to compel production of government-held defense-witness statements. In family examinations, he elicited childhood kindness, caregiving, and customs governing family authority; Naida Suleimanova identified Tamerlan's recorded voice. His questioning of Mirra Kuznetsov explored observations underlying family impressions and descriptions in an FBI report, but the judge limited that questioning and other broader family-history inquiries.

Fick requested a mistrial after arguing that a prosecution question implied lack of remorse from Dzhokhar's courtroom silence or demeanor. The court denied the motion and barred updated character assessments from a witness whose observations were limited to childhood. He also opposed suggestions of unrestricted correspondence or book writing under special administrative measures; the court limited the government's rebuttal to general testimony. After Steven Mellin's closing, Fick objected to minimizing the verdict form and denigrating consideration of mitigation. The court noted the objections and declined corrective action.