Browse reporter-marked sidebars from the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 183 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
Bruck requested deletion of death-penalty burden language and questioned whether the process summary omitted the burden to show statutory aggravating factors.
Court's actionThe court agreed to delete text after the word case in the first sentence and found the summary acceptable because statutory aggravation was addressed on the preceding page.
Conrad requested that prospective jurors wait after questioning so counsel could propose additional questions based on their questionnaires or oral answers.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to pause with each juror so counsel could propose follow-up questions, while limiting further inquiry to particular ambiguities or potential inconsistencies rather than indirect attorney voir dire.
The court proposed discussing juror challenges after the first 20 jurors rather than after every five to save time.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the audio remain off briefly and directed proceeding to the next juror, then allowed Weinreb to speak on the record.
Counsel requested follow-up on a juror’s brother’s Vietnam service and Purple Heart, and raised concerns about a prior juror’s economic hardship, understanding of life sentencing, and possible automatic preference for the death penalty.
Court's actionThe court directed that the juror be brought in and said questioning would resume on audio, with preliminary questions before the relevant question and another audio cutoff afterward.
A sidebar conference is noted, but its subject is not stated.
The sidebar concerned an excusal the judge understood was agreed, with counsel seeking confirmation that the woman would be excused.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the woman and the others not be told of the agreement, said she would be treated like everyone else, and stated she would be excused if the parties agreed.
A sidebar discussion took place outside the public’s hearing.
Court's actionThe judge indicated that audio could resume.
A juror clarified that a previously mentioned change concerned the juror’s views.
Court's actionThe judge directed a return to the audio.
The judge asked about a juror’s negative views of law-enforcement officers with attitudes of superiority, which the juror described as general.
Court's actionThe judge authorized returning to audio because the question was unrelated to the other questions.
The judge considered briefly questioning person 31 to avoid signaling a possible excusal in advance.
Court's actionThe judge indicated that proceedings could return to the audio record.
Counsel discussed press access during voir dire, transmission failures, and the government's request to renew a public-trial waiver each morning.
Court's actionThe court said no waiver was necessary because limited public attendance remained available, directed immediate notice of audio or video failures so proceedings could recess for repairs, and agreed to inform the press of that procedure.
Counsel discussed ending further questioning, public access to sidebar proceedings, and concerns that sensitive microphones could broadcast private or privileged conversations.
Court's actionThe judge said no further questions were needed, directed that audio be cut during recess, and said the press could be invited back.
Counsel discussed an agreed juror strike, defense counsel’s observation that the juror had been crying, and handling future agreed strikes without sending reporters out.
Court's actionThe court asked that the reporters be brought back in.
The judge raised concerns about somewhat argumentative juror questioning on both sides.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to seek information from the juror rather than make arguments.
Bruck requested broader juror questioning about whether Paris-related coverage affected views of the case or defendant, beyond feelings about Muslims.
The judge tentatively viewed a report as consistent with the questionnaire answers to Question 40 rather than indicating a failure to report, and both sides agreed.
Court's actionThe judge said the report would not be brought up, while allowing questions about Question 40.
A sidebar conference is noted, but its subject is unspecified.
The sidebar exchange addressed the distinction between resuming audio and returning to the record.
Court's actionThe judge clarified that they were back on audio, not back on the record, and instructed care with that distinction.
A sidebar conference is noted without a stated substantive topic.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that sound resume.
The judge asked about a juror’s lawyer fiancé and sought his name because counsel might recognize him.
Weinreb raised 21 as a housekeeping matter, and the judge said he had been skipping it and did not consider it particularly relevant.
A sidebar is noted, followed by Miriam Conrad’s thanks and the clerk calling number 79.
Counsel and the court reviewed juror challenges involving hardship, case-related connections, impartiality, death penalty views, and questioning stopped in reliance on agreed strikes.
Court's actionThe court qualified Juror 60 subject to further transcript-based argument, excused Juror 65 because questioning had been cut short, denied the challenge to Juror 69, and struck Juror 76 for cause; it also directed that Juror 80 be added to the next day's panel without changing its planned endpoint.
The court and counsel discussed questionnaire-based juror excusals, the Globe’s motion concerning court procedures, and the defense’s request for updated jury data.
Court's actionThe judge allowed counsel five minutes to review the list and said the proposed excusals could proceed if there was no issue, followed by general instructions for the remaining jurors.
Defense counsel challenged defendant-specific death-penalty questions and whether voir dire adequately probed jurors’ preconceived beliefs about guilt.
Court's actionThe court said defendant-focused death-penalty questions should be avoided and affirmed the existing voir dire approach, including explaining the presumption of innocence when necessary.
Mr. Doreau indicated that video and audio were on.
Court's actionThe court instructed participants to wait for the reporters to return to the room.
Counsel asked how the juror gets to work, and the juror said they get a ride.
Court's actionThe judge directed that proceedings continue on audio.
A sidebar discussion took place outside the hearing of the public.
Following a sidebar outside the public's hearing, Clarke indicated she had public follow-up.
Court's actionThe court directed a return to the audio.
Defense counsel questioned Juror 140’s social media disclosures based on accounts believed to be hers, including a Twitter account following a reporter covering the trial.
Court's actionThe court declined to seat Juror 140 and stopped the broader argument about juror neutrality as outside the suitability issue.
The judge noted apparent consistency with an answer, and counsel confirmed that no inquiry was sought.
Court's actionThe judge ended the sidebar and indicated that proceedings could resume.
A sidebar discussion took place outside the hearing of the public.
McAlear reported that Juror No. 188 was out of state and expected on Friday at 8 a.m.
Court's actionThe judge authorized going live.
The juror confirmed having filled out the questionnaire.
Court's actionThe judge authorized resuming the session.
The judge referred to page 15, and Mr. Doreau confirmed that audio was on.
Court's actionThe judge permitted audio to resume.
Mellin reported apparent agreement, and Clarke declined follow-up on the question.
Court's actionThe judge authorized inviting them back in.
Participants addressed restoring audio at the close of the sidebar.
Court's actionThe judge indicated the discussion was finished and that the press could be brought in.
A sidebar discussion took place outside the hearing of the public.
A sidebar conference is noted without a stated subject.
Court's actionThe court indicated that proceedings could resume.
Counsel discussed Juror 238’s reported family hardship and connections to the event, disagreeing about the basis for their agreement, before reviewing proposed Panel B hardship excusals.
Court's actionThe judge said to skip Juror 238 and directed counsel to respond on the next day’s excusal list that afternoon and the remaining list by early afternoon the following day, allowing additional proposals subject to his review.
A sidebar conference is noted without any stated topic.
A sidebar conference is noted without a stated subject or discussion.
A sidebar conference is noted, but its subject is not stated.
A sidebar conference is noted, followed by the judge indicating that proceedings are back on.
The court and counsel reviewed juror challenges, debated Facebook-based questioning during voir dire, and discussed upcoming scheduling and the pending jury-data request.
Court's actionThe judge disqualified the police-officer juror, struck jurors 219 and 251, principally citing 251’s volatility, and requested advance notice of issues to be raised during voir dire.
The court discussed Juror 248's status following a postponement because of a family situation.
Court's actionThe judge asked that Jim be consulted about the outcome of the family situation.
A juror discussed a step-uncle’s police work, another relative’s uncertain law-enforcement role, and a stepfather’s construction work, reporting no effect on jury service.
Court's actionThe judge instructed the juror to return to page 20.
A sidebar discussion took place outside the hearing of the public.
A sidebar discussion occurred outside the jury’s hearing, with no subject stated.
Counsel debated juror challenges involving financial hardship, law enforcement connections, guilt bias, death penalty views, and disputed excusal agreements.
Court's actionThe court denied Juror 314’s hardship excusal, reserved ruling on Juror 318 pending further information, and directed that Jurors 323, 324, 328, and 337 be excused.
Counsel discussed a prior juror agreement, one prospective juror’s past FPD job applications, and another’s bombing-related blog and Twitter posts.
Court's actionThe court confirmed acceptance of the prior juror agreement and instructed counsel to question the juror with social media posts efficiently, focusing on present impartiality rather than prolonged reading from the documents.
Counsel disputed prospective jurors’ qualifications based on death penalty views, financial hardship, and personal or professional connections.
Court's actionThe court excused Juror 345 because of her Russell connection, found Juror 355 unqualified based on death penalty views rather than his criminal defense work, and qualified Jurors 340, 349, 350, 352, and 356.
A sidebar outside public hearing was followed by statements that audio and video were on.
A juror expressed thanks at a sidebar without specifying the matter being acknowledged.
The exchange concerns sidebar procedure.
Court's actionThe judge directed an end to sidebar mode.
Counsel debated prospective jurors’ impartiality, death-penalty views, and ability to follow instructions, then discussed Panel C review and peremptory-strike procedures.
Court's actionThe court found Juror 375 qualified, passed Juror 390 at this stage, excused Juror 393, found Juror 396 substantially impaired, and declined to qualify Juror 318.
The sidebar concerned passing on juror 419 and identifying the next juror before proceedings resumed.
Court's actionThe judge said they would pass on juror 419, noted that 421 had already been passed and 423 was next, and instructed that proceedings resume.
The parties discussed whether recognizing someone on the witness list should disqualify a juror, with uncertainty about whether one listed person would testify.
Court's actionThe judge requested information, primarily from the government, about the likelihood of testimony and called for examining the relationship’s closeness and possible effect.
A sidebar occurred outside the public’s hearing, but its subject was not stated.
Court's actionThe judge ended the sidebar.
Counsel debated potential bias and bombing-related connections of jurors 427 and 429, then discussed panel screening and jury-selection scheduling.
Court's actionThe court allowed the strike of juror 427 and kept jurors 425 and 429 in the pool.
Counsel discussed a juror's apparent discomfort and the potential burden of a four-month trial, while cautioning against conclusions about his mental state.
Court's actionThe judge authorized the clerk to tell the juror he did not have to return.
Counsel debated Juror 448’s emotional response, death penalty views, and ability to consider mitigation, along with hardship screening and competing procedures for peremptory strikes.
Court's actionThe court denied the defense challenge to Juror 448, directed renewed review of Jurors 489 and 501, and instructed counsel to consider the alternative strike procedure over the weekend without adopting it.
The remarks concern a sidebar held outside the public’s hearing, without identifying a substantive issue.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the proceeding go off sidebar.
The court asked whether anything else remained, and counsel indicated there was nothing further.
Court's actionThe court ended the sidebar.
Juror 504 reported avoiding discussions about the case and seeing scrolling headlines without opening the articles.
Counsel disputed Jurors 446 and 489’s sentencing impartiality and Juror 489’s employer compensation, then discussed further juror screening and Thursday scheduling.
Court's actionThe court retained Juror 446 as open to the death penalty and excused Juror 489 for cause over concerns about his ability to follow complex instructions.
The defense sought follow-up questioning about Juror 512's family discussions of the bombing and possible awareness of her daughter's Twitter and Facebook posts.
The judge tentatively indicated that sidebar was ending and asked whether counsel had anything on the matter.
The court and counsel discussed a juror’s acquaintance with fellow club member Henniger, whom counsel described as a likely witness.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the juror be brought in and that another sidebar be held to explore her relationship with Henniger.
The judge questioned a juror about meeting a listed witness three or four times at Quarter Century Club dinners and the club’s involvement in a Sean Collier memorial.
Court's actionThe judge instructed the juror to answer verbally for the court reporter.
The judge made an unfinished reference to a juvenile, and counsel acknowledged she had not picked up on that point.
Chakravarty expressed confusion about an unspecified matter, and Bruck noted questions for after the sidebar.
Weinreb identified individuals as members of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
A sidebar conference occurred, but no discussion topic is stated.
Court's actionThe court directed that proceedings move off sidebar.
A sidebar conference is noted, but the issue discussed is not stated.
Court's actionThe court directed proceedings to resume.
Counsel debated juror challenges involving death-penalty views, impartiality, and hardship, then discussed jury selection, trial scheduling, pending motions, and filing problems.
Court's actionThe court granted the government's motion on juror 623, allowed the strike of juror 649, and qualified jurors 637, 638, and 645. It limited alternate-specific strikes to alternates, required oppositions needing resolution before openings by Saturday, and directed correction of filing and service problems.
The government challenged three defense juror strikes as racially motivated, while the defense cited law-enforcement ties and strong death-penalty views.
Court's actionThe court accepted the defense’s proffer of non-ethnic, nonracial reasons for the strikes.
The sidebar addressed agreement on the procedure for seating 18 jurors.
Court's actionThe judge announced plans to call all 18 into the box in sequence, then make remarks, excuse the others, and take them to the back.
The court and counsel discussed DNA evidence, opening photographs, witness accommodations, liability-phase evidentiary motions, jury instructions, and defense objections to the selected jury.
Court's actionThe court barred DNA use for the time being as insufficiently probative under 402 and 403 on the proffer, without reaching DNA or late-filing issues; allowed both opening photographs; permitted sparing witness-box exceptions for documented mental health or physical reasons, accepting a proffer pending supplementation;‑
The defense sought the entire Twitter account to contextualize 45 government-selected tweets, arguing it was not offered for its truth, while the government raised hearsay, relevance, and confusion objections.
Court's actionThe court allowed the defense to introduce the entire Twitter account.
Defense counsel disputed the tweet chronology elicited on redirect and sought recross and an exhibit showing tweet times.
Court's actionThe judge said recross was not guaranteed, told counsel she could argue the matter already in evidence, and acknowledged the proffer.
The defense challenged approximate phone-location testimony without underlying records, disputed disclosure of December 25–26 analysis, and objected to one Officer Collier photograph.
Court's actionThe court overruled the cell-site testimony objection and requested the Collier photographs for review.
The defense sought redaction of dangerousness warnings to prevent jury speculation about information outside the evidence, while the prosecution declined to offer the poster and opposed redacting the earlier press conference display.
Court's actionThe court allowed the earlier press conference display’s warning to remain in evidence.
Counsel raised timing concerns about cutting out and using the boat note and discussed exhibit copies and monitor arrangements for the medical examiner’s testimony.
Court's actionThe judge deferred the boat-note discussion until the end of the day and directed that the visible screens be lowered.
Weinreb described apparent agreement to begin the Watertown evidence Monday if the carjacking and kidnapping presentation continued through lunch, noting uncertainty about whether the defense had seen upcoming exhibits.
Court's actionThe court called for a broader scheduling discussion after the morning session.
Counsel discussed deferring Henneberry until the next morning, defense preparation concerns over witness-order and exhibit changes, and a pending motion concerning Silva’s testimony.
Court's actionThe judge requested an 8:45 a.m. caucus the next morning and said the motion concerning Silva’s testimony could be addressed then.
Counsel argued that statements about family were part of a relationship the government had explored in full.
Court's actionThe court refused further inquiry on the subject and directed counsel to move to a new topic.
The government raised notice, relevance, and scope objections to defense photographs, while defense counsel argued that bullet trajectories supported an inference that the defendant may have been ducking and unable to see at all times while driving.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
The defense objected to testimony about blood on the keys for lack of notice, while the prosecution maintained that it had sent a report and notification email months earlier.
Court's actionThe judge directed a short break so the prosecution could retrieve the email.
Counsel disputed whether the disclosed car-key DNA report and expert letters provided adequate notice under Rule 16.
Court's actionThe judge permitted the prosecution to recall the expert the following week if desired, stated that the defense now had notice, and left timing to negotiation.
Defense counsel challenged transmitter testimony as undisclosed expert testimony, while the government said the witness was only identifying physical components from his bomb-technician experience.
Court's actionThe court allowed testimony about physical features based on general experience, found that the witness had not crossed into expert testimony at that point, and advised that he should not do so.
Counsel disputed admitting the physical computer separately from its contents, with the government reserving relevance and 403 objections.
Court's actionThe judge said the defense could seek admission during its case, subject to substantive objections, but left the timing open.
Counsel debated the relevance of Laurel Street items, proposed testimony limited to their consistency with dead man switch components, and an objection that expert testimony had not been noticed.
The government objected on relevance and 403 grounds to admitting the computer’s contents before the relevance of particular items was established.
Court's actionThe court admitted the computer’s physical structure but not its data and said other evidence would be considered individually.
Defense counsel needed time to retrieve the next witness’s prior testimony, and the government later offered three previously identified items without defense objection.
Court's actionThe court took the morning recess and later admitted Government Exhibits 986 (lighter), 1020 (pencil), and 1027 (cap).
The defense argued that late digital-exhibit revisions prevented effective examination of the expert, while the government characterized the changes as modest.
Court's actionThe court directed direct examination to proceed, left any postponement of cross-examination for reassessment after direct and further discussion, and agreed to take testimony about devices not yet admitted provisionally.
Defense counsel argued that questioning about newly received CDs misleadingly conflated device files with government-created analytical spreadsheets and raised notice concerns; the prosecutor promised clarification and planned to offer the entire disks later.
Counsel disputed foundation and confrontation objections to derivative spreadsheets and discussed separating them from the computer disk exhibit.
Court's actionThe court called for additional information about spreadsheet preparation, while indicating the spreadsheets would likely be submitted.
Defense counsel questioned the relevance of a thumb drive believed to contain Kadyrbayev's homework, while the prosecution argued its presence on Laurel Street showed an association with the defendant.
Counsel disputed whether questioning the forensic witness about Tamerlan’s Samsung laptop contents was relevant to motive, conspiracy involvement, and relative culpability.
Court's actionThe court excluded the proposed questioning.
The defense renewed foundation and confrontation objections and moved to strike all exhibits, challenging the witness’s knowledge of spreadsheet generation and data accuracy.
Court's actionThe court found the foundation sufficient for admission, stating that the concerns went to weight and the jury’s evaluation.
Counsel discussed defense objections to potentially prejudicial biographies of jihadi figures, Levitt’s expert qualifications, and preservation of objections.
Court's actionThe court permitted testimony about recent terrorist activity and jihadi encouragement, cautioned the government under Rule 403, and declined blanket expert qualification while indicating Levitt was likely qualified within his report’s scope. Objections were required for testimony exceeding the permitted scope, and the
Counsel estimated 10–15 minutes each for remaining questioning, with Bruck estimating no more than a half hour and expressing concern about keeping the jury overtime with an expert.
Watkins maintained his scientific-basis objection to Trooper Cahill’s testimony but asked the court to rely on the papers rather than conduct prolonged voir dire.
Court's actionThe court denied the motion based solely on the event mentioned in the papers, said Cahill was qualified to testify, and favored question-specific objections concerning expertise over a blanket ruling.
The defense sought driveway-location evidence to rule out Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s gun as the source of Dic Donohue’s injury, while prosecutors challenged the questioning’s scope and foundation.
Court's actionThe judge rejected the proposed questioning as irrelevant and said speculation about who shot Donohue should not be part of either side’s case.
The government sought to recall Jennifer Montgomery over a defense objection alleging insufficient good cause and noncompliance with a court order, and said the Tazhayakov issues would not arise that day.
Court's actionThe court allowed the recall, noting preparation time had been provided, and requested a brief end-of-day lobby conference on Tazhayakov and other issues.
The defense challenged two handwritten academic statements as irrelevant and prejudicial, while the government argued they were relevant as handwriting exemplars and evidence of state of mind.
Court's actionThe court found 1180C admissible because of its references to events in Chechnya and said the other statement was not useful.
Defense counsel renewed the dorm-room search objection, raised a prior objection to a possibly embedded January 2013 document, and argued that the interactive should be treated as a chalk rather than an exhibit.
Court's actionThe judge noted that the search motion had already been ruled on and applied summary-exhibit treatment to this portion, saying he believed the earlier interactive had been admitted.
The defense challenged a residence caption and sought to introduce statements from the government's suppression-motion opposition as a party admission.
Court's actionThe judge permitted the caption to be displayed, excluded the proposed pleading admission, and declined to address the related discovery inquiry at that time.
The defense argued that a highlighted magazine provided context for Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s radicalization and sought separate exhibit numbers for notebooks.
Court's actionThe judge excluded the magazine without a more direct link to the defendant, admitted the notebooks, and permitted a magazine copy to be marked for identification.
The defense challenged the GPS chart’s hijacked-vehicle label as pejorative and potentially confusing about which vehicle the device had been used in.
Court's actionThe judge permitted temporary display without highlighting the disputed label but called for editing it before the jury received the exhibit permanently.
The defense objected to holster-related hearsay involving a receipt and requested an instruction telling jurors to disregard the mention.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the holster issue be omitted.
Counsel disputed whether the holster receipt was in evidence and whether using it would permit government questions about recovery of a holster.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to confer and clarify the issue before further court discussion.
Counsel debated the need for testimony verifying Russian document translations that the defense said were already in evidence.
Court's actionThe court permitted the brief translation-verification testimony.
Counsel discussed next-day explosives witnesses, search-item authentication, a longer text-conversation exhibit, and scheduling if the government finished the next day.
Court's actionThe court agreed to stop for the day and directed that the jury be dismissed.
Counsel discussed showing Martin Richard's clothing, the government's Rule 12.2 motion, and defense requests for information supporting the government's earlier assertions about Tsarnaev's residence at 410 Norfolk.
Court's actionThe judge denied further relief on residence discovery and left prior rulings unchanged.
Counsel disputed whether comparing trace residues with the amount of explosives potentially involved would elicit an undisclosed expert opinion.
Court's actionThe court deemed the residue-proportionality comparison an expert opinion and excluded it.
Counsel disputed Agent Knapp’s binding-code testimony, proposed cross-examination about who detonated the bombs, and the accuracy and admissibility of bomb mockups.
Court's actionThe judge allowed testimony about binding the exemplar, conditioned use of substitute material on not altering the exhibit, deferred deciding whether to admit the mockups, and directed the defense to address kill-switch placement on cross-examination.
Counsel disputed using transmitter-range measurements in an expert’s report for impeachment or refreshing recollection, with prosecutors arguing the evidence would mislead and confuse the jury.
Court's actionThe court excluded the transmitter-range evidence under Rule 403 for the reasons argued by Weinreb.
The defense challenged notice and the basis for a proposed survival-time estimate of up to one minute, closer to one minute than zero.
Court's actionThe judge found an estimate of up to one minute consistent with the disclosed opinion that death was not instantaneous and allowed the testimony over objection.
Counsel discussed the defense’s request for a readable copy of a T-Mobile SIM-card receipt and a conflict in exhibit numbering.
Court's actionThe court agreed to use exhibit number 1585 for the T-Mobile receipt.
The defense sought to question Gamble about two searches, while prosecutors challenged the relevance and foundation of proposed evidence and objected that the questioning exceeded direct examination.
Court's actionThe judge said the proposed evidence appeared admissible for the defense but agreed it was outside the scope of direct examination.
The defense raised prejudice concerns about a magnified view of Exhibit 639, the government disputed the claimed inability to object, and counsel discussed the defense’s Rule 29 motion and remaining witnesses.
Court's actionThe court reserved ruling under Rule 29(b) pending the government’s response and planned to hear the two identified witnesses before releasing the jury with instructions to return the next day.
Conrad sought to introduce a government statement she said disputed that the room was the defendant's and to cross-examine the witness about it.
Court's actionThe court denied the request and stated that the witness was finished testifying.
Counsel disputed using cardboard with a fingerprint expert to compare bomb components, discuss fingerprint surfaces, and rebut testimony about heat effects.
Court's actionThe judge said counsel could ask the questions without holding up the cardboard, describing the display as a testimonial gesture.
Counsel disputed authentication requirements for arrest photographs, and the defense renewed requests concerning the range issue, government statements about apartment use, and discovery identifying their source.
Court's actionThe court required a witness for the photographs, maintained the range ruling, deferred the other matter, described the discovery issue as not germane, and ordered a ten-minute break.
Counsel disputed who bore the burden on a jurisdictional exemption raised in the Rule 29 motion and whether the government could offer testimony about a foreign national injured at Scene A.
Court's actionThe court denied reconsideration of the distance ruling and recessed until 2:00, directing the government to check witness logistics.
The defense objected to proposed victim testimony as prejudicial and offered a stipulation while preserving its challenge to the government’s jurisdictional proof in its case-in-chief.
Court's actionThe judge called a recess to consider a stipulation and instructed counsel to preserve the defense’s argument that the government could not cure its alleged omission after resting.
The discussion addressed proof sufficiency, exemption applicability, the defense’s objection to government rebuttal, and the timing of a renewed Rule 29 motion.
Court's actionThe court approved reading the stipulation after the defense rests, preserving both sides’ legal arguments and providing that jurors would be instructed to disregard it if the defense arguments prevailed. The jury was to return Monday.
After Weinreb noted the absence of a personal court inquiry, Clarke confirmed that the defendant agreed not to testify and that she had discussed the matter with him.
Court's actionThe court concluded the inquiry and requested a scheduling conference in the back once people were organized.
The defense challenged the government's closing montage, rebuttal, and jury instructions, while counsel discussed redacting indictment alternatives not covered by the instructions.
Court's actionThe court denied a mistrial, permitted preservation of the montage, declined the requested instruction changes, and approved indictment redactions concerning the foreign-national alternative and possession in furtherance.
Prosecutors sought confirmation of the defense’s Rule 12.2 withdrawal and clarification of which experts would testify to prepare motions and cross-examination.
Court's actionThe judge said the withdrawal should be filed in this case, requested a later witness-planning conference after other matters were resolved, and clarified that prosecutor-defense contact restrictions applied only to the Rule 12.2 process.
The defense argued that jurors needed an instruction requiring proof of the charged conspiracy rather than another conspiracy of shorter scope or duration.
Court's actionThe Court left the instructions unchanged and noted the defense objection.
The defense sought a mistrial over Celeste Corcoran’s survivor testimony, arguing it exceeded statutory relevance and was prejudicial, while counsel disputed the need for contemporaneous objections.
Court's actionThe judge agreed that the testimony was relevant to statutory factors, required timely objections to claimed excesses, declined a continuing hearsay objection, and agreed with the objection to extended narration.
Counsel discussed whether photographs of Krystle Campbell sufficiently connected to her brother’s knowledge and recollections.
Court's actionThe court directed removal of Exhibit 1601-23 and found that the other photographs discussed met its criteria by providing information beyond emotion.
Counsel discussed tomorrow's tentative witness lineup, a defense request to inspect the camera and cell block and obtain a photograph before testimony, and revised survivor photographs.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to confer about inspection access, proposed a four o'clock session, and instructed the government to match exhibits to witnesses to avoid sorting them in open court.
The defense challenged Chief DiFava’s proposed victim-impact testimony and Collier photographs as overly broad, cumulative, or prejudicial.
Court's actionThe court said victim-impact testimony may extend beyond family members in some circumstances, left cumulativeness open, and allowed the other photograph rather than the photograph with Donohue.
The defense challenged non-homicide survivor testimony and graphic medical photographs, while prosecutors argued their relevance to grave risk of death and the offense’s heinous nature.
Court's actionThe court admitted the testimony on grave risk of death, preserved the defense objection, and reserved ruling on the photographs pending the testimony.
Counsel discussed possible additional Jencks statements by Deputy Oliveira concerning a press-disclosure investigation and clarified plans to use a photograph and video excerpts.
Court's actionThe judge permitted the defense to ask Oliveira about reports he made and directed that the inquiry occur outside the jury’s presence.
The defense offered video clips it said showed Tsarnaev’s compliance and use of the camera as a mirror to counter the government’s message argument.
Court's actionThe judge permitted use of the video clips because they provided context.
The defense sought a mistrial, arguing that Dr. King’s testimony blurred risk of death with grave risk of death, included prejudicial military references, and exceeded disclosed opinions about victims’ time to death and suffering.
Court's actionThe court denied the motion, finding the military references permissible and the testimony generally responsive and within the disclosure at that point, while asking the prosecutor to try to shorten the witness’s answers.
The defense objected that displaying video of Martin Richard in pain on an enlarged screen would heighten its inflammatory effect, while the prosecution argued that the screen improved visibility.
Court's actionThe court permitted use of the enlarged screen.
Defense counsel challenged the tree-grate demonstration as misleading and prejudicial, while the prosecution argued that measuring blast proximity supported Martin Richard's vulnerability.
Court's actionThe court rejected the renewed objection to measuring the distance, leaving the dispute about Martin Richard's position for cross-examination.
Counsel disputed the relevance of a video of Tamerlan Tsarnaev with his daughter and whether five foreign witnesses could testify before their planned Friday return to Russia.
Court's actionThe judge allowed video playback with a caution about overdoing it and left witness timing open, stating that the government's request did not seem unreasonable.
Counsel debated proposed testimony relaying an allegation that Tamerlan physically abused Katherine, including whether it could explain the witness's concern rather than establish the allegation's truth.
Court's actionThe judge excluded the report as involving too many hearsay layers and rejected presenting it as the basis for the witness's concern.
Clarke proffered Russell’s brief suspicion that Tamerlan was responsible for the bombing, and counsel discussed anticipated Crawford testimony, domestic-violence hearsay concerns, photographs, and text-message timing.
The government challenged the relevance and foundation of computer searches and translated recordings, while the defense argued they supported its mitigation case concerning Tamerlan Tsarnaev's radicalization.
Court's actionThe court allowed the disputed material with leeway at this stage despite its remoteness and deferred the issue of Professor Reynolds's testimony until he testifies.
Counsel disputed proposed 302 redactions, disclosure of Fifth Amendment invocations, and whether illness established a witness’s unavailability.
Court's actionThe court permitted reasonably redacted 302s for truly unavailable, not merely unwilling, witnesses, with cautions distinguishing them from sworn, cross-examined testimony. It agreed to describe Dolakov only as unavailable, said it would compare Vakhabov’s proposed redactions, and required more than counsel’s assurance
Counsel discussed witness availability, possible remaining differences over report readings, and a request to hear five Russian witnesses before their Friday departure.
Court's actionThe judge called for a short break to review the Vakhabov material.
Counsel debated whether a gym trainer’s proposed testimony about Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s boxing trajectory and a video involving the Tsarnaev brothers was cumulative or probative.
Court's actionThe court allowed the testimony, noting that it was expected to be brief.
The government opposed admitting and displaying redacted documents to the jury, while the defense sought an on-screen presentation during reading.
Court's actionThe court directed that the documents be read without jury display, deferred their admission, and permitted screen display for the witness.
The sidebar addressed Zubeidat response texts and counsel’s report that the redactions had been worked out.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to skip the response texts for now, reserved a decision, and said Ms. Petri could return.
Counsel debated whether questions about witnesses’ reactions based on their knowledge of the defendant elicited character evidence or open-ended opinions.
Court's actionThe judge said asking for an unrestricted opinion exceeded permissible bounds, would assess questions individually, and agreed to review counsel’s cases.
Defense counsel sought family witnesses' reactions to the crimes to address credibility and bias, while the prosecution argued that such testimony had low probative value and high prejudicial value.
Court's actionThe court said counsel would have leeway with these witnesses but that the proposed questioning went too far by seeking personal opinions.
The defense sought a mistrial over an alleged implication about courtroom silence or demeanor, while counsel disputed questioning a childhood witness about changed views of the defendant.
Court's actionThe court denied the mistrial motion and excluded the prosecution’s proposed changed-opinion questioning of the witness, noting that she last saw the defendant at age eight.
Counsel disputed whether a witness could identify Tamerlan's voice in admitted recordings, describe her reaction, or compare his recorded statements with what she remembered him saying.
Court's actionThe court allowed voice identification and comparisons with remembered statements if the witness had a basis, but barred commentary on the recordings' content and general subjective reactions.
Fick sought to explore irregularities in a document he said was in the U.S. immigration file to show family chaos, not suggest an age under 18.
Court's actionThe judge stated that the document had not been authenticated and directed counsel to move to another subject.
The defense proffered Suleimanova’s border-crossing experiences and reactions to recordings discussing radical Islamic ideas, argued that the court’s wording diminished family-history mitigation testimony, and reviewed upcoming witnesses.
Court's actionThe court denied reconsideration of both questioning limits, stating that the proffer confirmed its views.
The defense challenged the scope and foundation of government questioning about a witness’s knowledge of the defendant and his alleged drug-related activities.
Court's actionThe court permitted some of the questioning but cautioned that it could go too far.
Conrad challenged the relevance of drug-related texts after the witness acknowledged shared drug use, while Pellegrini argued that the messages showed coded conversations.
Court's actionThe judge limited further inquiry, stating that the fact of drug use was enough.
Counsel disputed whether a witness's Facebook post and reaction to the defendant's involvement offered relevant character mitigation or risked confusing the jury.
Court's actionThe court excluded the Facebook post but permitted questions about whether the defendant's conduct was consistent with witnesses' observations of his prior conduct.
Counsel asked about juror counseling and recording an ill juror’s identity, then discussed jury submissions and tentative testimony and rebuttal schedules.
Court's actionThe court requested proposed verdict slips and jury instructions from both sides, and the next day’s witness and exhibit lists by day’s end.
Counsel discussed hearsay and opinion concerns about a bookstore owner’s family observations, and the court reported that jurors had not been advised about EAP.
Court's actionThe court allowed observational testimony and directed that the day end at 3 p.m., suggesting a half-hour lunch and 1:30 p.m. restart if needed.
The defense sought to question the witness about prior FBI statements concerning religious dedication and family relationships, while prosecutors challenged their factual basis and use to refresh recollection.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection.
The government argued that showing a Syria video exceeded the history witness's expertise, while the defense sought to illustrate propaganda's claimed influence on Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Court's actionThe court reversed its relevance ruling and sustained the objection to showing the video during this witness's testimony, leaving possible later use undecided.
Counsel disputed authentication of an Odnoklassniki page attributed to Tamerlan Tsarnaev and whether an expert could introduce and translate it.
Court's actionThe court excluded the Odnoklassniki page.
Counsel disputed whether the defense expert's qualifications and notice supported interpreting recorded conversations involving Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Magomed Kartoshov.
Court's actionThe court concluded that the proposed interpretation exceeded the scope of the expert's testimony and noted that reading the passage might imply expertise.
Counsel discussed shortening lunch and rearranging afternoon testimony to accommodate two witnesses brought in a day early.
Court's actionThe court agreed to resume at 1:30.
Weinreb proposed displaying written statements to help jurors follow complex sentences during cross-examination, while defense counsel objected that excerpts lacked context.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the jury initially listen to the witness rather than read statements on the screen, with reconsideration possible if that approach proved confusing.
Counsel disputed whether Elmirza’s marital and custody conflicts could show bias in his testimony about Zubeidat and her relationship with Tamerlan.
Court's actionThe judge said bias questioning could depend on direct testimony and instructed counsel to present any animosity without kidnapping terminology or excessive family-feud detail.
The sidebar addressed Zubeidat emails and Weinreb’s withdrawal of an oath-enforceability instruction request because he considered the testimony relatively bland.
Court's actionThe judge excluded the emails, saying he thought they were cumulative and the witness was not unavailable.
Counsel reviewed witness scheduling, disputed whether SAMs or a portrayal of ADX life would open the door to ESPN, and previewed a motion to exclude Sister Helen Prejean’s testimony.
Court's actionThe court authorized a lunch break.
Counsel disputed whether testimony about nondefiant behavior at Devens would permit rebuttal using Beth Israel statements, with the defense raising interrogation and discovery concerns.
Court's actionThe judge warned that testimony focused on defiance could open the door to contrary evidence, but said he would need to hear what that evidence was before deciding.
Counsel raised concerns that comparisons to other terrorist offenses could suggest death sentences are uncommon and sought broader questioning about ADX confinement.
Court's actionThe judge instructed Mellin to stay within the prior ruling, saying it provided ample room to respond to Bruck's presentation.
Counsel disputed notice and accuracy of Bezy’s proposed testimony that no prison disciplinary violations were recorded, and the defense dropped the inquiry.
Counsel disputed cross-examination about SAMs effectiveness, possible withdrawal, and inmate violence, along with the time needed to finish questioning the witness.
Court's actionThe court limited questioning to SAMs mechanics tied to their present terms, said judicial notice could be taken of the motion with its disposition, and broke for the day.
Clarke renewed the Rule 29 motion, and counsel estimated that proceeding with Nicolet would take about 20 minutes.
Court's actionThe judge continued to reserve ruling on the motion until completion of all the evidence.
Counsel disputed whether testimony about court-ordered SAMs modifications was accurate and whether the jury should receive a correction.
Court's actionThe judge directed that witness examination continue and deferred possible corrective action, indicating he might review status conference transcripts.
Counsel discussed the scope of questioning about in-cell prison programming and raised prior legal-visit rulings for review.
Court's actionThe court permitted general questions about prison programming available in the cell, but excluded television and delivery details, and requested references for review.
Defense counsel challenged Mellin’s closing over an alleged comment on the defendant’s failure to testify, death-penalty age requirements, ADX programming, treatment of the verdict form and mitigating factors, and reserving mitigation responses for reply.
Court's actionThe court noted the objections and declined to take any action.
The defense requested a mistrial or curative instructions over closing arguments about prison programming and Tamerlan's influence, and conditionally sought surreply on mitigation.
Court's actionThe court denied the mistrial motion and deferred consideration of surreply until the government's argument unfolded.
The defense challenged the government's rebuttal scope, use of Reynolds' statements and Prejean's testimony, and arguments about uncalled friends and allegedly unsupported facts.
Court's actionThe court found the government's argument proper rebuttal and denied the defense requests for an additional reply and a curative instruction concerning Sister Helen Prejean.
Defense counsel discussed reading the refused deadlock instruction to preserve an objection, and the judge proposed excusing the jury without directing it to begin deliberations.
No sidebars match these filters.