4.Autopsy Photographs and Graphic Images — Admissibility
38 linesTHE COURT: Then I guess the next thing would be some of the photographs. These were raised at various places in the status report, I think, the autopsy photographs and other graphic images, I guess.
MS. CONRAD: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, the government obviously will be offering -- and has the right to offer -- the images of the carnage that these bombings inflicted. The question is how much and the scope of what that means. I think perhaps some of that with respect to the portion regarding to the -- related to the aftermath of the bombing itself on Boylston Street is best addressed by viewing or listening to the individual tapes. I don't know if the Court's had an opportunity --
THE COURT: I haven't yet but I will.
MS. CONRAD: I think probably it's better to just rest on that rather than go through it in detail.
With respect to the autopsy photos, your Honor, these are highly sensitive, highly disturbing images, multiple images, of the victims. And right now I'm talking about the bombing victims. The images of Officer Collier are completely different. They show the actual wounds, and we understand that they may have some relevance.
But the other autopsy photographs of the three victims of the bombings are largely full-body images of the naked bodies of the victims. They are horrific. They are disturbing. They do not go to any disputed question of fact in this case. And even if the Court agrees with the parties that they should not be made available to the public in any form after they're admitted, their actual admission makes it more likely that at some point they will be viewed by the public causing even greater emotional distress for the grieving families of the victims.
They're just -- the cause of death is not at issue, your Honor. These images show much more than simply the cause of death, and we submit that they are unnecessary and would cause too much emotional distress to the families and to the jurors, frankly.
Thank you.
MS. PELLEGRINI: Your Honor, I challenge anyone to find an autopsy photo that isn't graphic and disturbing, particularly when it is of several young people, but regardless of the fact that there -- Ms. Conrad said there is no question -- we still have the burden. The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty to all of the counts, and the government has the burden of proving that there was a weapon of mass destruction that caused the death of these three people.
Our photos show the nature and extent of those injuries. Full body is required because they are injured everywhere on their body. There are huge gaping wounds, that is true, but there's also burns, scrapes, shrapnel embedded in ears, fingers, the back. And these are going to be used to corroborate the findings of the medical examiners. And that's important because we're going to show both the manner and cause of death by this.
The fact that they are graphic, we took steps to limit the number of photos, but they are -- and we have taken steps to block out the private areas of the bodies to try to limit that aspect of it as much as we can. To the extent that it is upsetting to the victims, it's upsetting that their loved ones died. They are aware that the government is seeking to use the autopsy photos, they were aware of our prior request to not have the defendant view them, and we talked about them -- to them at that time of using the photos during the course of the trial.
But they are important to the government's case. And they have been chosen carefully and in a very limited way that is not overly emotional. They are not gruesome or graphic just simply to be gruesome and graphic, but they're gruesome because they show the death of three young people by what we claim is a bomb.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, I neglected to mention that one option would be if there's specific aspects of the photos that the government wishes to show, because I think that the full-bodied photos do not show, for example, some of the specific things that Ms. Pellegrini referred to. Perhaps they could be cropped in such a way that would make them less disturbing and more relevant, if there is any relevance.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll reserve this one as well.
We have some other evidence-related motions? I guess because we have been -- at least until the jury is sworn been careful about discussing the evidence. I guess I thought we might discuss those in an in camera session. I'm thinking of Daubert motions right now and perhaps some others.
So with that caution, are there any other matters now that -- of this nature, in limine, preopening, that you think we need to talk about?
MR. BRUCK: Not from the defense, your Honor.
MR. WEINREB: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And I thought we would have a session this afternoon at 2:30 to talk about some of these things in camera. That would also include a final discussion of the mechanics of the peremptory challenge exercise which we'll do this afternoon and other jury-related issues.
Let me just ask a couple of trial management related issues. Is the government's order of witnesses the same now as it was when it was disclosed a few weeks ago for the first couple of weeks?
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, I think essentially that's correct. There have been a few witnesses -- one or two that have been removed and one or two that we've moved their location in the lineup based on their availability.
THE COURT: Okay. Could you make sure both the defense and I get the revised list --
MR. MELLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- which I assume would also call for some revision of the matching exhibits?
MR. MELLIN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. If we could get that.
And going forward, we've had this two-week -- we settled on this two-week period. I would like that as a rolling obligation for the government so that as you get into the second week, another second week comes into view; in other words, at the end of the first week, we'll hear about the third week, and so on, so that people can have a look ahead.
The government furnished us a copy of the government's witness list. A hard copy. If it's possible, we would like an electronic copy of that just so that we could search it. And I don't know that we have an exhibit list from the defense.
MS. CLARKE: We provided one -- we can make sure you have an electronic copy.
THE COURT: Thank you.
So we'll have our in camera session this afternoon. We'll also reconvene tomorrow morning at ten for the exercise of peremptory challenges and the selection of the final jury.
Anything else today?
MS. CLARKE: No, thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Or this morning, I should say. There is today.
Thank you. We'll be in recess.
COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court.
(The Court exits the courtroom at 10:47 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Court will be in recess.
(The proceedings adjourned at 10:47 a.m.)
P R O C E E D I N G S
COURT CLERK: All rise.
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:40 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Court is in session. Please be seated. For a motion hearing in the case of United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 13-10200.
Will counsel identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon, your Honor. William Weinreb for the United States.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: As well as Aloke Chakravarty, your Honor.
MS. PELLEGRINI: Good afternoon, your Honor. Nadine Pellegrini.
MR. MELLIN: Steve Mellin.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon, your Honor. David Bruck, Miriam Conrad, Judy Clarke, Tim Watkins and Bill Fick for the defendant.
THE COURT: You did that without looking.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: I gather the defendant has elected not to be present?
MR. BRUCK: That's correct.