Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayAloke ChakravartyWilliam D. WeinrebTimothy G. WatkinsPhilip ChristianaBrian J. Corcoran, Jr.Kevin SwindondirectcrossDay 36 - March 19, 2015Corcoran described Watertown evidence, and Christiana testified about seized devices. The court admitted laptops and an iPhone as physical objects only. Computer-forensics expert Swindon presented selected digital files while explaining limits on access histories, user attribution, and comparisons. The court admitted multiple digital exhibits but required redaction of extraneous phone communications.
← Day 352015 Federal TrialDay 37 →

Day 36 - March 19, 2015

Watertown Evidence, Device Seizures, and Digital Forensics

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
10Proceedings
5Pages
3Witnesses
2,575Lines
9Sidebars
Day 36 of 67
Appearing:
Aloke Chakravarty William D. Weinreb Timothy G. Watkins Philip Christiana Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. Kevin Swindon

Corcoran described Watertown evidence, and Christiana testified about seized devices. The court admitted laptops and an iPhone as physical objects only. Computer-forensics expert Swindon presented selected digital files while explaining limits on access histories, user attribution, and comparisons. The court admitted multiple digital exhibits but required redaction of extraneous phone communications.

Full day summary

Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. continued identifying evidence recovered around Laurel Street. He compared the Watertown pressure cooker with more fragmented Boylston Street remains, identifying the same brand and type but saying he believed the size differed. He described shrapnel found on residential properties and as much as a block away. Corcoran clarified that he had not witnessed the explosion and had personally seen only the Honda, not the Mercedes. The court allowed descriptions of the transmitter’s physical features but cautioned against expert testimony. It later found that the proposed explanation of a dead man switch was entering expert territory. The recovered toggle switch and an annotated scene map were admitted. After the government withdrew its laptop offer during direct examination, the defense offered it on cross-examination. The court admitted the laptop as a physical object only, expressly excluding its electronic data. FBI Special Agent Philip Christiana described a hazard sweep at the apartment he identified as the residence of Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov. He testified that he seized a laptop from the dining table and an iPhone from a bedroom believed to be Kadyrbayev’s room. Those devices were also admitted as physical objects only. The defense declined cross-examination. FBI supervisor Kevin Swindon was accepted as a computer-forensics expert and described imaging, verification, and selected digital evidence. Displayed material included Inspire magazine documents, audio files, homework, and phone records. He explained that the exhibits contained investigative selections and derivative reports, not complete device contents, and that added translations were not recovered files. He distinguished file presence from demonstrable access and acknowledged limits on timestamps, user attribution, and his own review. After an ownership objection, the court directed counsel to identify a computer by number rather than as the defendant’s computer. The court admitted multiple digital exhibits over renewed defense objections but declined to admit Exhibit 1153 without redacting extraneous communications. Swindon also limited broader cross-device comparisons. Cross-examination was deferred until Monday, and jurors were instructed not to conduct independent research, including learning about computers.

1. Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Direct/Cross (Part 2)

Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. continued identifying evidence recovered around Laurel Street and faced cross-examination about vehicles and a computer bag. The court admitted the laptop as a physical object but excluded its electronic data.

→
Procedural
Session Opening and Juror Compliance Check
9 lines
Direct
Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Direct (continued) Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. William D. Weinreb
640 lines

Corcoran identified Watertown bomb debris and other recovered evidence; the court limited technical testimony and left the laptop's admissibility unresolved.

3 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Limits on Radio-Controlled Transmitter TestimonyDefense counsel challenged transmitter testimony as undisclosed expert testimony, while the government said the witness was only identifying physical components from his bomb-technician experience.
  2. Computer Admissibility and TimingCounsel disputed admitting the physical computer separately from its contents, with the government reserving relevance and 403 objections.
  3. Dead Man Switch Testimony and Expert NoticeCounsel 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.
Cross
Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Cross-Examination Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. Timothy G. Watkins
129 lines

Corcoran clarified scene exhibits and the laptop's recovery with Tamerlan Tsarnaev's documents. The court admitted the physical laptop but excluded its electronic data.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Admission of Computer Hardware and DataThe government objected on relevance and 403 grounds to admitting the computer’s contents before the relevance of particular items was established.

Highlights

Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Direct (continued)testimony highlightCorcoran compared the Watertown pressure cooker with more fragmented Boylston Street remains, identifying the same brand and type but saying he believed the size differed. The recovered Watertown cooker was admitted and displayed.Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Direct (continued)rulingWatkins objected to testimony about a dead man switch on relevance and expert-notice grounds. At sidebar, the court found the proposed explanation was getting into expert evidence and suggested another witness.Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Cross-ExaminationrulingThe government objected to admitting the entire laptop, including its contents, on relevance and Rule 403 grounds. After sidebar discussion, the court admitted Exhibit 1544 only as a physical object and expressly excluded its electronic data.Brian J. Corcoran, Jr. — Cross-Examination“Yes. The physical thing is admitted; the data is not -- the electronic data, I should say.”— George A. O'Toole Jr.Defines the express limit on the laptop's admission.

2. Philip Christiana — Direct

FBI Special Agent Philip Christiana described devices recovered from an apartment he identified as the residence of two friends of the defendant. The laptop and iPhone were admitted as physical objects, not their data.

→
sidebar
Prior Testimony Retrieval and Exhibit Offers
15 lines

Defense counsel needed time to retrieve the next witness’s prior testimony, and the government later offered three previously identified items without defense objection.

Direct
Philip Christiana — Direct Examination Philip Christiana Aloke Chakravarty
210 lines

Christiana described recovering a laptop and phones from the apartment of the defendant's friends. The court admitted the laptop and iPhone as physical objects only, not their data.

Highlights

Philip Christiana — Direct ExaminationrulingThe prosecution offered Exhibits 1534 and 1558 as physical devices only, not their data. With no defense objection, the court admitted them on those terms.

3. Kevin Swindon — Direct (Part 1)

FBI computer-forensics expert Kevin Swindon explained digital-evidence verification and its limits. A defense objection to a CD linked to a Sony Vaio laptop led to sidebar, with no admission ruling recorded in the supplied testimony.

→
sidebar
Late Digital Exhibits and Expert Examination
12 lines

The defense argued that late digital-exhibit revisions prevented effective examination of the expert, while the government characterized the changes as modest.

Procedural
Return to Open Court for Swindon's Appearance
3 lines
Direct
Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination Kevin Swindon Aloke Chakravarty
381 lines

Swindon explained digital-file verification and its limits. The defense challenged analytical material on the CDs and objected to Exhibit 1142; no admission ruling is recorded here.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Objection to Describing Mixed-Content CDsDefense 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.

Highlights

Kevin Swindon — Direct ExaminationobjectionAt sidebar, the defense challenged the suggestion that the CDs contained only files from devices and raised notice concerns about newly supplied disks. Afterward, Swindon explained that the disks contained selected files, directory listings, and derivative reports or spreadsheets.

4. Kevin Swindon — Direct (Part 2)

Kevin Swindon continued explaining digital evidence and limits on interpreting file presence, access, and timestamps. The court admitted several exhibits over defense objections; an offer of Exhibit 1149 led to a sidebar, with no admission ruling in the supplied record.

→
Direct
Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued) Kevin Swindon Aloke Chakravarty
870 lines

Swindon authenticated digital exhibits and compared files across devices. The court admitted eight exhibits over defense objections; testimony preserved limits on access, attribution, and completeness, while Exhibit 1149 remained unresolved.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Foundation and Confrontation Objections to Derivative SpreadsheetsCounsel disputed foundation and confrontation objections to derivative spreadsheets and discussed separating them from the computer disk exhibit.

Highlights

Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued)testimony highlightSwindon distinguished evidence that files existed from evidence that they were accessed, explaining that access records may be absent even after exhaustive searches.Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued)rulingAfter the defense objected that ownership had not been established, the judge directed counsel to refer to the computer by its number rather than as the defendant's computer.

5. Kevin Swindon — Direct (Part 3)

Kevin Swindon continued identifying digital evidence and explaining recovery limits. The court admitted several exhibits but required redaction of a phone-message exhibit; cross-examination was deferred until Monday.

→
Direct
Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued) Kevin Swindon Aloke Chakravarty
306 lines

Swindon authenticated additional digital exhibits and explained recovery and comparison limits. Four exhibits were admitted over defense objections; a text-message exhibit required redaction. Cross-examination was deferred until Monday.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Relevance of Homework on Laurel Street Thumb DriveDefense 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.

Highlights

Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued)rulingThe prosecution offered Exhibit 1153 primarily for communications between Dias Kadyrbayev and the defendant. The court refused admission unless extraneous communications were redacted.Kevin Swindon — Direct Examination (continued)“This was not on the thumb drive, so I did not verify that it came from the thumb drive because it didn't. But it's added to the data set because it includes translations from the files that are on there.”— Kevin SwindonSwindon distinguished added translations from files actually recovered from the device.
← Day 352015 Federal TrialDay 37 →