11.Residence Discovery Denied; Clothing Evidence and Rule 12.2 Updates
28 lines(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
MR. WEINREB: Just two quick things: Yesterday the Court ruled on a defense motion with respect to some autopsy photos, and there was a question raised about the photo of Martin Richard where he's wearing his clothing. And we believe that the state of the clothing is relevant in and of itself. We don't object to the Court's ruling insofar as the Court does not want multiple pictures of Martin Richard's corpse, but we would ask that we at least be allowed to show the jury the clothing because it's evidence of the mechanism of the bomb -- the burn, the shredded, that it did various other things -- that we allege in the indictment and have argued to the jury that these bombs did. So no photos, but we just have clothing.
THE COURT: All right. Let me look at it with that in mind.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And then the second issue is the government's motion with respect to 12.2. I don't know --
THE COURT: You'll have an order by the end of the day.
MR. WEINREB: Very well. Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, earlier you had said that to the extent I took the position that information showing that Mr. Tsarnaev, the defendant, was not residing at 410 Norfolk, which the government asserted in its opposition to the motion to suppress, to the extent that the government has information upon which it based that assertion, we would take the position that it's Brady material given the government's current position that he, in fact, resided at and occupied that as demonstrated by Exhibit 620.
And so I can file a written motion for production of that, but once again, I would -- I'm pressing the point that the government should disclose the basis for any information it has that supports the assertions it made in Docket No. 350.
MR. WEINREB: So all information upon which that argument was based has been disclosed in discovery.
MS. CONRAD: Well, I am not aware of a single report that says that it was used as a closet or storage room, and the government made that factual assertion on page 3 and 4 of Docket 350.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm not going to alter any of the rulings. I will say in terms of a proffer or anything like that, you have the docket entries related to the search warrant. I think that's sufficient. I don't think you need a further proffer. You had some pages that you wanted to use from the --
MS. CONRAD: I'm not talking about the proffer; I'm talking about evidence.
THE COURT: No, I understand.
MS. CONRAD: I'm talking about discovery for purposes of admitting evidence which as of now the defense has been prohibited from offering. And if the government has evidence supporting those assertions, we would like to offer that evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. No relief. I don't know exactly what the target --
MS. CONRAD: The target is discovery.
THE COURT: I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: The representation on which that was based --
THE COURT: I think the issue is --
MS. CONRAD: It's never been produced. I don't know --
THE COURT: It's not an evidentiary issue.
MS. CONRAD: It's a discovery issue. That's what your Honor said, and your Honor said it was not ripe at that moment. It's ripe now.
THE COURT: The discovery issue arises because of evidence. Anyway, nothing will be done.
(In open court:)
THE COURT: All right. We'll be in recess.
COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court.
(The Court exits the courtroom at 3:36 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Court will be in recess.
(The proceedings adjourned at 3:36 p.m.)