Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayAloke ChakravartySteven D. MellinNadine PellegriniWilliam D. WeinrebMiriam ConradTimothy G. WatkinsMichelle GambleGerald R. Grant, Jr.Katherine LindstromHenry NieldsdirectcrossredirectrecrosssidebarDay 41 - March 30, 2015The government rested after medical testimony about Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard and examination of bombing-scene imagery. The defense presented search evidence and digital-record analysis, with witnesses acknowledging limits on timing and location conclusions. The Rule 29 motion and proposed defense evidence remained unresolved.
← Day 402015 Federal TrialDay 42 →

Day 41 - March 30, 2015

Government Rests After Autopsy Testimony; Defense Presents Records

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
16Proceedings
8Pages
4Witnesses
2,554Lines
4Sidebars
Day 41 of 67
Appearing:
Aloke Chakravarty Steven D. Mellin Nadine Pellegrini William D. Weinreb Miriam Conrad Timothy G. Watkins Michelle Gamble Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Katherine Lindstrom Henry Nields

The government rested after medical testimony about Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard and examination of bombing-scene imagery. The defense presented search evidence and digital-record analysis, with witnesses acknowledging limits on timing and location conclusions. The Rule 29 motion and proposed defense evidence remained unresolved.

Full day summary

Katherine Lindstrom testified that Lingzi Lu died from blast injuries causing rapid blood loss and classified the death as homicide. She estimated death occurred within seconds to minutes and said Lu possibly remained conscious until death. The court admitted autopsy photographs and recovered metal evidence, warning jurors that the photographs were graphic. FBI field photographer Michelle Gamble compared Forum surveillance footage, photographs, receipts, and phone records. Her 20-second video adjustment depended on the race clock being accurate. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that recorded call duration began with dialing and did not establish conversation length. She clarified that the location chalk depicted a minute before the second explosion and omitted nearby people at the prosecution's direction. She corrected a photograph's time to 2:49 p.m. and said she had not measured the defendant's distance from the blast. Henry Nields described Martin Richard's fatal blast injuries and concluded that death resulted principally from blood loss, with homicide as the manner of death. He qualified some recovered-fragment identifications as consistent rather than certain. Clothing, fragments, and autopsy photographs were admitted. The defense questioned neither medical examiner. The government rested, and the court reserved decision on the defense's Rule 29 motion. The defense recalled Gamble about searches. A wiring book and its photograph were admitted, although she did not remember the book; the court excluded a proposed recovery-list excerpt. Defense investigator Gerald R. Grant, Jr. then analyzed tweet timing, university card records, and cell-site activity. He associated January 31 phone activity with towers around UMass rather than Saugus and found no indication that the phone left the Dartmouth/New Bedford area during March 6 purchases in New Hampshire. Cross-examination established that these records did not identify the phone's user or precise position, or establish whereabouts between card entries. After the jury left, counsel disputed proposed computer evidence and boat-exit photographs. The court deferred those issues, left the Rule 29 motion pending, denied a motion concerning an admission by a party opponent, and set Monday the 6th as the working date for closings and instructions.

1. Katherine Lindstrom — Direct

Katherine Lindstrom testified that Lingzi Lu died from blast injuries and rapid blood loss. Autopsy photographs and recovered metal evidence were admitted, and the defense asked no questions.

→
Procedural
Morning Session and Juror Contact Check
10 lines
Direct
Direct Examination - Katherine Lindstrom Katherine Lindstrom Steven D. Mellin
233 lines

Medical examiner Katherine Lindstrom explained Lingzi Lu's fatal blast injuries and identified autopsy photographs and recovered metal evidence.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Katherine Lindstromtestimony highlightLindstrom testified that she performed Lingzi Lu's autopsy on April 16, 2013, determined the cause of death to be blast injuries of the lower extremities and the manner to be homicide, and estimated death occurred within seconds to minutes rather than immediately.

2. Michelle Gamble — Direct (Part 1)

FBI photographer Michelle Gamble compared purchase receipts, surveillance timing, and phone records, then identified bombing-scene photographs. The court addressed timing foundations and the status of exhibits.

→
Procedural
Gamble Photograph and Demonstrative Objections Overruled
15 lines
Direct
Direct Examination - Michelle Gamble Michelle Gamble William D. Weinreb
423 lines

Michelle Gamble compared purchase receipts, surveillance timing, and phone records, then used photographs and a chalk to identify the backpack, second blast site, and victim locations.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. T-Mobile Receipt Copies and Exhibit NumberingCounsel discussed the defense’s request for a readable copy of a T-Mobile SIM-card receipt and a conflict in exhibit numbering.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Michelle Gambletestimony highlightGamble compared Forum video timestamps with the calculated race-clock time, treating the video as 20 seconds slow if the race clock was accurate. She calculated a 19-second interval for the figure's hand-to-face movements and compared it with phone records. She testified that the recorded outgoing call preceded the first explosion and an incoming call followed the second by approximately a minute and 20 seconds.

3. Michelle Gamble — Cross/Redirect/Recross (Part 2)

Michelle Gamble’s cross-examination and follow-up questioning addressed photograph timing, omissions from her location diagram, and movement around the explosions. Her testimony concluded before the morning recess.

→
Cross
Cross-Examination - Michelle Gamble Michelle Gamble Miriam Conrad
279 lines

Conrad tested Gamble's location chalk, call-duration interpretation, and surveillance timing; three defense exhibits were admitted, while proposed search evidence remained outside the scope of cross-examination.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Search Evidence Beyond Direct ExaminationThe 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.
Redirect
Redirect Examination - Michelle Gamble Michelle Gamble William D. Weinreb
68 lines

Gamble clarified bystander movement and the defendant's position on video; the court sustained several objections to questions seeking further inferences.

Recross
Recross-Examination - Michelle Gamble Michelle Gamble Miriam Conrad
55 lines

Gamble clarified movement at the first blast, and a 2:37 p.m. photograph was admitted during Conrad's brief recross.

Highlights

Cross-Examination - Michelle GambleadmissionUsing photograph 3146, Conrad established that the chalk omitted four people in front of Mr. Tsarnaev and people to the right of Martin Richard; Gamble attributed those omissions to the prosecution's instructions.

4. Henry Nields — Direct

Henry Nields testified that Martin Richard died from blast injuries, principally through blood loss. The defense asked no questions, and the government rested.

→
Direct
Direct Examination - Henry Nields Henry Nields Nadine Pellegrini
382 lines

Henry Nields explained Martin Richard's fatal blast injuries and identified autopsy evidence. The defense asked no questions, and the government rested.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Henry Nieldstestimony highlightNields classified Martin Richard's death as homicide caused by blast injuries, principally through blood loss. He testified that the injuries overall would have been painful, while qualifying his assessment of stomach and intestinal pain.Direct Examination - Henry Nieldsprocedural actionThe defense declined to question Nields, and the government rested. Before recess, the judge reminded jurors not to discuss the evidence or decide any issues until all evidence and legal instructions had been heard.

5. Exhibit 639, Reserved Rule 29 Motion, and Defense Witnesses

Counsel disputed the display of Exhibit 639. The court reserved decision on the defendant’s Rule 29(b) motion pending a government response and discussed plans for further testimony.

→
sidebar
Exhibit 639, Rule 29 Motion, and Witness Scheduling
27 lines

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.

Highlights

Sidebar on Exhibit 639, Reserved Rule 29 Motion, and Defense WitnessesrulingThe court reserved decision on the defendant's motion under Rule 29(b), stating that it would hear from the government before ruling.

6. Michelle Gamble — Direct/Cross (Recall)

Michelle Gamble’s defense recall covered searches and recovered evidence. The court admitted a wiring book and photographs, rejected other evidence and questioning, and ended her testimony before lunch.

→
Procedural
Jury Return and Defense Recall of Michelle Gamble
8 lines
Direct
Direct Examination - Michelle Gamble (Defense Recall) Michelle Gamble Miriam Conrad
152 lines

The defense recalled Gamble to introduce wiring-book evidence and question search records; memory and foundation limits constrained testimony about recovery details and the July search.

Cross
Cross-Examination - Michelle Gamble (Defense Recall) Michelle Gamble Aloke Chakravarty
63 lines

Gamble clarified her photographer role and authenticated a room photograph. The court admitted it but limited further questioning, including the defense's proposed use of a prior government statement.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Cross-Examination on the Government's Room StatementConrad sought to introduce a government statement she said disputed that the room was the defendant's and to cross-examine the witness about it.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Michelle Gamble (Defense Recall)evidence eventThe court overruled a foundation objection and admitted the packaged wiring book as Defense Exhibit 3150. Its photograph was then admitted as Defense Exhibit 3151.

7. Gerald R. Grant, Jr. — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Gerald R. Grant, Jr. testified about digital records and phone-tower locations, with questioning addressing their limits in establishing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s whereabouts. After redirect, the court ended Day 41’s evidence and repeated its instructions to jurors.

→
Direct
Direct Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Timothy G. Watkins
430 lines

Defense investigator Gerald R. Grant, Jr. clarified tweet times and compared phone activity with component-purchase locations, while explaining cell-site evidence's limits.

Cross
Cross-Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Aloke Chakravarty
254 lines

Chakravarty tested Grant's digital-location analysis, drawing out gaps in movement and purchaser identification; the court limited several lines of questioning.

Redirect
Redirect Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Gerald R. Grant, Jr. Timothy G. Watkins
38 lines

Grant clarified coordinate mapping and travel-time estimates, while limiting his answer about the phone to the tower location shown in AT&T records.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr.testimony highlightGrant placed the January 31 phone activity around the University of Massachusetts, rather than Saugus near the pressure-cooker purchase time. The court overruled a leading-question objection; Grant acknowledged that his map did not show every point for the day.Direct Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr.testimony highlightExhibit 3128 was admitted. Grant said a phone at the New Hampshire purchase locations could not reach the mapped towers and that the March 6 data gave no indication the 5112 phone left the Dartmouth/New Bedford area.Cross-Examination - Gerald R. Grant, Jr.admissionGrant conditionally agreed to focus on the January 31 text rather than data usage, acknowledged that the text went to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and agreed that plotted activity did not identify the user, distance from the tower, or the other participant's location.

8. Lobby Conference on Guilt-Phase Defense Evidence and Closing Schedule

Defense counsel outlined proposed remaining guilt-phase evidence, prompting disputes over relevance and disclosure. The court deferred consideration until morning, set a working date for closings, and left the Rule 29 motion pending.

→
Procedural
Lobby Conference on Guilt-Phase Defense Evidence and Closing Schedule
117 lines

The court deferred major defense-evidence disputes, denied the party-opponent admission motion, and set a working closing schedule; Rule 29 and transmitter-range issues remained pending.

Highlights

Lobby Conference on Guilt-Phase Defense Evidence and Closing ScheduleobjectionFick detailed the proposed computer evidence and travel record. The parties disputed guilt-phase relevance and disclosure adequacy; the court deferred consideration until the morning.
← Day 402015 Federal TrialDay 42 →