Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal TrialtranscripttranscriptDisclosure Dispute over Defense Witnesses' Prior Statements - Day 48 - 2015 Federal TrialCounsel disputed disclosure of planned defense witnesses’ prior statements. The court suggested narrowing the witness list but issued no express production ruling.
Aloke ChakravartyWilliam D. WeinrebJudy ClarkeGeorge A. O'Toole Jr.MS. CLARKETHE COURTMR. WEINREBMR. CHAKRAVARTYCourt Clerkprocedural
2015 Federal Trial/Day 48/April 17, 2015
4 pages·0 witnesses·166 lines
The court ruled on penalty-phase evidence, including the Waltham events, a conditional use of a guilty-plea offer, and limits on medical testimony and mitigation arguments. Counsel also discussed preliminary jury instructions, witness arrangements, and disclosure requests, several of which remained unresolved.
← Day 47Day 49 →
Procedural

4.Disclosure Dispute over Defense Witnesses' Prior Statements

22 lines
ProceduralProc.Disclosure Dispute over Defense Witnesses' Prior Statements
1

MS. CLARKE: One final thing while we have you.

2

THE COURT: All right.

3

MS. CLARKE: We've written to the government about what I'll call Jencks for defense witnesses. If they testified in front of the grand jury or they have a videotaped statement or some kind of statement that they've adopted, we've asked the government to produce that to us, and we've heard no response, and I wonder if the Court would encourage that.

4

MR. WEINREB: We'll provide a response.

6

MR. WEINREB: We'll provide a response later today.

7

THE COURT: Is it clear who the witnesses are? I mean, can you -- I know the long list. I mean, do you have some that you think you're particularly interested in?

9

THE COURT: I mean, it would be easier if you narrowed the list down.

10

MS. CLARKE: We don't know who testified in front of the grand jury, and that's what we've asked for. And some witnesses, they've said they were tape-recorded, videotaped, and we haven't seen those. So we thought the government would know from the list of witnesses. We can tell them in greater detail if that will help.

11

MR. WEINREB: Just so we're clear, your Honor, this isn't a request for Jencks material.

13

MR. WEINREB: This is a request for information that is not Jencks, is not discoverable under Rule 16, is not Brady material. It is simply not discoverable at all.

14

MS. CLARKE: Well, it's part of statements by these witnesses, and we're calling them in our case in mitigation, and we believe they have favorable mitigating things to say.

15

MR. WEINREB: And to the extent that they do, that those statements were disclosed long, long ago, and there was much litigation over whether the defense was entitled to verbatim copies of it or they were simply entitled to a fair and accurate statement of what the witnesses had said. That was litigated and decided, relitigated and redecided, and there's no reason to go yet another round.

16

MS. CLARKE: I think we've gotten our response.

18

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, as long as that's an issue, we have made the reciprocal request and haven't received anything with regards to prior statements of defense witnesses.

19

MS. CLARKE: I can tell them that we called no one in front of the grand jury.

20

THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll see you on Tuesday.

21

COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court.

22

(The Court exits the courtroom and the proceedings concluded at 12:53 p.m.)

Continue to Day 491.Amputee Photographs Allowed over Defense Objection
← Day 47Day 49 →
← Victim-Impact and Grave-Risk Evidence Scope and Pending Mitigation Objections4 of 4Day 49 →Amputee Photographs Allowed over Defense Objection