1.Amputee Photographs Allowed over Defense Objection
64 linesP R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: So I understand there's some issues about exhibits and other evidence. I just wanted to be practical about it so we can get going, what we'll get the first part of the government case today, this morning, this afternoon maybe, including the opening.
MR. WEINREB: So I think probably the most efficient way to start is for us to review which of these exhibits we're not going to offer. That's all new.
THE COURT: Oh, I don't have the new list. My list goes through 1610, which was the end of last week.
COURT STAFF: I can go get the binder.
THE COURT: It's in the binder?
COURT STAFF: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Would you mind if I grabbed my list?
THE COURT: No.
So, yeah, why don't you go get it.
(Pause.)
MR. WEINREB: So we already informed Mr. Bruck which witnesses on our list we won't be calling.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Does the Court want to know as well?
THE COURT: Sure. I want to know as much as I can know.
MR. WEINREB: Then we need that list. Actually, Mr. Bruck has the list. He has his notes on it.
MR. BRUCK: Well, we've been told Karen McWatters won't be called, Lawrence, Williams, which are the emails; Danling Zhou.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. So on the list that I have has FBI Special Agent Lawrence or Williams. Neither?
MR. WEINREB: Neither.
MR. BRUCK: Lawrence or Williams. Okay.
And then moving down to Danling Zhou, we have crossed out, and also Laura Woods.
THE COURT: All right. But Jinyan Zhao will?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: She's a relative?
MR. MELLIN: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: And those are the only ones that are definitely out.
MR. WEINREB: That's correct. And then with respect to exhibits, if there are any discrepancies, we can discuss it. So we don't intend to offer Exhibit 10, which is the first one. Exhibits 1603 and 1605 are noted as video survivors' montage. They are the subject of a defense motion. We're not going to offer those in the way that -- in the form -- we're not going to offer them at all, frankly. What we're going to offer instead, to focus -- hopefully address the defense objection, is individual photos of each of the victims who actually suffered amputations, but fully dressed photos of them, not showing any scars or gore or anything like that, just them with their prosthetic limbs attached.
COURT CLERK: Judge, here's a list.
THE COURT: I looked at these over the weekend, and 1603, I didn't understand what it was. Maybe you could tell me what it is.
MR. WEINREB: Those are -- all of the 260 victims who suffered physical injury at the blast were asked to submit photographs of themselves, not showing their injuries or anything like that, just to -- so they could easily be identified in court, but...
THE COURT: So these are people who suffered some physical injury as a result of the bomb blast?
MR. WEINREB: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. But you're not going to use, what, 1603 or 1605, in that form?
MR. WEINREB: Correct. Now, those exhibits included photos of people who had lost limbs, and so we're just narrowing it down to that number, which I believe is 17 or 18 people.
THE COURT: I see. Okay. Is there an objection to that? Let's just pause on that.
MS. CLARKE: Yes, same objection.
THE COURT: The generalized objection to that it's unnecessary on the grave risk. Is that it?
MR. BRUCK: Exactly.
MS. CLARKE: It's not relevant to any aggravating factor and the prejudice, probative value weighing.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, we would argue that it's relevant to several aggravating factors. One is grave risk. One is also substantial planning and premeditation to commit an act of terrorism, and --
MR. MELLIN: Cruel, heinous and depraved, the manner in which the act occurred.
MR. WEINREB: Evidence of how the act occurred.
MR. BRUCK: As to that, we think that that focuses on the murders, the homicides, not with reference to others.
MR. WEINREB: We're not saying that it was heinous, cruel and depraved as to these individuals but that these individuals -- what happened to them is evidence that it was heinous, cruel and depraved to the ones who died.
THE COURT: I think it is relevant evidence and admissible under the statute.
MR. WEINREB: We won't be offering any of these emails that are -- or translations that are 1611 to 1618. And I should just note for the record that to the extent that the defense seeks to introduce defendant emails or emails from family members in its case, we may seek to offer them at that time to provide context, but not as --
THE COURT: Sure. I understand. Or as rebuttal, perhaps, afterwards.
MR. WEINREB: Or as rebuttal, perhaps.
MS. CLARKE: So, Bill, the 1600 series or the 1300 series?
MR. WEINREB: I have them on this list at 1611 through 1618.
MS. CLARKE: I've got a set of those and then a set that is 1347, '48, '49, '50, '51, '53, '54, '55, '56 and '57.
MR. WEINREB: Those are probably the same emails with different numbers.
MS. CLARKE: I don't believe so.
MR. BRUCK: Here's the list if you care to look at it.
MR. WEINREB: Sure.
(Pause.)
MR. WEINREB: I think these are the same emails. Have you looked at them?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And you know they're not the same?
MS. CLARKE: They're different dates. They may be the same content on different dates.
MR. MELLIN: We can check and get back to you.
MS. CLARKE: If you're not planning on using emails --
MR. WEINREB: We're not planning on using any of the emails.
1621 to 1629, is that on the Court's list?
THE COURT: Yes. On this one, yes.