Day 52 - April 24, 2015

The Court deferred the defense request for in camera review of Waltham-related materials pending a government response, stating that the request was not ex parte and noting a missing attachment. Clarke estimated six or seven days for the defense presentation, depending on cross-examination. Counsel discussed sentencing arrangements under either possible penalty verdict. The government proposed a hearing 60 days after the verdict and requested oral victim statements, but no sentencing date or decision on those statements was announced. The Court required experts to remain within their fields and deferred decisions about Professor Reynolds' proposed materials until the presentation became clearer. Over the government's objection, it permitted Dr. Giedd to give generalized adolescent brain-development testimony, but prohibited testimony about a particular adolescent. The government sought the defendant's CT scans for expert review. Clarke maintained objections to both production and admission, while saying the defense would comply if ordered. The Court left that request under consideration. The defense sought an order compelling immigration parole for Mr. Khozhugov, proffering testimony about family dynamics and invoking constitutional witness-access rights. The government opposed parole on public-safety grounds and proposed conditional closed-circuit testimony. The defense disputed the safety assessment, questioned whether remote arrangements could be completed in time, and objected to the conditions. The Court questioned its authority to compel action by an executive department and reserved decision. The Court denied the defense motion to compel witness statements, finding no particularized need for grand jury materials and allowing reconsideration if such a need developed. Mellin promised a response to discovery requests concerning Tony O'Garro. A request for FBI agents' names remained unresolved; Weinreb said the government would seek exclusion of the related evidence before responding and asserted that agent testimony required a Touhy request.