Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayAloke ChakravartyNadine PellegriniWilliam D. WeinrebMiriam ConradWilliam W. FickRosa BoothAlexa GuevaraNaida SuleimanovaPatimat SuleimanovaShakhruzat SuleimanovaRaisat SuleimanovaNabisat SuleimanovadirectcrosssidebarredirectDay 57 - May 4, 2015Relatives and friends offered childhood and social recollections of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The court limited personal-reaction and family-history questioning, denied a mistrial motion, and excluded a Facebook post while admitting photographs and a recording identified as Tamerlan’s voice.
← Day 562015 Federal TrialDay 58 →

Day 57 - May 4, 2015

Family and Friends Testify; Mistrial Motion Denied

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
20Proceedings
11Pages
7Witnesses
1,759Lines
9Sidebars
Day 57 of 67
Appearing:
Aloke Chakravarty Nadine Pellegrini William D. Weinreb Miriam Conrad William W. Fick Rosa Booth Alexa Guevara Naida Suleimanova Patimat Suleimanova Shakhruzat Suleimanova Raisat Suleimanova Nabisat Suleimanova

Relatives and friends offered childhood and social recollections of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The court limited personal-reaction and family-history questioning, denied a mistrial motion, and excluded a Facebook post while admitting photographs and a recording identified as Tamerlan’s voice.

Full day summary

Defense witnesses described Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s childhood, family relationships, and friendships, while the court limited questions about personal reactions, family history, and matters outside witnesses’ knowledge. Relatives recalled him as kind, caring, or shy and described family moves and customs involving older siblings and male relatives. Family and residence photographs were admitted. Raisat Suleimanova expressed love for her cousin while categorically rejecting his actions. On cross-examination, she emphasized that she had not seen him since he left at age eight. The court sustained objections to questions contrasting childhood kindness with the bombing and its victims. At sidebar, Fick sought a mistrial, arguing that the questioning implied lack of remorse from courtroom silence or demeanor. Weinreb denied that interpretation. The court denied the motion and barred an updated character assessment based on Raisat’s childhood acquaintance with the defendant. Naida Suleimanova described Jahar’s affection for Tamerlan and a family custom of following older siblings. She identified Tamerlan’s voice in two short recordings but said she did not understand the religious ideas discussed. The recording and transcript were admitted, with limits on commentary and subjective reactions. Patimat Suleimanova’s testimony paused to allow her to recover her composure. Shakhruzat Suleimanova described family caregiving and changes she observed in Zubeidat and Tamerlan; she also had not seen Jahar since age eight. During Nabisat Suleimanova’s testimony, the court halted questions about an unauthenticated birth certificate. After a defense proffer, it declined to reconsider exclusions concerning a border crossing and reactions to Tamerlan’s recordings. Alexa Guevara recalled college social activities, marijuana use, and spring-break fireworks. The court struck her secondhand answer about drug-sale income and stopped further questioning about purported drug-related texts. She said Tsarnaev never warned her against attending the Marathon. On redirect, she clarified that he neither smoked with the group nor supplied marijuana on the spring-break evening discussed. Rosa Booth described Tsarnaev as sweet, somewhat shy, and not a group leader. She thought she last saw him in August 2012, though she believed they later had Facebook contact. The court admitted two photographs but excluded her Facebook writing. With no further witnesses present, the jury was released early. Scheduling and juror-related requests remained under discussion.

1. Raisat Suleimanova — Direct/Cross (Part 1)

Raisat Suleimanova described Jahar’s childhood and family life. Cross-examination emphasized her lack of contact since he left at age eight, while the court limited proposed family-opinion testimony and barred questions comparing childhood behavior with bombing victims’ suffering.

→
Procedural
Morning Jury Compliance Check and Witness Order
12 lines
Direct
Raisat Suleimanova — Direct Raisat Suleimanova William W. Fick
232 lines

Jahar's cousin recalled his kindness and family upbringing; the court limited questions about religious changes and family reactions to the crimes.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Family Witnesses' Reactions to the CrimesDefense counsel sought family witnesses' reactions to the crimes to address credibility and bias, while the prosecution argued that such testimony had low probative value and high prejudicial value.
Cross
Raisat Suleimanova — Cross Raisat Suleimanova William D. Weinreb
89 lines

Suleimanova limited her childhood observations to age eight; the court barred questions contrasting Jahar's kindness with the bombings.

Highlights

Raisat Suleimanova — Direct“I came for the sake of my brother, whom I love very much. He's part of my family. I had no right not to come here. I categorically reject what he did. It's a great tragedy, of course.”— Raisat SuleimanovaExpresses both family loyalty and rejection of Jahar's actions; she subsequently explained that she calls her cousins brothers.Raisat Suleimanova — CrossadmissionSuleimanova confirmed that the defendant had been loved and supported as a child, while emphasizing that she had not seen him since he left at age eight.

2. Mistrial Motion Denied and Character Questioning Limited

The court denied Fick's mistrial motion over a government question and excluded the witness's assessment of the defendant's character.

→
sidebar
Mistrial Motion and Childhood Character Questioning
10 lines

The defense sought a mistrial over an alleged implication about courtroom silence or demeanor, while counsel disputed questioning a childhood witness about changed views of the defendant.

Highlights

Sidebar — Mistrial Motion Denied and Character Questioning LimitedrulingThe court expressly denied the motion for a mistrial.

3. Raisat Suleimanova — Redirect (Part 2)

Raisat Suleimanova clarified that the Tsarnaevs mostly stayed with her family during visits to Kaspiysk but did not live there.

→
Procedural
Return to Open Court Before Redirect
1 lines
Redirect
Raisat Suleimanova — Redirect Raisat Suleimanova William W. Fick
16 lines

Suleimanova described crowded family visits in Kaspiysk, clarifying that the Tsarnaevs stayed temporarily rather than lived there.

4. Naida Suleimanova — Direct

Naida Suleimanova described Jahar’s childhood and family relationships, then identified Tamerlan’s recorded voice under court-imposed limits. The prosecution asked no cross-examination questions.

→
Direct
Naida Suleimanova — Direct Naida Suleimanova William W. Fick
258 lines

Suleimanova recalled Jahar's childhood kindness and identified Tamerlan's recorded voice; the court limited interpretation of the recording and some family-reaction testimony.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Tamerlan Recording Identification and Comparison LimitsCounsel disputed whether a witness could identify Tamerlan's voice in admitted recordings, describe her reaction, or compare his recorded statements with what she remembered him saying.

Highlights

Naida Suleimanova — Direct“And as is the custom in our families, you would always listen to your older sibling. You always tried to listen to your older sibling, your older brother, and follow his example.”— Naida SuleimanovaShe described a family custom of deference to older siblings while discussing Jahar and Tamerlan's childhood relationship.Naida Suleimanova — Directtestimony highlightAfter two short audio portions were played, Suleimanova identified Tamerlan as the speaker of highlighted lines. Asked about the religious ideas, she said she did not understand them and that her parents had not taught those things.

5. Patimat Suleimanova — Direct

Patimat Suleimanova identified a photograph of her hometown before being excused to recover her composure, with defense counsel saying she would return.

→
Direct
Patimat Suleimanova — Direct Patimat Suleimanova William W. Fick
32 lines

Suleimanova identified her birthplace and an admitted photograph of Chokh before her examination paused to let her recover her composure.

6. Shakhruzat Suleimanova — Direct

Jahar’s aunt Shakhruzat Suleimanova testified about family life and his childhood, noting she had not seen him since age eight. Ten family photographs were admitted; the prosecution declined cross-examination.

→
Direct
Shakhruzat Suleimanova — Direct Shakhruzat Suleimanova William W. Fick
344 lines

Jahar's aunt recalled family caregiving and his childhood character, while describing later changes in Zubeidat and Tamerlan.

7. Nabisat Suleimanova — Direct

Nabisat Suleimanova testified about family customs, moves, and Dzhokhar’s childhood. The court limited several lines of questioning, including use of an unauthenticated birth certificate. The prosecution asked no questions.

→
Direct
Nabisat Suleimanova — Direct Nabisat Suleimanova William W. Fick
321 lines

Jahar's cousin described family authority customs and his childhood warmth; the court halted birth-certificate questioning and limited broader family-history questions.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Authentication of Immigration-File DocumentFick sought to explore irregularities in a document he said was in the U.S. immigration file to show family chaos, not suggest an age under 18.

Highlights

Nabisat Suleimanova — DirectrulingAt sidebar, Fick said the birth-certificate questions sought to show family chaos, not that Dzhokhar was under 18. The judge halted the questioning because the document had not been authenticated.

8. Defense Family-History Proffer — Reconsideration Denied

The court declined reconsideration after the defense proffered Suleimanova’s proposed testimony about Tsarnaev family history and her reaction to recordings of Tamerlan.

→
sidebar
Suleimanova Testimony Proffer and Witness Schedule
22 lines

The defense proffered Suleimanova’s border-crossing experiences and reactions to recordings discussing radical Islamic ideas, argued that the court’s wording diminished family-history mitigation testimony, and reviewed upcoming witnesses.

Highlights

Sidebar — Defense Family-History Proffer; Reconsideration DeniedrulingThe court declined reconsideration, stating that the defense proffer confirmed its views on both excluded areas.

9. Alexa Guevara — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

Alexa Guevara testified about Tsarnaev’s college life, finances and spring-break activities. The court limited drug and gun questioning. On redirect, she said he neither smoked with the group nor supplied marijuana that evening.

→
Procedural
Jury Return and Recall of Alexa Guevara
6 lines
Direct
Alexa Guevara — Direct (continued) Alexa Guevara Miriam Conrad
23 lines

Guevara recalled Jahar performing a Chechen dance; the court excluded a question about his older brother's role while their parents were abroad.

Cross
Alexa Guevara — Cross Alexa Guevara Nadine Pellegrini
89 lines

Guevara acknowledged marijuana use and confirmed the fireworks came from Tsarnaev's backpack. The court struck secondhand drug-sale testimony and limited text questioning; she denied receiving a Marathon warning.

2 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Limits on Drug-Related QuestioningThe defense challenged the scope and foundation of government questioning about a witness’s knowledge of the defendant and his alleged drug-related activities.
  2. Further Questioning About Drug Texts LimitedConrad challenged the relevance of drug-related texts after the witness acknowledged shared drug use, while Pellegrini argued that the messages showed coded conversations.
Redirect
Alexa Guevara — Redirect Alexa Guevara Miriam Conrad
14 lines

Guevara said Jahar neither smoked with the group nor supplied marijuana during the spring-break evening involving fireworks.

Highlights

Alexa Guevara — CrossrulingThe court struck Guevara's answer about drug-sale income after she said she had only heard that Tsarnaev sold drugs, then reminded the jury that stricken material was no longer evidence.Alexa Guevara — Redirecttestimony highlightGuevara qualified the search for marijuana as a shared effort, then said Jahar did not smoke with the group or supply marijuana that evening.

10. Rosa Booth — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Rosa Booth described her high-school friendship with Jahar and faced questions about their limited later contact. The court excluded her Facebook posting and ended the jury’s Day 57 early after her testimony.

→
Direct
Rosa Booth — Direct Rosa Booth Miriam Conrad
167 lines

Booth described Jahar as sweet and not a peer-group leader. Two photographs were admitted, but the court excluded her Facebook reaction.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Facebook Post and Character EvidenceCounsel disputed whether a witness's Facebook post and reaction to the defendant's involvement offered relevant character mitigation or risked confusing the jury.
Cross
Rosa Booth — Cross Rosa Booth Aloke Chakravarty
71 lines

Booth acknowledged limited later contact with the defendant and said she learned of the Silva brothers' drug dealing after the Marathon. The court limited further questioning.

Redirect
Rosa Booth — Redirect Rosa Booth Miriam Conrad
18 lines

Booth attributed declining Jahar's prom invitation to shyness. The court then recessed early because no further witnesses were present.

Highlights

Rosa Booth — DirectrulingAfter a contested sidebar, the court excluded Exhibit 3287A, Booth's Facebook posting, but permitted questions about whether the conduct was consistent with her observations of Jahar's prior conduct.

11. Juror Counseling and Illness Requests; Trial Scheduling

Defense counsel raised juror counseling and illness questions at sidebar. The court agreed to check counseling notification, reserved a decision on identifying the ill juror, and addressed trial scheduling.

→
sidebar
Juror Counseling, Illness Records, and Trial Scheduling
31 lines

Counsel asked about juror counseling and recording an ill juror’s identity, then discussed jury submissions and tentative testimony and rebuttal schedules.

Procedural
Adjournment After Scheduling Sidebar
3 lines
← Day 562015 Federal TrialDay 58 →