Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal TrialtranscripttranscriptMistrial Motion Denied and Character Questioning Limited - Day 57 - 2015 Federal TrialThe court denied Fick's mistrial motion over a government question and excluded the witness's assessment of the defendant's character.
William D. WeinrebWilliam W. FickGeorge A. O'Toole Jr.MR. FICKMR. WEINREBTHE COURTsidebar
2015 Federal Trial/Day 57/May 4, 2015
11 pages·7 witnesses·1,759 lines
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.
← Day 56Day 58 →
sidebar

2.Mistrial Motion Denied and Character Questioning Limited

10 lines
Mistrial Motion and Childhood Character Questioning
sidebarsidebarMistrial Motion and Childhood Character Questioning
1

(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:

2

MR. FICK: So not only, I believe, has the government opened the door that the Court tried to close, but any suggestion that his silence or demeanor in the courtroom, even implied, suggests a lack of remorse is grounds for a mistrial. There is ample case law to suggest that silence cannot be taken to mean lack of remorse. For that reason, No. 1, I think he opens the door to asking some of these witnesses to describe, very briefly at least, what their reaction to these events were, No. 1.

And, No. 2, I think that a mistrial is called for because of the -- what the government's question implies.

3

MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, there was no reference to his silence in the courtroom. The government has argued from the very beginning that the way that he behaved in the moments after the Marathon -- went to Whole Foods, when he went to buy snacks shortly after killing Officer Collier -- were all examples of his indifference and callousness, lack of remorse. There's nothing about -- no aversion to anything about the -- in the courtroom today.

Secondly, these witnesses are essentially character witnesses. That's what they're here for. They're not giving their testimony in the form of an opinion, but they're essentially up there to testify that he's kind; he's sweet.

4

THE COURT: That's what you just objected to.

5

MR. WEINREB: What I objected to was her -- the impact on her. The question that I objected to was: What impact has it had on you that he has done these things? My question is simply the kind of question that's usually given to a character witness. Is your opinion different given this, given that the defendant has been arrested -- let me finish -- given that the defendant has been convicted of a crime.

This defendant has been convicted of four murders. I'm entitled to ask her whether her views of his kindness or every other thing that she testified about are different in light of that.

6

THE COURT: Not when her last exposure to him was when he was eight years old. Just as her opinion Mr. Fick tried to get, her comments, personal assessments, were excluded. I think yours are as well. I don't know what other witnesses can do but -- no.

7

MR. FICK: Okay. Very brief redirect then.

8

THE COURT: Wait. Motion for mistrial is denied.

9

MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, if the redirect is going to just be --

10

MR. FICK: No. It's a very discrete question about summering on the Caspian Sea.

Continue to next page3.Raisat Suleimanova — Redirect (Part 2)
← Day 56Day 58 →
← Raisat Suleimanova — Direct/Cross (Part 1)2 of 11Raisat Suleimanova — Redirect (Part 2) →