Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-daySteven D. MellinWilliam D. WeinrebMiriam ConradTimothy G. WatkinsMichelle NicoletJohn OliverSister Helen PrejeandirectcrossredirectsidebarDay 61 - May 11, 2015Sister Helen Prejean gave a limited opinion about Tsarnaev’s remorse and acknowledged that her death-penalty opposition influenced it. The defense rested, and prosecution rebuttal addressed SAMs review and ADX conditions. The Court left disputed SAMs testimony unchanged and requested written Rule 29 grounds.
← Day 602015 Federal TrialDay 62 →

Day 61 - May 11, 2015

Prejean’s Remorse Testimony, Defense Rest, and Prison-Conditions Rebuttal

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
17Proceedings
7Pages
3Witnesses
1,369Lines
3Sidebars
Day 61 of 67
Appearing:
Steven D. Mellin William D. Weinreb Miriam Conrad Timothy G. Watkins Michelle Nicolet John Oliver Sister Helen Prejean

Sister Helen Prejean gave a limited opinion about Tsarnaev’s remorse and acknowledged that her death-penalty opposition influenced it. The defense rested, and prosecution rebuttal addressed SAMs review and ADX conditions. The Court left disputed SAMs testimony unchanged and requested written Rule 29 grounds.

Full day summary

Sister Helen Prejean testified about five meetings with Jahar Tsarnaev and her belief that he was genuinely sorry. The Court permitted a lay opinion based on her observations, but barred reliance on experience with death-row inmates, broader moral judgments, and predictions of future regret or growth. Prejean attributed to Tsarnaev the statement, “No one deserves to suffer like they did,” and cited his lowered eyes and pain in his voice as grounds for her assessment. On cross-examination, Prejean acknowledged her categorical opposition to capital punishment and her public advocacy. On redirect, she said that opposition influenced her remorse opinion, while clarifying that she would not describe Tsarnaev as sincerely remorseful unless she believed it. She denied receiving payment for appearing or defense payments or donations to her order or ministry. The defense then rested. At sidebar, the Court continued to reserve decision on the renewed Rule 29 motion. The prosecution presented rebuttal testimony about special administrative measures (SAMs) and confinement at ADX. The Court allowed general evidence about review and modification of SAMs but excluded specific cases and numerical comparisons suggesting the likelihood of relief. FBI unit chief Michelle Nicolet described annual review and said an individual inmate’s duration under SAMs could not be predicted. Under defense questioning, she acknowledged that some individuals had remained under annually renewed restrictions since 2002 and that lapsed restrictions could be reimposed. Her disputed statement that the Court had ordered a modification in this case prompted a request for correction. After reviewing the earlier record, the Court left the testimony unchanged, explaining that its prior action could be understood as an order. Warden John Oliver described visits, communication, recreation, housing, and transfer possibilities. Cross-examination addressed monitored social contact, limited jobs, nonautomatic phase advancement, and restrictions requiring outside approval to modify. Oliver said SAMs removal requires departure from H unit, but did not predict any particular inmate’s placement. The Court requested written grounds for the defense’s Rule 29 motion.

1. Rulings on Sister Helen Prejean's Remorse Testimony

The Court allowed Sister Helen Prejean to give a limited lay opinion about the defendant’s remorse based on her observations and set boundaries on the statements and subjects she could discuss.

→
Procedural
Rulings on Sister Helen Prejean's Remorse Testimony
161 lines

The Court allowed Sister Helen Prejean's lay opinion on remorse but restricted its basis, defendant statements, and predictions of future change.

Highlights

Rulings on Sister Helen Prejean's Remorse TestimonyrulingThe Court overruled the timing objection and permitted Sister Helen Prejean's lay opinion on remorse, but prohibited reliance on experience with death-row inmates. Limited background about spiritual counseling, including prisoners, was allowed.

2. Limits on Prosecution Rebuttal About SAMs and ADX

The Court limited prosecution rebuttal about SAMs, deferred a decision on evidence about ADX cell conditions, and addressed limits on Sister Helen’s testimony before the defense called its next witness.

→
Procedural
Limits on Prosecution Rebuttal About SAMs and ADX
95 lines

The Court limited SAMs rebuttal to general testimony, excluded case-specific comparisons, and deferred a ruling on proposed ADX cell-conditions evidence.

Highlights

Limits on Prosecution Rebuttal About SAMs and ADXrulingThe Court allowed focused government rebuttal about the structure of SAMs and the fact that relief has occurred, but excluded specific cases and numerical comparisons suggesting a probability of relief.

3. Sister Helen Prejean — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Sister Helen Prejean described her meetings with the defendant and her belief that he was sincerely remorseful. Cross-examination and redirect addressed her death-penalty opposition and potential bias. The defense then rested and requested sidebar motions.

→
Direct
Direct Examination - Sister Helen Prejean Sister Helen Prejean Miriam Conrad
148 lines

Sister Helen Prejean described her meetings with Jahar and her belief that he was genuinely sorry, while the Court repeatedly limited the scope and basis of her testimony.

Cross
Cross-Examination - Sister Helen Prejean Sister Helen Prejean William D. Weinreb
45 lines

Weinreb questioned Sister Helen Prejean about her death-penalty opposition and advocacy; the Court allowed inquiry into organizational funding.

Redirect
Redirect Examination - Sister Helen Prejean Sister Helen Prejean Miriam Conrad
49 lines

Prejean acknowledged her advocacy's influence on her remorse opinion, affirmed her sincere belief, and denied defense payments. The defense then rested.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Sister Helen Prejeantestimony highlightPrejean described Jahar lowering his eyes and having pain in his voice, and said she believed he was genuinely sorry. The Court sustained an objection when she began recounting her own words and directed counsel toward observations rather than repeating the conversation's content.Direct Examination - Sister Helen Prejean“And I just had every reason to think that he was taking it in and that he was genuinely sorry for what he did.”— Sister Helen PrejeanPrejean expressed her personal assessment of Jahar's remorse, rather than an independently established fact about his state of mind.Redirect Examination - Sister Helen PrejeanadmissionOver objection, Prejean answered that her death-penalty opposition influenced her remorse opinion, describing it as groundwork based on each person's dignity. The Court allowed the answer to stand.Redirect Examination - Sister Helen Prejeanprocedural actionClarke announced that the defense rested and requested a sidebar for motions; the Court called counsel to the side.

4. Renewed Rule 29 Motion Reserved; Defense Rests and Prosecution Rebuttal Begins

The defense renewed its Rule 29 motion at sidebar, and the court continued to reserve decision until completion of all evidence.

→
sidebar
Renewed Rule 29 Motion and Nicolet Timing
6 lines

Clarke renewed the Rule 29 motion, and counsel estimated that proceeding with Nicolet would take about 20 minutes.

Procedural
Defense Rests; Prosecution Rebuttal Begins
3 lines

5. Michelle Nicolet — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Michelle Nicolet described annual review, renewal, and removal of special administrative measures. Cross-examination addressed long-running restrictions and disputed testimony about a modification in this case; the Court deferred a requested corrective instruction. Redirect returned to renewal considerations and removals.

→
Direct
Direct Examination - Michelle Nicolet Michelle Nicolet Steven D. Mellin
102 lines

Michelle Nicolet described annual SAMs review and uncertain duration; the Court allowed general testimony but struck an answer about modifications in this case.

Cross
Cross-Examination - Michelle Nicolet Michelle Nicolet Timothy G. Watkins
98 lines

Nicolet confirmed lengthy SAMs renewals; a disputed answer about judicial modification prompted a sidebar, with any correction deferred.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Disputed Testimony About Court-Ordered SAMs ModificationsCounsel disputed whether testimony about court-ordered SAMs modifications was accurate and whether the jury should receive a correction.
Redirect
Redirect Examination - Michelle Nicolet Michelle Nicolet Steven D. Mellin
20 lines

Nicolet described additional SAMs renewal factors and confirmed, over objection, that some individuals subject to SAMs since 2002 had later had them removed.

Highlights

Direct Examination - Michelle Nicolet“We take a fresh look at it every year, and if it does not rise to the level of warranting continuance, then we will allow it to lapse at the appropriate time.”— Michelle NicoletNicolet described SAMs as subject to renewed annual assessment rather than automatic continuation.Direct Examination - Michelle Nicolettestimony highlightAsked whether the duration of SAMs for a particular inmate could be predicted in 2015, Nicolet said it could not.Cross-Examination - Michelle Nicolettestimony highlightNicolet confirmed that some individuals had remained continuously under annually renewed SAMs since 2002 and that lapsed restrictions could be reimposed.

6. John Oliver — Direct/Cross/Redirect

John Oliver describes ADX restrictions and H unit phases, distinguishes social from legal communications, and explains possible transfers without predicting any particular inmate’s future placement.

→
sidebar
Limits on In-Cell Prison Programming Testimony
22 lines

Counsel discussed the scope of questioning about in-cell prison programming and raised prior legal-visit rulings for review.

Procedural
Return to Open Court for John Oliver
5 lines
Direct
Direct Examination - John Oliver John Oliver Steven D. Mellin
187 lines

John Oliver described ADX contacts, recreation, and housing changes after SAMs removal; the Court limited some prison-conditions testimony.

Cross
Cross-Examination - John Oliver John Oliver Timothy G. Watkins
325 lines

Oliver confirmed ADX restrictions and outside approval for Phase 3 contact, but disputed that transfers necessarily require removing SAMs.

Redirect
Redirect Examination - John Oliver John Oliver Steven D. Mellin
61 lines

Oliver clarified legal-communication exceptions and housing changes after SAMs removal; the Court limited questioning about other prison settings.

Highlights

Cross-Examination - John OliveradmissionOliver confirmed that the warden cannot independently authorize Phase 3 inmate contact: SAMs must be modified. Over a prosecution objection, he explained that outside officials need not accept his recommendation and may possess information he lacks.

7. SAMs Testimony Left Unchanged, Written Rule 29 Grounds, and Penalty-Phase Verdict Form and Closing Preparations

The Court left disputed SAMs testimony unchanged and requested written Rule 29 grounds from the defense.

→
Procedural
SAMs Testimony Left Unchanged; Written Rule 29 Grounds Requested
5 lines

The Court left disputed SAMs testimony unchanged and requested written Rule 29 grounds, including the issue concerning the Richard matter.

Charge Conference
Penalty-Phase Verdict Form and Closing Preparations
37 lines

Highlights

SAMs Testimony Left Unchanged; Written Rule 29 Grounds RequestedrulingThe Court left the disputed SAMs testimony unchanged, explaining that the prior record could be understood as an order and that further clarification would confuse the jury.
← Day 602015 Federal TrialDay 62 →