6.Rebuttal Closing — Prosecution

MR. WEINREB: As you can see from the list of mitigating factors in this case, the bulk of the mitigation case comes down to a single proposition: "His brother made him do it."

There are other mitigating factors, of course, related to his family and his upbringing. But as Ms. Clarke's argument just made clear to you, they are there largely to explain to you how his brother made him do it. The defense may phrase it in different ways, but that's the basic idea, and that's the idea they've been trying to sell you on since day one in this case. That was the defense in the guilt phase, and now it's the heart of the mitigation case.

No matter how many times they say that the defendant takes responsibilities for his actions, they actually keep trying to pin the blame on his older brother. Our response is just as easily stated: It's not true. His brother did not make him do it. And in any event, it doesn't matter what his brother did. He's the one on trial, not his brother. You need to sentence him for his actions.

When you consider the mitigation case, keep in mind that the defense bears the burden of proof. They have to convince you that these things are true. An argument isn't evidence. Things aren't true just because Ms. Clarke says they are. There has to be evidence that proves them to be true. It's up to you to decide whether that evidence exists and, if it does, whether it's enough to convince you.

Also keep in mind that even if a mitigating factor is proved, that doesn't mean you have to give it any weight. It's easy to phrase mitigating factors in a way that can be proved. Take the very first one on their list. The defendant was 19 years old when he committed these offenses. That's pretty easy to prove. But it's entirely up to you to decide if it makes a difference in this case. Some 19-year-olds act like they're 14. Some 14-year-olds can be more mature than adults. Their own expert told you that. It's entirely up to you to decide whether the defendant deserves credit for his age or for any other mitigating factor.

Now, I agree with Ms. Clarke that the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors is not a numbers game. You can't just total them both up and compare. You have to decide how weighty each one is.

For example, you might decide that a particular aggravating factor, say that Martin Richard was especially vulnerable to the effects of a shrapnel bomb because he was a little boy, is more important than a mitigating factor, say that the defendant's teachers had a high opinion of him when he was in elementary school.

You may even decide that a few aggravating factors, say that the defendant committed multiple murders in a heinous, cruel and depraved manner during an act of terrorism, outweigh all of the mitigating factors combined. That's entirely up to you.

You heard an awful lot about Tamerlan Tsarnaev during the mitigation case, and you heard Ms. Clarke refer to Tamerlan Tsarnaev or to the older brother well over 100 times just now. You also heard a lot about Chechnya. What did all that really tell you? At times it might have seemed to you as if Tamerlan Tsarnaev were the one on trial or the Chechens.

But since it's the defendant who's on trial, consider for a minute what all that evidence told you about the defendant. He was born in central Asia, not the mountains of Chechnya. He was born in the same area where his father and all of his paternal aunts and uncles had been born. He spent his early years in the bosom of a warm, extended family that included his parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, a brother and two sisters. They loved him, supported him and doted on him.

He lived either in central Asia with -- in Dagestan with his mother's family or with his cousins in a house near the Caspian Sea. He has never --

MR. WEINREB: He has never set foot in Chechnya in his life.

When he was eight, he moved with his parents from one of the poorest parts of the world to the wealthiest. They were looking for a better life, and they found it. They got an apartment in Cambridge that was walking distance to Harvard Square. Anyone who knows Cambridge knows how a desirable place it is to live. The apartment was snug, but it was adequate. It had a bedroom for the parents, a separate bedroom for the girls, another bedroom for the boys, a kitchen and a living room with a TV.

Anzor and Zubeida were not well off, but they provided what kids need to thrive. The defendant and his siblings had food, clothing, school supplies and a warm home to share, and they also had a lot of the extras American kids have come to take for granted in their lives: cars, television, computers, iPods, cell phones. The children had medical care and a free public education at excellent schools. They may not have been well off, but they were rich in many things that a lot of kids lack.

MR. WEINREB: Let's talk a minute about school because quite a number of the defense witnesses were people who knew the defendant through school. What did you learn from those witnesses?

One thing you learned is that the defendant was extremely lucky when it came to school. He had devoted teachers who got to know him, appreciated him and helped him succeed. He had dedicated coaches and mentors who promoted him. He was well liked. In short, everything you heard tells you that the defendant had everything he needed to grow into a strong, independent, mature, resilient adult.

And the evidence shows that is just what happened. Several of his teachers, coaches and mentors noted that he was unusually mature. He was the only boy in elementary school who held the baby. He learned English so quickly, he skipped fourth grade. His high school friends made him captain of the wrestling team. His friend Tiarrah Dottin told you that he was not easily pushed around. He liked to say yes, but he knew how to say no. He was not a follower. He was able to make up his own mind. He knew his own mind. He understood the difference between right and wrong.

Tamerlan, you heard, grew up in the same large family as the defendant. He was also loved, supported and doted on. He had the same advantages the defendant had when he came to the United States to live in Cambridge, and he also had a lot of strengths and successes. He wasn't as good in school as the defendant, but he was a skilled boxer. Elmirza, the defendant's brother-in-law, who testified via video link, told you that Tamerlan was handsome and could be charming, albeit it in a goofy kind of way.

Of course Tamerlan and the defendant had very different personalities. Tamerlan was loud, flashy, in your face. The defendant was quiet, polite and laid back. Tamerlan couldn't stop talking about his beliefs. The defendant kept his beliefs to himself. Tamerlan sometimes lost his temper. The defendant knew how to keep his cool.

But despite their differences, they were from the same stock, they grew up in the same family, in the same household, and in many ways, they were very much alike. They were both physically strong, one a boxer, one a wrester, capable of defeating much larger opponents. They were both emotionally strong. They took care of themselves and didn't need anyone's shoulder to cry on. And they were both men of action. When it was time to make a bomb, Tamerlan shopped for pressure cookers and got on the Internet and ordered the parts he needed. When the defendant decided that he needed a gun, he got one from his friend Stephen Silva by telling him he planned to rob some drug dealers in Providence. Stephen Silva was surprised by that. He didn't bat an eye.

Despite what Ms. Clarke just told you, there's no evidence that Tamerlan told the defendant to get a gun. None. That's just something the defense wants you to believe. Tamerlan didn't search for "P95 Ruger" on the Internet until well after the defendant got the gun. Don't be misled by that argument.

Of course you know the defendant's strength of will, his presence of mind in many other ways. You know that even after his brother had been captured by police, he had the grit to get back into that SUV, make a three-point turn and try to run over three police officers, even if it meant driving through a hail of bullets and running over his own brother. How many people do you know who could pull off something like that?

MR. WEINREB: And after ditching the Mercedes, while whole police forces were searching for the defendant, he managed to pick his way through Watertown, blood dripping from his gunshot wounds, find a hiding place, smash his cell phones and pen a very coherent and powerful message on the inside of a boat while nearly evading capture altogether. That's the kind of person he is: strong and strong-willed, just like his brother, Tamerlan.

When you think back over all the evidence you heard during the mitigation case, ask yourself this: Did you hear any evidence that convinces you that Tamerlan Tsarnaev actually made Dzhokhar Tsarnaev commit these crimes? Not "made him" in the sense of put a gun to his head. Even the defense doesn't claim that. But "made him" in the sense that the defendant was coerced or controlled. "Made him" in the sense that he was so vulnerable to Tamerlan's influence and so influenced by Tamerlan that he should be excused from bearing moral responsibility for what he did.

Let's look at some of the evidence. One of the main arguments the defense makes is that when the defendant's parents returned to Russia in the fall of 2012, they left him in Tamerlan's hands; that the defendant was already 19 years old in the fall of 2012. He hadn't lived at home for over a year. He lived at UMass Dartmouth, and he spent his days down there hanging out with his friends, smoking pot and playing video games. He wasn't financially dependent on Tamerlan, and he wasn't -- he was making ample pocket money selling drugs. And he wasn't emotionally dependent on him. He had plenty of his own friends.

Tamerlan, meanwhile, had become a scold. He condemned drinking, smoking, doing drugs. It wasn't much fun to be around him, so the defendant simply stayed away. He spent his weekends at UMass Dartmouth instead of bringing friends home to the house at 410 Norfolk. He visited Tamerlan only now and then on the occasional weekend or holiday. They seldom saw each other or even spoke. That's what the phone records show.

What about the period before the parents left for Russia in the fall of 2012? Well, for the entire first part of that year, from January of 2012 to August 2012, Tamerlan himself was in Russia. For those six months, the defendant never saw Tamerlan at all. Tamerlan emailed the defendant only six times during those entire six months. That's what the evidence shows. When he did, he sent him some jihadi videos.

But what was the defendant's response? "Thanks. That's interesting." That's it. Where is the evidence of brainwashing, of mind control? Where is the evidence that the defendant was under his brother's spell? You haven't heard it from the mouth of any witness in this case. You've only heard it from the mouths of defense attorneys.

What about the year before Tamerlan went to Russia? The defendant spent half that year finishing high school and half that year in college. Again, you've heard no evidence that Tamerlan exercised dominion or control over the defendant during that year.

You heard evidence that Tamerlan may have given the defendant jihadi materials to look at before he went to Russia, but then Tamerlan went off to Russia, looking for an opportunity to do jihad on his own. He didn't try and take the defendant with him. On the contrary, he left his little brother behind, quite possibly intending never to return. And as I just mentioned, he barely wrote to him while he was away.

You did hear testimony that Tamerlan was bossy. He had become abstinent himself, and he didn't want the defendant to smoke, drink or do drugs. He wanted him to pray and go to the mosque more often. But that's the way a lot of older siblings are with their younger siblings, isn't it? They admonish them to stay on the straight and narrow. And a lot of younger siblings, like the defendant, pretend to take that advice, even though they go back to doing whatever they want once they're out of their older sibling's sight. That is a far cry from coercion or control.

The defense argues that even before the defendant's parents left in the fall of 2012 to go back to Russia, they were effectively absent anyway because Anzor's illnesses and Zubeida's religious conversion left them unable to parent him. Is that what it looked like to you? Of course Anzor and Zubeida had their issues. All parents do. But parents can go through a lot and still have a lot left over for their children. You saw the photos of the defendant in drum class, dance class and at farm camp. As he gets older, you see him with soccer trophies, winning wrestling matches, playing pool with his friends. Those aren't the photos of a child who was neglected or overlooked with parents too crippled with problems to parent him. On the contrary, the evidence is that both his parents were devoted to him.

And despite their problems, they stayed together and maintained a family home until all of their children had grown up, become adults and left home to begin leading independent lives. Only then, once all their kids had become adults and left the nest, did they return to their families of origin from whom they had been away for so long.

Moreover, we're not just raised by our parents. Our lives are shaped by uncles, aunts, teachers, friends, neighbors, coaches, mentors. You heard evidence that the defendant was surrounded, supported and guided by some of the best. If his parents were ever unable to support him or guide him, others were there to step in: his teachers; his wrestling coach; his Model U.N. advisor; his kindly neighbor and landlady, Joanna Herlihy; his uncle Ruslan, who lived only a bus ride away. That is considerably more support and guidance than a lot of adolescents have.

The last thing the defense falls back on to prove that there must have been coercion and control is the defendant's Chechen heritage. It's a tradition in Chechnya going back thousands of years that elders control the family. But traditions can change as times change. Even Professor Reynolds, the defense expert on Chechnya, told you that. It happened in Chechnya itself in the 1990s right around the time the defendant was born.

Can I have the screen, your Honor?

MR. WEINREB: This is what Professor Reynolds wrote back in May of 2013 before the defense hired him and explained to him what they were trying to prove in the mitigation phase. He wrote, "The experience of Chechnya in the 1990s profoundly affected Chechen cultural norms. For example, the cult of the elders by which Chechens, like most North Caucasians, would routinely accept the opinions of the older males as law, declined precipitously." Went down. "The masculine ideal of the Chechen as an irrepressible warrior remained, but much of the culture that had nourished that ideal and bounded it with obligation to others, that part had withered away."

And, in fact, you know that the defendant's family isn't actually from Chechnya. His father and his father's siblings were born in Kazakhstan, and his mother and all her siblings were born in Dagestan. And the defendant and his siblings certainly weren't born or raised in Chechnya.

Again, this is what Professor Reynolds wrote back in May 2013 before he became a defense expert. He wrote, "Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were hardly typical of Chechens, and one might justifiably question whether they could even be properly described as Chechen. Their mother, Zubeida, was an ethic Avar. Both brothers were born outside of Chechnya. Both brothers grew up outside of Chechnya. And both brothers --

MR. WEINREB: And both brothers spent little or no time in Chechnya.

No matter what things might be like for actual Chechen families that actually live in Chechnya, you know from the evidence in this case that there was no tradition of obeying elders in the defendant's family. Anzor Tsarnaev defied his own father by marrying Zubeidat, an Avar, and an immodest dresser. Tamerlan, in turn, defied Anzor by marrying Katherine Russell, a Christian. Ruslan Tsarnaev, the defendant's uncle, defied tradition by assuming leadership of the whole extended family, even though he was the youngest of Anzor's two brothers.

And the defendant's sister, who was married to Ruslan's nephew, Elmirza, defied both Ruslan and her husband by calling the police on Elmirza and divorcing him. In fact, Elmirza -- remember, he's the -- he's Ruslan's son-in-law, the defendant's ex-brother-in-law. He's the one who testified over the video link. He told you something very telling. He said that Ruslan, the youngest brother, became the leader of the family because he was the smartest and the most successful, even though he was the youngest. That's a typical American story. Who was the smartest and most successful in the defendant's immediate family? It wasn't Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

What was modeled for the defendant his entire life were family members making up their own minds and making their own independent life choices, regardless of what their elders wanted them to do.

If the defense wanted to prove to you that Tamerlan Tsarnaev played a dominant role in the defendant's household and that his younger sibling was under his sway, they had a funny way of going about it. You didn't hear testimony from his patients, his sisters or his uncles. You didn't hear testimony from any of Tamerlan's best friends or from any of the defendant's best friends.

For the most part, the only witnesses the defense subpoenaed to talk about Tamerlan were people who happened to be present on an occasion when he lost his temper or acted inappropriately. What about the people who spent time with him every day?

As for the defendant, you heard mainly from Russian aunts and uncles who haven't seen him for over a decade, schoolteachers and coaches from years past. But none of those people can tell you what things were like in the Tsarnaev household. Isn't that what really matters?

You also heard from a number of young women who were sweet on the defendant. They took the witness stand and got teary seeing him in court. But none of them had even been to his house. They hadn't even met his brother or anyone else in his family. One last saw him at a barbecue in the summer of 2012. One was only friends with him during his freshman year in college. And one had just met him in college and only hung out with him for a few months. How well did they actually know him? Obviously not very well since none of them had any idea that he was reading Inspire magazine, listening to Anwar al-Awlaki lectures, or listening to jihadi nasheeds on his iPod or in his car. And he didn't care enough about them to warn them away from Boylston Street on the day of the marathon.

The defense wants you to believe that Tamerlan coerced, dominated and controlled the defendant; that he had such a great influence over the defendant that it lessened his moral culpability for these crimes. That is the centerpiece of their mitigation case. They have the burden of proving it. Did they meet that burden?

Why did they spend days calling witnesses with so little connection to Tamerlan and his brother? Why didn't they call anyone with actual insight into their relationship with one another? Ask yourselves those questions when you go back to deliberate and when you decide whether they have met their burden of proof.

What the whole claim of influence, dominance and coercive control really boils down to in the end is the proposition that Tamerlan supplied the defendant with most of the jihadi files on his computer and sent him a handful of jihadi links from Russia. Now, the computer evidence, as you heard at very great length during the trial, is open to interpretation, and I don't intend to rehash all of that here.

Instead, I urge you to ask yourself this question: So what? Even if it's true, so what? Does it matter whether you get your jihadi files from your brother, a distant cousin, a quick search of the Internet or Anwar al-Awlaki himself? Tamerlan didn't turn the defendant into a murderer by giving him some magazines and lectures and then disappearing to Russia for six months. The defendant had to become a believer, and that is something he did entirely by himself.

He became so much of a believer that he began to tweet what he had learned to others. He became so much of a believer that he could summarize the teachings on the inside wall of a boat when he didn't have any books or lectures to crib from.

As Professor Levitt told you during the guilt phase, a million people look at those materials. Only a handful of people find the materials convincing. And of that handful, only a tiny fraction consider them so convincing that they're willing to shred people alive in front of their family members and friends in order to advance a political agenda. The defendant is one of that tiny fraction. His actions are the best guide to the depths of his beliefs.

If you want to know why the defendant committed these crimes, that's the question Ms. Clarke just told you is unanswerable. If you want to know -- if you want an explanation of how he became this person, of what made him do it? What better place to look for the answer than in his own handwritten explanation of his actions.

He wrote in the boat, "I'm jealous of my brother who has received the reward of martyrdom, but God has a plan for each person. Mine was to hide in this boat and shed some light on our actions." "God has a plan for each person." That's who he believed he was doing this for. His god, not Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

He wrote, "He who Allah guides, no one can misguide." Again, that's who he believed was guiding him, Allah, not his brother.

He wrote, "The U.S. government is killing our civilians. As a Muslim, I can't stand to see such evil go unpunished." He's talking about himself. He doesn't even mention his brother.

He also wrote, "Now, I don't like killing innocent people. It is forbidden in Islam, but in this case it is allowed." Again, "I don't like killing innocent people." He's talking about himself.

His tweets are the same. They give the reasons -- they give his reasons for believing in violent jihad. Those tweets never even mentioned his brother.

In the end, the best evidence you have of the nature of the defendant's relationship with his brother, Tamerlan, is the evidence of how they actually committed these crimes. They committed them together as partners. Each one had an essential role to play.

Tamerlan was ready to commit violent jihad as early as January 2012 when he left for Russia, but the defendant wasn't ready yet. He was reading terrorist writings and listening to terrorist lectures, but he wasn't yet convinced. So Tamerlan left for Russia, hoping to find a partner there. He came back when he didn't succeed.

But by then, the defendant had steeped himself in the writings of Inspire and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he had become inspired himself. He decided he was ready to partner up. It was only then, when the defendant made the decision to become a terrorist, that Tamerlan was able to go into action. The defendant obtained a gun and ammunition, a crucial ingredient in their plans. He arranged for them to go to the range in Manchester to practice firing it.

When Marathon Monday arrived, he let Tamerlan go on ahead to the finish line, and then he chose on his own where to place his bomb for maximum effect. Then he called Tamerlan to give him the go-ahead.

Again, contrary to what Ms. Clarke just told you, later, on April 18th, both of them executed Sean Collier. There's no evidence of who pulled the trigger. You know that Sean Collier's blood was found on the defendant's keychain and on the gloves that were on the floor of the car by his feet, but the video doesn't show who pulled the trigger. Don't mistake argument for fact.

It was a full-on partnership, a partnership of equals. They did not do the exact same things, but they were both terrorists engaged in a joint effort. They bear the same moral culpability for what they did together.

The very first mitigating factor on the defense list is that the defendant was 19 years old when he committed these crimes. In fact, he was just shy of 20. What about that fact? And what about the fact that some of the time he still acted like a teenager doing teenage things? Is that a mitigating factor that deserves any weight? It might deserve some weight if these were youthful crimes. For example, if the defendant and his brother had robbed a liquor store and shot the clerk in a moment of panic. But these weren't youthful crimes. There was nothing immature or impulsive about them.

These were political crimes, designed to harm the United States, to punish Americans for our military actions overseas by killing and mutilating innocent civilians on U.S. soil. They were acts of terrorism planned over a period of months and carried out over days. They were acts of terrorism so successful that they not only killed four people and maimed 17 others, but stopped the Boston Marathon, closed Logan Airport and shut down the entire city of Boston for nearly a day.

The murders on Boylston Street were not a youthful indiscretion. The cold-blooded execution of Sean Collier, a police officer, was not a rash or impulsive act. The defendant was old enough to understand right from wrong. He wrote in the boat, "I don't like killing innocent people, but in this case it is allowed." He decided that the cause of his people, the ummah, justified the murders of a small child, two young women and a police officer. Does being nearly 20 years old mitigate any of that?

Ms. Clarke said at the beginning of her closing that these crimes were senseless and unimaginable, but they made perfect sense to the defendant, and he was perfectly able to imagine the harm his actions would cause. He was certainly old enough for that.

Mr. Mellin already talked at length about ADX and the SAMs. I'm not going to repeat what he said. I just want to emphasize one point that every witness who testified agreed upon: There is no guarantee that the defendant will spend the rest of his life in H unit or even in ADX. In fact, the opposite is true. BOP tries to step down inmates whenever possible. And BOP's desires are taken into consideration whenever SAMs are up for renewal.

Even if everyone in the government wanted the defendant to stay on SAMs, there are legal requirements for keeping them in place. If those requirements are not met, the SAMs can't be renewed. There has been litigation over SAMs. Will the defendant spend the rest of his life on H unit or even in ADX? He has not proved that to you because he can't.

Let's talk for a minute about Sister Helen. Why did the defense choose her over all other clergy who could have been invited to spend time with the defendant and then testify about it in court? Why not call an imam from the mosque here in Cambridge, like Loay Assaf, who testified here in court? Why bring in someone from Louisiana? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that Sister Helen is one of the leading death penalty opponents in the United States?

Did Sister Helen's testimony really give you much insight into what the defendant truly thinks and believes? Put aside for a moment that, as a nun, she undoubtedly tries to see the good in everyone. And put aside that, as a committed opponent of the death penalty, she undoubtedly wants to help the defendant avoid it. Focus instead on what she told you the defendant actually said to her. What do those words really mean in the end? They're open to a lot of interpretation. And because of that, they really don't tell you anything at all. In the end, can you be confident that you really know more about the defendant now than before Sister Helen testified?

According to Sister Helen, the defendant said, "No one should have to suffer like that."

MR. WEINREB: But he expressed pretty much the same sentiment in the manifesto he wrote in the boat. He wrote, "I don't like having to kill people," but he went on to say that sometimes it is necessary to kill people to advance the cause of the Muslim people. That's a core terrorist belief. The fact that now, while he's on trial for his life, the defendant is willing to go so far as to say that no one should have to suffer like that doesn't tell you much about his core beliefs. When you stack that up against his actions in this case, does it really make a difference to your decision?

Sister Helen said that the defendant seemed young to her, and Ms. Clarke tries to spin that into a guarantee that the defendant will become remorseful over time, but there's no evidence of that, no reason for you --

MR. WEINREB: Sister Helen is 76, and the defendant is 21. Of course he seems young to her.

What did their brain development expert, Dr. Giedd, tell you? He testified that in determining a person's level of maturity, the single most important thing to look at is his behavior. He told you that some people are more mature at age 19 or even age 14 than some adults will ever be. And he told you that there is absolutely no guarantee that a 19-year-old will get any more mature or reflective just because his brain will continue to grow over time.

Ms. Clarke criticizes the government for showing you the image of the defendant in the holding cell giving the camera the finger rather than showing you the whole video, but the whole video is even worse. It shows just how remorseless the defendant was when he came into court to answer for his crimes three months after committing them.

Mr. Bruck said in his opening that if you sentence the defendant to life, he'll spend the rest of his life thinking about his crimes. But that's not true just because the defense says it is. Where's the evidence of that?

If the defendant goes to prison for life, he won't be free to come and go, but he will be safe, well fed and have excellent medical care. Will he spend his days thinking about the victims, or will he spend the rest of his life thinking about himself, his family, his friends, his pen pals, his next workout, his next visit, his next phone call, his next meal?

Will he stare at the wall all day thinking about the pain and suffering he has caused, or will he do many of the very same things that people do every day to enjoy life: read books and magazines; talk on the telephone to his parents, his sisters and his friends; eat; pray; sleep; exercise? Maybe he'll even write a book.

You saw from the evidence what kind of a person he is. Maybe he'll leave behind his memories of Martin Richard, Krystle and Lingzi Lu in the same way he left them dying on the street when he went shopping at Whole Foods. Maybe he'll leave behind his memories of Sean Collier, the same way he left him bleeding to death in his patrol car as he drove into Boston to look for another gun.

The callousness and indifference that allows you to destroy people's lives, to ignore their pain, to shrug off their heartbreak, that doesn't go away just because you're locked up in a prison cell. It's what enables you to be a terrorist, and it's what insulates you from feelings of remorse.

In the end, did you hear any testimony from any witness that speaks louder about the appropriate punishment in this case than the defendant's own actions on Boylston Street or at Whole Foods or at MIT or on Laurel Street? The defendant deserves the death penalty, not because he's inhuman, but because he's inhumane. Because of his willingness to destroy other people's lives for an idea.

Most people can't even imagine standing for four minutes behind a row of children, sometimes only feet away from them, and leaving behind a bomb that you know will cause them excruciating pain and a lingering death on the sidewalk. But that's what it is to be a terrorist.

If you want to know who the defendant was, you have the testimony of his relatives, his teachers and his friends. But if you want to know who he turned into, look at his actions. They tell you all you need to know about the kind of person he became. His actions on Boylston Street, afterwards at Whole Foods, at MIT and in Watertown and in this courthouse on the day of his arraignment, they are the best evidence you have about who the defendant became.

Ms. Clarke urged you to just go through the intent factors and the aggravating factors in the verdict form and just check them off. I urge you to take your time with each one and give it the consideration it deserves.

As for the mitigators, she urged you to go through them one by one and just fill in 12. But you only write in 12 if all 12 of you find a mitigator to be proved.

One final thought before I sit down: If you sentence the defendant to life imprisonment, you will be giving him the minimum punishment authorized by law for these crimes. Contrary to what Ms. Clarke said, it is a lesser punishment than death. Does he deserve the minimum punishment or do these crimes, these four deaths, demand something more? Please ask yourself that question when you go back to deliberate.

Thank you.