6.Court's Sentencing Remarks, Imposition of Sentence, Post-Sentencing Objections, and Appeal Advisement

THE COURT: All right. First, I want to acknowledge the presence of a number of the jurors and alternates who participated in the trial of this case. They are here at my invitation. It is my practice, after a verdict in every criminal trial, to talk informally with the discharged jurors, principally to thank them again personally for their service. It is my habit on such occasions to invite them to return to attend the sentencing hearing, and sometimes they do.

Consistent with that practice, I extended a similar invitation to the jurors in this case to attend. As you can see, many of them accepted and are here. Because so many were interested and because we have limited public seating in the courtroom, as a courtesy and as a gesture of respect for their service, I authorized them to sit in the jury box. I do want to emphasize, of course, that they are present now simply as members of the public. They are no longer a jury, but a group of citizens who are here, each in his or her individual capacity. Nonetheless, I take this occasion again to thank the now-former jurors for their exceptional service.

Much of the evidence in this case was hard to hear and see. We made great demands on their time and asked them to insulate themselves from potential extraneous influences in ways that an ordinary person would find difficult or uncomfortable. We asked them to make significant changes to their daily routines and to spend a long time away from work and other pursuits. We also asked them to accept the responsibility to set aside any preconceived ideas, and instead to reason from the evidence presented in this trial to any conclusions and not the other way around.

Above all, we asked them, as they acted to perform their high duty, to be utterly fair and impartial in their deliberations. Their careful verdict satisfies me that they did what they were asked to do. Theirs was not the only possible verdict, but it is certainly a rational one on the evidence.

That they performed their duty so well and faithfully came as no surprise to me. I've been presiding over jury trials in this state for more than 30 years, and I know how seriously Massachusetts jurors take the responsibilities of jury service. I had no doubt that we could select a jury for this case that would accept and perform their high duty conscientiously and justly. The proof is in the pudding.

This was an extraordinary case. Those of us who sat through it from beginning to end saw and heard things we will never forget, both good and bad. First, we will never forget the victims of these crimes and their individual stories. We appreciate the presentations made here today. It takes a good deal of courage to stand up in this setting and to make such intensely personal statements.

Today's presentations were relatively brief. We had a fuller opportunity to see and hear those victims who testified as witnesses during the trial. Their courage throughout their extended ordeal was exemplary. We were impressed by their dignity. What I'll never forget is how, as the tragic events unfolded, one after another victims, who themselves were grievously wounded, worried about someone else: a spouse, a parent, a child, a friend. Concern for others was everywhere on display that day, even from people who were themselves experiencing the deepest anguish.

We will all remember the heroes. And there were many. One thing that particularly stands out for me, for example, is that when Boston police officers like Lauren Woods and Tommy Barrett saw people running away from danger, they ran toward it, not knowing what they would encounter. Days later, Watertown police officers put their lives on the line in the shootout on Laurel Street.

But it was not just those who had official duties. After the explosions, people in the crowd immediately responded to help where they could. How many times did we hear of someone at the scene spontaneously taking off his belt to use it as a makeshift tourniquet for one of the injured, or using a drink to try to douse burning clothing, or simply trying to give comfort to one of the injured? Nor can we forget the bravery of Dun Meng, whose courageous escape was the beginning of the end for the fugitive brothers. The medical response was similarly heroic, from the EMTs to the nurses and doctors in the medical tents and at the hospitals. I have two particularly vivid memories from the testimony: One was EMS Chief Hooley's description of the red, yellow, green triage process at the medical tent, crucial life-or-death decisions being made instantly because they had to be; the other was Dr. Heather Studley's testimony about how she and her team at Mount Auburn literally revived Dic Donohue after what might have been regarded as clinical death.

Finally, I commend what appears from this vantage point to have been the meticulous professionalism of the law enforcement post-crime investigation. I'm sure there were hitches and glitches. There always are. But the painstaking collection and analysis of evidence was extraordinary. If you want a real-life example of looking for a needle in a haystack, how about looking for a knapsack in a landfill?

Those are some of the good things I'll remember. The bad things, however, will be even harder to forget. I turn to those now as I address the defendant. One of Shakespeare's characters observes: "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones." So it will be for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Whenever your name is mentioned, what will be remembered is the evil you've done. No one will remember that your teachers were fond of you. No one will mention that your friends found you funny and fun to be with. No one will say you were a talented athlete or that you displayed compassion in being a Best Buddy or that you showed more respect to your women friends than your male peers did. What will be remembered is that you murdered and maimed innocent people and that you did it willfully and intentionally. You did it on purpose.

You tried to justify it to yourself by redefining what it is to be an innocent person so that you could convince yourself that Martin Richard was not innocent, that Lingzi Lu was not innocent, and the same for Krystle Campbell and Sean Collier and, therefore, they could be, should be killed. It was a monstrous self-deception. To accomplish it, you had to redefine yourself as well. You had to forget your own humanity, the common humanity that you shared with your brother Martin and your sister Lingzi.

It appears that you and your brother both did so under the influence of the preaching of Anwar al-Awlaki and others like him. It is tragic, for your victims and now for you, that you succumbed to that diabolical siren song. Such men are not leaders but misleaders. They induced you not to a path to glory but to a judgment of condemnation.

In Verdi's opera Otello, the evil Iago tries to justify his malice. "Credo in un Dio crudel," he sings. "I believe in a cruel god." Surely someone who believes that God smiles on and rewards the deliberate killing and maiming of innocents believes in a cruel god. That is not, it cannot be, the god of Islam. Anyone who has been led to believe otherwise has been maliciously and woefully deceived.

Mr. Tsarnaev, if you would stand, please.

THE COURT: The jury has unanimously condemned you to death for your personal actions in placing the bomb that killed Martin Richard and Lingzi Lu, thus distinguishing your culpability for those acts from your culpability for other criminal acts. That is a reasoned moral judgment. It is my duty to impose the sentence that the jury has designated with respect to the capital counts. It is my duty to determine the sentences to be imposed on the non-capital counts in accordance with the relevant statutes and after consideration of relevant sentencing factors, including Guidelines recommendation, and as I have indicated, I accept and apply the Guidelines recommendation generally as to those counts.

So accordingly, as to Counts 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 15, I sentence you to the penalty of death by execution. As to Counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 12, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, the sentences on these enumerated counts to be served concurrently with each other.

As to Counts 11, 23, 25, 27 and 29, I sentence you to life imprisonment, sentences on these five counts to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the terms of imprisonment imposed on Counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 12.

As to Count 19, I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of 25 years. As to Count 21, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 20 years. These are the maximum terms authorized for these offenses. Sentences on these two counts are to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the terms of imprisonment imposed as to Counts 11, 23, 25, 27 and 29.

As to Count 3, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Count 8, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Count 13, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Count 16, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Count 17, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Count 18, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, to be served consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

As to Counts 20 and 22, I sentence you to terms of seven years and 25 years respectively. As to Counts 24, 26, 27 and 30, I sentence you to life imprisonment. These sentences are to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to all prior terms of imprisonment.

No monetary fines are imposed. No term of supervised release is imposed as unnecessary as a practical matter in light of the numerous consecutive life sentences.

Restitution will be ordered as mandated by 18 United States Code Section 3663A(a)(1). The amount of restitution shall be determined not later than September 22, 2015, which is 90 days from today.

The government's motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture is granted and a separate preliminary order of forfeiture will be entered.

There is a mandatory assessment of $100 on each of the counts of conviction for a total of $3,000, which is due forthwith, or can be collected pursuant to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

The defendant is committed to the custody of the attorney general until the exhaustion of the procedures for appeal of the judgment of conviction and for review of the sentence. When the sentence of death is to be implemented, the attorney general shall release the defendant to the custody of a United States marshal who shall supervise the implementation of the sentence in the manner prescribed by the law of the State of Indiana.

Is there anything else?

THE COURT: I actually now formally advise the defendant that you have the right to appeal both the conviction and the sentence. If you do wish to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure and that must be done within 14 days of the entry of judgment. As I say, it will become effective in light of the post-trial motions and the extension of time we've given once those post-trial motions have been resolved.

If that's all, then we ask the marshal to take the defendant into custody pursuant to the judgment of the Court.