老澳门开奖结果

In 2013, 19-year-old respondent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev joined his 26-year-old brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev in placing two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon鈥攁 grievous and shocking act of terrorism.

In the sentencing phase of a capital trial, defendants are entitled to introduce any evidence in mitigation that might support a jury verdict of life rather than death. Dzhokhar sought to introduce evidence in mitigation that Tamerlan, his older and only brother, had previously enlisted an accomplice to commit a brutal triple murder and robbery on the ten-year anniversary of September 11, 2001. Tamerlan bound, beat, and slit the throats of three men (one a childhood friend) in the name of jihad. This evidence supported Dzhokhar鈥檚 core mitigation theory that his older brother was a violent jihadist who influenced him to participate in the Boston Marathon bombings and was more culpable for those crimes. But the district court excluded all mention of it. Dzhokhar was sentenced to death.

Amici鈥攖he 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Massachusetts, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and the Rutherford Institute鈥攕ubmitted this brief arguing that the district court鈥檚 exclusion of this mitigating evidence violated the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA). The FDPA allows relevant mitigation evidence to be excluded only if it creates a 鈥渄anger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.鈥� We argue that none of those grounds applies here, and the trial court鈥檚 exclusion of the evidence was therefore legal error.

The district court excluded this evidence in part because the court considered it a 鈥渨aste of time鈥� and likely to be 鈥渃onfusing to the jury.鈥� 鈥淲aste of time鈥� is not a valid ground for exclusion under the FDPA. And the Government鈥檚 concern about a distracting 鈥渕ini-trial鈥� over the evidence is not a standalone basis for exclusion under the statute, either. And for good reason. Resolving factual disputes core to a mitigation defense at sentencing is not an impermissible 鈥渕ini-trial鈥�; it is the trial.

The trial court鈥檚 鈥渃onfusion鈥� rationale is also flawed. Determining what happened and whether it supports mitigation is what the jury is for. Under the FDPA, excludable evidence must pose a risk of 鈥渃onfusing the issues.鈥� Issues are confused if the jury uses evidence to draw an impermissible inference. The risk of that here was zero. If the jury credited the evidence, it would have been for the exact鈥攁nd permissible鈥攑urpose for which it was introduced: To show that Dzhokhar acted under Tamerlan鈥檚 influence when committing the Boston Marathon bombings.