E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Mitigating Circumstances and the Death Penalty: The Boston Marathon Bombing Trial
Guest Blogger
Jeffrey Abramson
As a follow-up to my August 4 post
on the federal appeals court decision throwing out the death sentence for
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for his role in the Boston Marathon bombings, I append to
this post a section of the verdict form on mitigating circumstances used at
Tsarnaev’s death penalty hearing.This
form was provided to me by Professor Mary Rose of the University of Texas, and
is available at the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel’s website, https://fdprc.capdefnet.org/verdict-forms.
At the hearing, Dzhokhar argued
that his life should be spared, since his will had been overborn by his
dominating older brother, Tamerlan.The
answers below to Questions 4 through 7 show that three jurors were sympathetic
to this view.But, as the appeals court
rightly noted, the trial judge made a mistaken evidentiary ruling that
prevented the jury from hearing relevant information that might have made the
mitigation argument stronger.The
excluded evidence related to allegations that Tamerlan was involved in an
earlier, unsolved triple homicide.Had
the jury heard and believed this evidence, three or more have held out for a
life rather than death sentence.
When one combines this error with
theerrors on questioning jurors for
bias I noted in my previous post on Aug. 4, one sees why it was necessary to
set aside the death sentence.
Jeffrey Abramson, author of We, the
Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy, is a professor of law and
government at the University of Texas at Austin. You can reach him by e-mail
at jabramson@law.utexas.edu.
Excerpt
from Verdict Form on Mitigating Circumstances