I’m sure you remember the tragic bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013.  The man accused of plotting and participating with his brother to execute the crime is named Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  He is on trial now in Boston for the crime.  He faces the death penalty if convicted.  In trial his defense lawyer, Judy Clarke, dropped her own bomb and told the jury that her client, Mr. Tsarnaev, is guilty.  Isn’t this an odd way for the lawyer to defend the Boston Bomber??

Why would she do this?  What does it mean and what will happen during the trial?

After over 30 years in courtrooms, I can tell you: here are 4 things to watch for as the trial unfolds.

1.  Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty.  The evidence as reported by the media is overwhelming.  Why would the defense lawyer admit this without forcing the government to bring evidence to prove her client guilty?  Since there is no defense to his guilt about committing the crime, the only chance he has would be if the government made a technical mistake or a critical witness died—even then the prosecutor may be allowed to introduce statements by the witnesses anyway.  You will see Tsarnaev’s lawyer, instead, asking questions about his older brother and the control the older brother had over Dzhokhar in order to get him to go along with the bombing.

2.  How can Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be charged with the crime?  I don’t think there’s any evidence that he blew up the bomb—instead his older brother did that.  So, how can Dzhokhar be charged?  Because of a statute that almost all jurisdictions use: the “aiding and abetting” statute.  Fancy words that mean if a person participates with another to commit a crime, both can be found guilty of being the Boston Bomber—even if Dzhokhar played a small or minor role.  This is kind of like being a kid accused of stealing the cookies with his sister.  If the sister did everything wrong but you helped her reach the cookie jar on the top shelf, you’re both guilty of the same thing.  You’ll see the prosecution hammer away at this point.  Even if the brother master-minded everything, Dzhokhar participated and is, therefore, guilty of murder.

Courtesy of digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

3.  Then, why is the defense lawyer trying to get into evidence about the older bother’s influence?  She’s probably trying to get the jury to make a distinction between the two bothers—in the hopes they will not decide on the death penalty.  Instead, they would give her client life imprisonment for being one of the Boston Bombers who played a minor role, essentially “forced” by the older brother.

4.  Will the judge allow this process?  It’s going to be tough for Ms. Clarke.  Technically, any evidence of the bother’s influence would be left for a sentencing hearing.  The purpose of the trial is to determine if Dzhokhar is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—which his lawyer’s already admitted.  The judge may restrict the defense from any evidence about the older brother.

Do you think the defense strategy is wise?