The young man, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of detonating a bomb in a pressure cooker at the Boston Marathon, has begun his trial in federal court in Boston. He faces 30 charges including blowing up a weapon of mass destruction/terrorism. The prosecutors allege that Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlin, plotted and executed the detonation of the bomb during the crowded race. Tamerlin died shortly after the incident.
Here is a peek at the possible defense:
1. How can the prosecutors distinguish exactly what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did instead of what the brother did? What if the older brother (Dzhokhar was 19 and Tamerlin was 26) masterminded everything and actually set-off the bomb? How could Dzhokhar be held responsible? Under both federal and state law there’s a legal principle called “aiding and abetting,” or liability for the crimes of another person. Dzhokhar can be charged with the crimes even it his brother was the Boston Bomber and did the dirty work.
2. How can the prosecutors prove that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev liable for the crimes of his brother? The laws generally read something like this:
Liability for crimes of another. A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally
aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with the other to commit the crime.
Courtesy of digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The prosecutors have to prove two things: The crime of blowing up the bomb and injuring/killing people happened and that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev participated or helped do that in some fashion. The courts have interpreted this participation to be any degree—even a very small bit of help. Even if Dzhokhar drove the get-away SUV and nothing else, he could be convicted of the full crimes.
3. What’s the defense going to be? Dzhokhar’s lawyers have not revealed much, but they’ve asked the court for more time to have a defense expert study the control and influence Dzhokhar’s older brother, Tamerlin, exerted over Dzhokhar. What would this mean?
It’s possible the defense team is going to rely on something called “duress.” Federal law says: duress excuses criminal conduct when the actor is under unlawful threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, which threat caused him to act.
4. How would that work in the trial? The defense would have to prove that Dzhokhar was so much under the influence of his older brother that Dzhokhar acted. But it has to be a threat from Tamerlin against Dzhokhar or another family member that’s immediate and deadly. They must show that Dzhokhar had no other choices but to go along with the brother.
5. How about a defense like “brainwashing??” The defense has said the “family dynamic” is the key to the defense. I don’t know what this means because there’s no defense of “brainwashing.” Many of you know about the “Stockholm syndrome” where kidnapped people commit crimes because they’ve fallen under the control of the kidnappers—but that’s not the case here.
As the trial unfolds, we’ll see what the defense comes up with and I’ll comment more.
