Breaking: Explosion Reported at Boston Marathon's Finish Line

[Dawn Meredith]

I would point out that this particular lawyer has saved many high-profile client's lives. Like the Unabomber.

The good news is, we're gonna get to see the state's case anyhow. Unlike some of the folks you mentioned.

Would have been nice to see the state's case challenged.

[Tracy Riddle]

I recently re-read Robert Blair Kaiser's RFK MUST DIE. It's a fascinating look into how much time and money is wasted in our "justice" system, and how little truth is actually revealed. The truth almost seems to be irrelevant for many prosecutors and defenders. Even if an attorney tries to put on a real defense, frequently the judge won't allow it.

[R.K. Locke]

Russ Baker's take:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/04/07/why-we-...h-the-pen/


Plenty of other good Boston-related stuff on his site. Seems like the "defence" was an absolute disgrace, as we all expected.

I was hoping for something way more in depth on this travesty. Russ barely scratched the surface in this piece.

Dawn

There is lots of good stuff on his site. That piece is just a brief response to the verdict. It's also worth checking out Daniel Hopsicker's site as he has done some good work on this case too.

[Magda Hassan]

Russ Baker's take:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/04/07/why-we-...h-the-pen/


Plenty of other good Boston-related stuff on his site. Seems like the "defence" was an absolute disgrace, as we all expected.

I was hoping for something way more in depth on this travesty. Russ barely scratched the surface in this piece.

Dawn

There is lots of good stuff on his site. That piece is just a brief response to the verdict. It's also worth checking out Daniel Hopsicker's site as he has done some good work on this case too.

Yes, both Russ and Daniel have some very good stuff on their web sites. Put the MSM to shame.

[Dawn Meredith]

Russ Baker's take:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/04/07/why-we-...h-the-pen/


Plenty of other good Boston-related stuff on his site. Seems like the "defence" was an absolute disgrace, as we all expected.

I was hoping for something way more in depth on this travesty. Russ barely scratched the surface in this piece.

Dawn

There is lots of good stuff on his site. That piece is just a brief response to the verdict. It's also worth checking out Daniel Hopsicker's site as he has done some good work on this case too.

Yes, both Russ and Daniel have some very good stuff on their web sites. Put the MSM to shame.

Oh I have kept up with Russ' great work on this case, I was simply hoping for a stronger piece
to post on fb now that the verdict is in.

[Lauren Johnson]

Well, Judy Clark's strategy was brilliant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/dzh....html?_r=0

[Don Jeffries]

Another sad day for what passes for justice in this country. Here's my take on the Boston Bombing: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/201...her-patsy/

[David Guyatt]

Another sad day for what passes for justice in this country. Here's my take on the Boston Bombing: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/201...her-patsy/

Nicely argued Don. I've yet to read the link you posted, but it seemed to me always that Tsarnaev's lawyer was a set up. But I don't understand how he was manipulated into accepting her -- probably he's not the sharpest knife in the draw.

[Drew Phipps]

I thought Judy Clarke was court-appointed. Defendants don't get to choose court appointed counsel.

The "soft" approach to the jury does work sometimes, I've used it myself. You just have to understand which battles to pick. Do you guys seriously suppose a jury would have failed to convict Tsarnev? Saving his life would have meant more time to prosecute appellate remedies, and more time for whatever holes the government had in its case to appear.

As an example, do you truly suppose a jury would have failed to convict Oswald back in the 60's? Or that a judge would have allowed chain of custody issues to stand in the way of that freight train? Now, however, with decades of research and the patient unraveling of the evidence in that case, things are different.

[Dawn Meredith]

Drew is correct you do not get to choose your court appointed lawyer. However if you are unsatisfied with the representation of a court- appointed lawyer you can ask that this person be dismissed and request someone else be appointed. The judge makes the ultimate decision and only in rare circumstances is this permitted. We do not know if this young man ever made such a request, just as we do not know if he requested to testify in his own behalf. I personally suspect he did. And his attorney likely advised him it would be best not to. I have represented many persons charged with crimes over the past thirty years who have told me that that his or her prior attorney "made me plead guilty" or "would not let me testify". Some attorneys simply do not believe in letting a client testify when in fact it the SOLE decision of the client. Unless I have a very good reason I always put my clients on the stand. Jurors WANT to hear from the person charged. Oh they say in voir dire they can be fair, but I don't believe it. It's human nature to want to hear from the person charged and be able to judge the credibility of that person.

Well done Don. I knew he'd be put to death and I knew he'd never get a fair trial.

Dawn