Home Boston Changes in the Tsarnaev Defense Team?

Changes in the Tsarnaev Defense Team?



by Cheryl Dean

In late January, 2016, a motion was filed by the defense team of Dzhokhar (“Jahar”) Tsarnaev, asking for changes to his defense representation. It was approved that Judy Clarke, David Bruck and the rest of the team exit the case. Thank God they will no longer be representing Dzhokhar.

(But Judy has to stick around for the transition as “there are not a lot of learned counsel who are qualified to handle a federal death penalty case.”)

Two new lawyers have been mentioned as likely replacements. They are, Ms. Gail Johnson and Mr. David Patton who is Executor Director of the Federal Defenders office in New York, at the trial level.

I wrote to both Mr Patton and Ms Johnson, indicating that I would welcome news of their appointment. It would be a breath of fresh air.

gail johnsonGail Johnson

Gail Johnson seems to be a very compassionate, dedicated and caring person who treats her clients as human beings. She personally wrote a letter to the Governor of Colorado asking for clemency, on behalf of a client on death row. She stated:

“Nathan Dunlap is my client and has become my friend. The fact that the jury who sentenced Nathan to death was not informed of his mental illness, haunts me to this day. I would be personally devastated if my friend Nathan Dunlap were executed by the state of Colorado”.

That is exactly what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev needs. Someone who is decent, honest, and who will fight passionately for him, for his family. Luckily Ms Johnson works in Boulder, Colorado, so will be close enough to the prison (known as ADX) to be able to visit Dzhokhar often. She can monitor his treatment in the worse prison in the United States and the 10th worst prison in the entire world.

david pattonDavid Patton

As for Attorney David Patton, the most encouraging thing I have found out about him is that he is dismayed by the current “prosecutor-driven justice system.” This is really no justice system at all.

He published an article in the Yale Law Journal in April 2013, saying:

“I attempt to demonstrate how we have moved away from an adversarial process toward an inquisitorial one and how that movement has affected the right to counsel. I discuss the right to counsel broadly and functionally, not just as the right to a warm body with a law degree, but as the right to do what we expect good defense lawyers to do: vigorously challenge the government’s view of the facts and law”.

“The harsh politics of crime and punishment have long acted as a one-way ratchet toward severity and prosecutorial control”.

“Whatever the reasons for our current state of affairs, there is one feature of the federal system about which nearly all observers agree, power has shifted from judges and juries to prosecutors”.

We certainly saw that in the prosecution and trial of Dzhokhar!

Many members of the public are coming to their own conclusions that this particular case is about setting a precedent or precedents. I believe this. There has never been a case where 9,000 law enforcement persons were called in to hunt and capture one frightened, wounded teenager.

No case before called for martial law or locking down a major city. No case ever has had anywhere near 1,300 sealed motions and over 1,700 motions so far. And, may I ask, how many people have ever been convicted of killing a police officer based on a grainy distant video, identifying no one?

There is not a single police video of the events in Watertown. Isn’t that precedent setting?  It is also obvious that law enforcement tried hard to murder Dzhokhar at the boat. And the defendant’s lawyers stunningly failed to defend their client, using the phrase “it was him” in their opening statements.

The new team will have to study an enormous number of files in this case. Within them there lies a treasure trove of legitimate legal arguments to fight this case.

We who support Dzhokhar fully expect that he will be granted a new trial, if not set free, based on prosecutorial misconduct. Judge O’Toole’s private chat with the jurors, and his obvious allegiance to the prosecution, are all also calling for redress.

Good people from all over the world will be watching the new attorneys. If you are chosen, Gail Johnson and David Patton, please don’t disappoint us, Instead of saying “it was him”, say “it was not him” — as that would be the truth.

If anyone has information about this case that they would like to see handed over to appeals lawyers, why not fly it off to GumshoeNews.com?

Cheryl Dean is the author of many articles about the Tsarnaev case. Pop her name into the search engine at GumshoeNew.com and they will come to light.


    • Cheryl, please ask the new lawyers if a 19-year-old who has just done his first mass-murder, goes off to buy milk with utter nonchalance.
      (Video clocked at 20 mins after the bombing, and he had to go to his car and drive across the Charles River to get to the Wholefoods store)

      • I have mentioned this and many other purely nonsensical things in my letter to the lawyers. Maybe they will pay no attention to these details that myself and others have written to them about, but maybe they will.

  1. goodness and amen to everything you’ve said here. we at Jahar’s FB group have brainstormed to get those rubber wrist bracelets printed saying #TsarnaevStrong on one side and #BostonWrong on the other. T-shirts too. wake up the sleeping masses of Sheeple and donate funds earned from sales to help fund his family to visit. I’d still really like John Remington Graham and Amal Clooney, Int’l human rights lawyer, to join that team. we sure aren’t done yet govt/ military/ in-‘justice’ systems. no, we’re just beginning in fact.

    Fact Law & Legal Definition uslegal.com (because I know that they don’t know what one is…)

    “Fact refers to something done or performed or something that has occurred for sure. Facts are statements that are held to be the truth or reality. It may be a statement that can be checked and confirmed. Matters of fact could have various definitions under common law jurisdictions. For e.g., in legal pleadings, facts could be necessary to demonstrate a cause of action. Fact could refer to determinations made by a finder of fact after evaluating evidence. It could also refer to various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.”
    Bring on the mountain of exculpatory evidence to exonerate Jahar…

    Exoneration Law & Legal Definition (because they’ll need to learn about this word and what action will be happening to Jahar…)

    “Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent. Exoneration may lead to controversies when the person exonerated was convicted for death penalty. The term exoneration is also referred in the context of surety bail bonds. In this case, a judge may order a bond exonerated, in such cases the clerk of the court time, stamps the original bail bond power and indicates exonerated as the judicial order.”

    This is soooo not over perps…

  2. This case needs whistle blowers, people who work inside and know the truth. I urge Americans to get back on their feet and have the courage to defend their rights and ask for a full inquiry about the Boston marathon bombing.

  3. I wonder how one qualifies as learned counsel to handle a federal death penalty case. It would be nice if an honest judge were assigned to the case too.

    Gail Johnson: “Nathan Dunlap is my client and has become my friend. The fact that the jury who sentenced Nathan to death was not informed of his mental illness, haunts me to this day. I would be personally devastated if my friend Nathan Dunlap were executed by the state of Colorado”.

    Shouldn’t Gail have informed the jury of her client’s mental illness? I don’t know how all this works, but it certainly seems that she should have/would have done this if not forbidden to do so by some corrupt judge or some court rule.

    I would be overjoyed if Dzhokhar were to have attorneys who would perform their job for him in an above-board manner and get the wrongful verdict and sentencing overturned, but I won’t make the mistake of underestimating the powers responsible for the Boston marathon “bombing” and all of the corrupt and extremely malevolent individuals who participated in the planning, the event, and the aftermath. In other words, since those people were able to plan and carry out such an event (false flag) and create false witnesses, false evidence, and a sham trial, they’re probably capable of “convincing” two young defenders not to do their job.

    At the same time, I’ll continue to hope for the highest and best outcome.

    • What about the 9,000 cops? What about the movie-makers of Patriot’s Day, what about doctors who lied — barf, barf — what about the 12 people who sat on the jury?

      By the way, Speculator and Josee, are you aware that there were 18 jurors? I only attended the 2014 trial of the roommate; he had 18 jurors. On the very last day, in the same speech in which he gave the Instructions to Jury, the judge (not O’Toole) said “I will now name the 6 extras who can go home. Or, if they like, they can enter the jury room and talk but they cannot vote.”

      I was sure he acted illegally to let them in the room. I ran to my law teacher in Oz who said there must be special legislation for it. I looked it up in Massachusetts law and sure enough it is legal for the extras to be in the jury room even after the case ends.

      Of course i never did find out how the judge chose the 6 who would be kicked off. Did he know from Day One who the extras were? I wonder if we will ever hear from the 6 extras in Jahar’s case. (I am only presuming it was an 18-man job.)

      Speculator, we now have a person who is willing to translate things into Catalan and Spanish, in order to help spread the word in Massachusetts. Dee will announce that next week.

      • Yes, I was aware of the 18 jurors. That was just another of the many, many very strange and seemingly unusual aspects of the trial. (I suspected from the day of the marathon that things were very wrong with this whole case.) I’m not afraid to speculate that in addition to the show trial, the outrageous prosecution, the admission of guilt from the defendant’s attorneys even though he had plead not guilty, the total bias of the media, the phony witnesses, and the liars who presented false evidence, that the jury was also entirely fake. This was the most critical aspect of the government’s case. After all the effort and money spent on framing Dzhokhar, they weren’t about to leave this part of it to chance. They had to make sure that he would be found guilty and sentenced to death so that he would never be allowed to speak and tell us what really happened from his point of view.

        I’m very grateful to people who will translate so that others can learn the truth!

    • Wrongful. You don’ t this man to know his completely innocence, he knows himself and his attorneys know he is guilty. It’s apparent none of you are from the U.S., do not speak English or whatever and certainly was not at the trial. So you have a lot of learning to do on this case.

      • May I suggest that you read those trial transcripts and at the same time have the exhibits in front of you. You are the one who will learn a lot.

      • Dzhamaly Maazovich, a first cousin of Dzhokhar’s (“Jahar’s”) late grandfather, signed the following affidavit (not sent to the court because they could not obtain it in time for the trial):

        “For two years, starting from June 2013 to April 2015, me personally and members of my family repeatedly talked at the meetings that took place during the visits of defense lawyers [They]… had visited at the least, fourteen times…. For two years, our meetings and the contents of conversations were, it seemed to me, of a strange nature. Representatives of the defense team for Dzhokhar were collecting information about everything: our way of life, our lives, the origin of the Tsarnaev family tree, where we work, what contacts we have. They were interested in everything, except the facts proving the innocence of the Tsarnaev brothers, to which we had unsuccessfully tried to draw the attention of defense, because we were openly ignored. … The lead defense lawyer Judy Clarke herself agreed, adding in the conversation, “we know it – they are innocent.…”

    • Speculator- Gail Johnson was not Nathan Dunlap’s lawyer when he was sentenced to death. She became his lawyer later for the appeals process.

  4. I think you need to learn more about the law before thinking new lawyers are the key to his so called defense, especially you should figure how the Supreme Court views defendants who have basically told a entire jury panel that he is guilty, and let’s not kid ourselves and act like that he innocent, he has said the opposite and the evidence proves this time and time again. You are not be truthful with anyone by assuming he is not, nor are you taking him into account or his lawyers who spoke to him for years who know the truth. It’s one thing to suggest he not get the DP but quite another where you sit and act like you don’t know what is going on and the evidence does not prove anything, while you sit away from action of these crimes, nor sat in the court room to hear first hand what was actually said. Considering it seems you don’t really read the court records.
    Instead of worry about his new defense team, you should consider also the appellate lawyers who are assigned by the DOJ in Washington. One works with the national security division. They will be countering each and everything – and using the law and case law to do it. So you should be worried about them who have worked several terrorism related case, most getting shot down at the appellate state and others not even heard by the Supreme Court. A defense attorney can only do so much with what he has – and the fact that this case was argued in First Circuit of Appeals and had Oral Arguments should tell you something about the law. I will leave you with this, if old attorneys felt for a moment he was innocent or they could prove he did not detonate those bombs, and there were several, they would have done it. Off the record, they consulted with other trial attorney, and experts. A gov does not take a case to trial if they don’t think they have what it takes to prove wrong doing – they too have experts and know the answers the questions. The bottom line is Tsarnaev left a trail of evidence that was admitted into evidence, and rightly so, and under rules of evidence, they were allowed – they go to the heart of the case. So you may want to stop writing things you have very little knowledge about – you are only doing it to appease a small number of people in complete denial.

    • Thanks for your comment Jones.

      Have you looked through some of the older articles on the site? To say upfront—I do not benefit emotionally either way whether Jahar is guilty or not-guilty. I merely report. Trying to provide a platform for facts not spin.

      Now, Just one thing: I was alerted by the most simple and blatant of facts. You see time and time again Jahar wearing a white pack. The FBI present in evidence a black pack and tell the jury that it is his.

      This fact alerts me to “monkey business” going on.

      Take 9-11. I don’t know what your stand on that is? But flight 77 allegedly flew into the Pentagon and killed the Naval auditors investigating the missing $2.3T. There has been 15 years of back and forth – conspiracy and spin. It would be so easy and logical to release the many tapes being recorded around the most secure building in the world. Why not?

      This fact alerts me to “monkey business” going on.

      Back to Boston
      Now there was a high resolution picture taken – which happened to have Jahar in frame (not the fuzzy CCTV footage) Now why did the prosecution crop the picture – such that they DELETED the portion so as not to reveal the (white) backpack?
      I contend that showing a high res picture of the backpack would then put the FBI’s black version in doubt.

      As a civilized country – the US has to allow a fair trial – where all the evidence is set forth; where the defense is not working for the prosecution.

    • Wrong you are when you say that we have not read the trial transcripts. WE HAVE and we have found gems in them. Tell me what proofs have you seen that both brothers committed those crimes? Look at those trial exhibits. That trial was a FAKE TRIAL. The defense lawyers hands have been tied from the beginning. There was not much they could do to defend Dzhokhar thanks to the monkey judge.

    • Jones, you say “and let’s not kid ourselves and act like that he innocent, he has said the opposite and the evidence proves this time and time again”.
      The evidence proves nothing of the kind. Much of the “evidence” was contested by the defense for daubert violations and is well documented for the appeals process. I don’t know if you were in court yourself or how many motions and trial transcripts you have read, but I have read all of them, the ones that were made public (for a price).

      For anyone following the case through the media or through journalists tweets, you would have no idea of what really went on. However, the trial transcripts and court exhibits do let us know exactly what went on, and it is eye opening to say the least. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev never changed his plea, and why he read an allocution, when it could not help him in any way is a mystery. It is a well known fact that many people confess to crimes that they have not committed, for many reasons.That allocution will have no legal bearing on any appeals in the future, just as his lawyers opening statements will have no legal bearing.

      His defense team clearly told Dzhokhar’s parents, they knew both brothers were innocent, but they have been compelled by very high government officials to make sure there was a conviction. It is also well known that the US gov has convicted innocent people in the past, to obtain or further a political agenda, enact new laws, or set precedents, and I believe this is the case here. Yes, I am aware of the DOJ gov lawyers and how they operate. It is a scary thought and very worrisome in this case, and gives all the more reason to support this young man and to hope his lawyers will furiously fight for him.

      You are right, I am no lawyer and certainly don’t know everything about the law, but I do have common sense and my own eyes and ears don’t lie.

  5. Cheryl says below that it is a mystery why Jahar read an allocution at his sentencing. (That’s the chance for a convicted person to have one last say to the judge.) I wish he had screamed Help! but anyway he didn’t.

    Jahar read the apology to the victims instead. It is my best guess that he did this because someone showed him the CNN interview of his father’s brother Ruslan.

    That guy Ruslan seems to me a good person, and on the day of the FBI’s announcement that the Tsarnaevs were the bombers he believed it — just like millions of others who today believe it because they heard it “from the horse’s mouth.” (That’s the ever-patriotic Richard DesLauriers, who shed his FBI connection 2 months later to become VP of Penske Corp – better check on Penske.)

    Note at 25.20 mins into the tape, how the uncle advises the young prisoner to apologize for the suffering of the victims. Sounds completely genuine to me.

    Earlier in the tape, the uncle shows how an Armenian boy in Cambridge, MA, who was a new convert to Islam (read: CIA) had brainwashed Tamerlan in 2009.

    At this point it would be nice if Ruslan would see (on the Podstava video) that Tamerlan was clearly alive and well and taken into FBI custody and then killed. If Tam had been a real terrorist would the FBI have to “dispose” of him in this way? Of course not, they would be grilling him for information.

    • I have not met Jahar, but after reading his tweets below, I think I know him a bit. Damn shame that Boston citizens are even now allowing him to be silenced (and QUITE LIKELY TORTURED) in a — do I really have to use this word — Supermax.

      Note to my fellow Bostonians of the 1960s: We all got took re Albert DeSalvo being the Boston Strangler. Ask history Professor Alan Rogers at BC for the dirt. (Or read my Fraud Upon the Court.) And to prevent you and me from finding out what was really going on, Albert had to get stabbed to death in the most supermax part of Walpole State Prison. Yep.

      What fools we idiots be.

      PS Don’t fall for it if they announce that Jahar has committed suicide, OK? It’s like Aboriginal deaths in custody in Qld: they are always “suicides.”

      Maybe Steve Biko beat himself to a pulp on the floor of that police station in South Africa. You never know….

  6. I can see good attornies & it was said judy clark was good too but what happen this boy is still behind the bars ,no attorny is doing anything practically.just lectures ,we all know he is not a culprit ,then why his life is hell ,why a nice, decent,sophisticated boy in jail .where is new trail ,new venue ?

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion