(L) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, pre-2013 (R) Justice Thomas, Photo: RubyRayMedia
by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
In March 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled against the First Circuit’s removal of the death penalty from Jahar Tsarnaev. The following letter was received at SCOTUS on December 15, 2022:
To Justice Clarence Thomas, United States Supreme Court
Urgently.
December 5, 2022
From Mary Maxwell, 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord NH 03301 USA
Through attorney John Graham, I was one of three persons who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case United States v Tsarnaev that was decided by the US Supreme Court on March 4, 2022, No. 20-443. This letter is sent to you because you wrote the opinion.
Although your ruling concerned minor matters that the government brought up to challenge the First Circuit’s decision to vacate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence, you said “Dzhokhar did not contest his guilt and the jury thus returned a guilty verdict on all counts”. This is incorrect. Dzhokhar pleaded “not guilty”; he never waived that plea. He is still alive, age 29. It is not too late to save his life. But time is of the essence. He is slated for execution.
It is my hope, Justice Thomas, that once you believe he never waived his innocence plea, you will allow the lower court decision, to vacate the death penalty, to stand.
As my two fellow amici and I, and our counsel, believed our appeal brief (related principally to the color of Dzhokhar’ backpack) would suffice to counter the trial jury’s finding of guilt, we did not express other arguments. But now that I have seen that the US Supreme Court was working on the assumption that Dzhokhar “did not contest his guilt,” it has become important to present the truth to refute that assumption.
When the trial was completed, the prosecutor wrote a suggested wording for Judge George O’Toole, Jr to use in his instructions to the jury. It stated that the accused “pleaded not guilty to all charges.” But then the Federally appointed public defender, Judy Clarke, offered a change to that Jury Instruction.
In Motion 1101-1 on March 2, 2015, we see that Clarke crossed out those words. She suggested:
“Finally, the indictment alleges that the defendant carjacked and robbed an individual who has the initials D.M. The defendant is presumed innocent of all charges, and the Government bears the burden of proving each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge O’Toole did then use Judy Clarke’s suggested wording without confirming the change of plea with Tsarnaev. Thus, the jury did not hear the most important words “has pleaded not guilty.” Dzhokhar must have heard this, as he was in open court. The Court was obligated to ask him if he agreed to change his plea but did not question him. No death penalty case may turn on a waiver of defense by a Federal Government appointed attorney.
Coincidentally, by the time Tsarnaev’s appeal was heard in 2019, the US Supreme Court had already ruled, in 2018, in McCoy v Louisiana, 2014–1449 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So. 3d 535, reversed and remanded. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion. I quote from it:
“a defendant has the right to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.”
Today Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot call for help to the outside world, nor can his lawyer-aunt get in touch with him, as he is under SAMs, special administrative measures, purportedly to
prevent his sharing some “terrorist” plans with others. He is incarcerated at Supermax Federal Prison in Florence, Colorado. He is allowed to phone only his parents in Russia. I believe they do not discuss “the case” with him, perhaps out of fear. I hereby offer to visit him, but I have no special interviewing skill. I hope the court will allow his aunt Maret Tsarnaeva, LLM, to phone the prisoner. Her email address is: marettsar@gmail.com
What happened was extrinsic fraud. Tsarnaev’s lawyer was serving the US Government rather than Tsarnaev. The 1878 case, Unites States v Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is applicable to admission of guilt by Tsarnaev’s attorney. Specifically, the finding from Throckmorton:
“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgements…. There was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case…. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case… or where an attorney … assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat… these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment … and open the case for a new and a fair hearing.”)
Throckmorton shows that a ruling doesn’t have to stand final if there was extrinsic fraud.
Tsarnaev’s 2015 trial judgement, now more than seven years old, must be annulled. The “admission” of Dzhokhar’s guilt by his attorney demands a new trial.
Tsarnaev deserves a new trial to allow him to put forth his innocence, supported by the existence of the different backpacks. We, as amici, provided sufficient evidence of his innocence. We showed how the backpack that housed the bomb, is in conflict with the evidence the FBI proffered to show Dzhokhar as carrying that backpack.
To wit, the FBI claimed that the bomb was housed in a distinctly black backpack, and yet the FBI offered as proof of the identification of Tsarnaev as the bomber, a photo of him, near the scene, wearing a backpack that was definitely not black.
The fact the Government submitted two separate backpacks and also supplied the defense, created a conflict of interest, I believe, in the quality of the Government’s evidence in this high-profile case. The trial court was obligated to take judicial notice of this conflict.
In addition, I mention an affidavit from Dzhokhar’s aunt Maret Tsarnaeva, a lawyer, who was living in Canada at the time. The affidavit was received in the US District Court in Boston before the sentencing. It was referred to by amici, and is in the case file. I quote it:
“The lawyers from Boston strongly advised that Anzor and Zubeidat [parents of Dzhokhar] refrain from saying in public that Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan were not guilty. They warned that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult. [They] also requested of Anzor and Zubeidat that they assist in influencing Dzhokhar to accept the legal representation of the federal public defender’s office in Boston.
“Mr. Fick revealed that Dzhokhar was refusing the services of the federal public defender’s office in Boston, and sending lawyers and staff away when they visited him in custody.
Dzhokhar’s parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel, since Dzhokhar did not trust his government-appointed lawyers. Mr. Fick reacted by saying that the government agents and lawyers would obstruct independent counsel ….”
Clearly, Tsarnaev must not be executed, without his having his not-guilty plea, supported by his evidence, considered by the jury. This is America.
Very respectfully submitted,
Mary Maxwell
175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord NH 03301
E-mail address: MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com
i don’t want justice, i want freedom
nice work sister, reading above and below the lines. You can Amicus me for all-time, results are above sometimes at a guess, takes guts to face the other
Feel so bad all these peeps are held on our coin, you stood Mary, more power to you
Bloody hell, here we go again when we are dealing with a present serious world wide reality.
MARY.
As I have suggested at least thrice. Go contact Mike Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com and obtain the photographs of the real back pack bombers doing the job.
Seriously, I consider your failure to do so as, a lawyer, is a abominable failure by you to IGNORE AND NOT RESEARCH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AT YOUR hand
We have met years past in my chambers, if you were there now, with what I know and what you apparently do want to know, I would have you exit. I am bloody serious!!
If you want to consistently take me on, you know how I can be contacted, so do so and we can take it from there ON THE RECORD.
Ok anon anon, I am a nasty old bastard, not being nice to our Mary, but amen.
And to old David and you, .plus Nemisis way back.
Anyone else want to line up?
Well, there goes the ‘loveable-rogue’ tag I gave you yesterday. You and Mary in your chambers…whoa…I’m returning the ring Ned, it’s over! If there is one thing I won’t compromise on…it’s fidelity.
Ned, maybe the US Court would be impressed if you, as a foreign barrister, wrote to them about the backpack. But why would they listen to a new info when they have, in my amicus, the simple proof, that Jahar was seen [if he was indeed seen] on Boylston St with a grey backpack and yet the FBI offered the yucked up black backpack as the bomb-holder?
Ned, Australian law is now receding from my mind but most likely it is the same as US thanks to our mutual mother, England. In US the accused defintily does not have to show who committed the crime. All Jahar had to do was defeat the evidence that the prosecutor proffered.
I know you are a past prosecutor — you’d expect your witnesses to be cross-examined by the defense, right? But the Defense Team (who are on the court’s payroll, which is a clear conflict of interest) decided not to cross-examine.
Ergo, execution.
Talk to you later. Thanks for the reprimand. MM
Sorry Mary, no sale, the photographs are there from the start, it is your country, your case, if you do not find and present the evidence, you have failed.
Lump it, I have guided you thrice at least.
Think of how I would feel, awaiting death if you were my lawyer.
Ned, I agree with your logic. Hell, I would lead into my submissions WITH the photos. – Try and get by THAT piece of evidence!
Talk is cheap and lawyers tend to prattle on. Get to the point, drive a stake through the heart in the shortest time possible. – The attention span of the average jury is about 10 minutes, if you keep crapping on, you can loose them. – A judge with a big list doesn’t want to waste time on irrelevancies.
Those 5 or so in the photographs are ‘uniformed’ in black and Khaki.
Very strange.
Could suggest a operation💁🏼
By Whom?
I suspect that some do not want to go down that path and it might, with further investigation, blow apart the usuals.
Just my original suspicions right from the start and explains the consequences in and from the ‘trial’.
Just the musing of a defence barrister…… yep AA, more time defending than prosecuting. Serial Presumptions might be a sign of oncoming dementia.
Seems like nobody wanted to be a 2nd Jack Ruby
They like to call him Jack Ruby but real name was Jacob Rubenstein
That’s not like you, Joe. Couldn’t the same thing happen if his name were Paddy Murphy? Anyway, I don’t get your point. Did someone want to kill Jahar? Well, the “cops” who shot 228 bullets (that’s an official count) at Jahar’s boat must have wanted to kill him. His survival was a miracle.
Why did Rubenstein get Anglicised by the CorporateMedia, that is what I’m wondering. “Not like me”, yes it is, I would like to be impartial in such cases.
This just in, from New York Times Jan 23, 2023. (It’s 7:45am here). I quote:
A gunman shot to death 10 people and injured at least 10 others on Saturday at a ballroom dance studio in Monterey Park, Calif., a city of about 60,000 people east of Los Angeles. He opened fire as many people in the city, which is predominantly Asian, were celebrating the eve of Lunar New Year.
The gunman, whom the authorities identified as 72-year-old Huu Can Tran, is believed [“is believed”?] to have then gone to a dance hall in the neighboring city of Alhambra. But he fled, according to the authorities. Officers later found him in a parked van after he reportedly shot himself to death. Sheriff Luna said. His motives remain under investigation.
“Gun violence needs to stop,” Luna said. “There’s too much of it.”
All over the world, there are people who argue, fight over relationships, suffer from mental health issues or hold racist views. But in the U.S., those people can more easily obtain a gun and shoot someone. — end of NYT article
Mary,
yes Jahar’s innocence easy as one too free.
One to free.
No, you were right the first time. They don’t want him to be too free.
[…] Source […]
By God, I’ve just realized that today, Jan 23, is the day I did the “moot trial” for jahar at the Watertown Library, in 2018. Where did those 5 years diappear to? .I am so ashamed of not following up.
I see that, in this video of the lecture, I have a short haircut. The Boston hairdresser was thrilled that I was going to support Jahar — he did not let me pay for the haircut!!
The real doozy is 3 minutes before the end. It’s a clip from a 100% deceitful movie about the Marathon, by National Geographic.
And you wonder why we’re all going nuts?
Bless you Mary, for your continued commitment and hard work on this case. Corruption is never easy to counteract and corruption at many levels provides a powerful fortress for the guilty ones. Keep fighting! The color of the backpack has always been key.