Appeals court to hear Boston Marathon bombing change of venue arguments

Defense attorneys for accused Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev contend too many people in the Boston area had a direct connection to the event to empanel an impartial jury.

Jane Flavell Collins/REUTERS
A courtroom sketch shows Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (c.) during the jury selection process in his trial at the federal courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts January 15, 2015.

A US appeals court on Thursday said it would hear arguments on whether to move the trial of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect out of the city that was the site of the largest mass-casualty attack on US soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The appeals court's decision to hear arguments on Feb. 19 comes after a district court judge three times rejected pleas by defendant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's attorneys to move the trial.

Defense attorneys contend too many people in the Boston area had a direct connection to the event to empanel an impartial jury.

Three people were killed and 264 injured when two homemade bombs went off at the race's crowded finish line on April 15, 2013. Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, are also charged with shooting dead a university police officer three days later.

Tamerlan died that night, following a gunbattle with police.

Jury selection for the trial is now in its sixth week, with the court working its way through more than 150 people culled from a panel of 1,350 who filled out questionnaires early last month.

Adding to the challenge of seating a jury is the fact that Tsarnaev, 21, faces the possibility of execution if he is convicted of federal charges. Many potential jurors called for questioning have said they would have difficulty voting to impose the death penalty or would be unwilling to do so.

Tens of thousands were crowded around the race's finish line when the bombs went off and hundreds of thousands were ordered to remain in their homes during the manhunt for Tsarnaev.

On Wednesday, a potential juror reported being awakened by gunshots the night of the manhunt. Others have reported that their spouses tended to the wounded.

The appeals court ruled that jury selection could continue ahead of the hearing, where defense attorneys and prosecutors will each have 20 minutes to make their arguments.

The appeals court warned attorneys not to disclose the contents of juror questionnaires during their arguments.

Appellate Judge Juan Torruella questioned that order: "It will be quite an interesting hearing since the parties will be forbidden from discussing the details of facts directly at the heart of the issue presented: Whether the answer given during the jury selection process have demonstrated that the jury pool is so tainted and prejudiced that it is impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.