United States v. Tsarnaev
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Tsarnaev and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Tsarnaev.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing. The Court of Appeals had vacated Tsarnaev's capital sentences, citing errors in jury selection and evidence exclusion. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion by the District Court in its handling of jury selection and evidence exclusion.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Tsarnaev.
The Court held that the Court of Appeals improperly vacated Dzhokhar's capital sentences, affirming the District Court's discretion in jury selection and evidence exclusion.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Tsarnaev. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Right to Jury Trial is relevant to United States v. Tsarnaev
The case involves the discretion of the trial judge in jury selection and the questions asked to prospective jurors, which is a key aspect of the right to a fair jury trial.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Jury selection falls 'particularly within the province of the trial judge,' Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 386, whose broad discretion in this area includes deciding what questions to ask prospective jurors.
-
Why Cruel and Unusual Punishment is relevant to United States v. Tsarnaev
The case involves the application of the Federal Death Penalty Act and the exclusion of certain evidence during sentencing, which relates to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)First, § 3593(c) does not violate the Eighth Amendment. That provision falls well within the Federal Government's 'traditional authority' 'to decide that certain types of evidence may have insufficient probative value to justify their admission.'
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to United States v. Tsarnaev
The case discusses the procedural aspects of jury selection and evidence exclusion, which are related to ensuring fair procedures under due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to put Dzhokhar's proposed media-content question to the jury.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Tsarnaev that support the summary and concepts above.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to ask about the content and extent of each juror's media consumption.
The District Court reasonably decided to exclude the evidence under § 3593(c)'s balancing test.
The supervisory power of federal courts does not extend to the creation of prophylactic supervisory rules.
