UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO
)
DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )
Defendant )

GOVERNMENT=S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT=S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEFENSE
PRETRIAL PENALTY-PHASE EXPERT DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS

The Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca, by and t hr ough i t s
under si gned counsel , r espect f ul l y opposes Tsar naev s mot i on f or
cl ar i f i cat i on of def ense pr et r i al penal t y- phase exper t di scover y
obl i gat i ons ( Doc. 442) .
Tsar naev s pl eadi ng i s a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on; t o
l abel i t a mot i on f or cl ar i f i cat i on i s a char ade. Now t hat
t he gover nment has compl i ed wi t h i t s own di scover y obl i gat i ons -
- i ncl udi ng penal t y- phase di scover y - - Tsar naev want s compl et e
r el i ef f r omhi s own r eci pr ocal obl i gat i ons. And he want s i t on
t he basi s of ar gument s t hat he has never bef or e r ai sed, even
t hough t he t i mi ng of penal t y- phase di scover y has been di scussed
at sever al st at us hear i ngs and pr evi ousl y br i ef ed by bot h
par t i es. To gr ant Tsar naev s mot i on woul d be t o r ewar d
gamesmanshi p, puni sh t he gover nment f or t i mel y compl yi ng wi t h
t he Cour t s or der s i nst ead of pl ayi ng si mi l ar games, and depr i ve
t he j ur y of i nf or mat i on i t wi l l need t o make a f ai r and f ul l y
i nf or med penal t y deci si on.
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 9
2

A. Tsar naev s mot i on f or cl ar i f i cat i on shoul d be
r ej ect ed as an unf ai r and unt i mel y mot i on f or
r econsi der at i on.

No cl ar i f i cat i on of t he Cour t s J une 23, 2014 Schedul i ng
Or der i s needed because t he Cour t s i nt ended meani ng coul d
har dl y be cl ear er . One of t he key di sput ed i ssues i n t hi s case
has been t he appr opr i at e t i mi ng of penal t y- phase di scover y. At
t he st at us hear i ng on Febr uar y 12, 2014, f or exampl e, t he
gover nment ar gued t hat i t coul d not adequat el y pr epar e t o r ebut
Tsar naev s mi t i gat i on evi dence - - a r i ght guar ant eed t o t he
gover nment by 18 U. S. C. 3593( c) - - unl ess t he def ense pr ovi ded
penal t y- phase di scover y i n advance of t r i al . ( Tr ans. 02/ 12/ 14
at 16- 17) . Al t hough t he Cour t di d not r ul e at t hat t i me, i t
st at ed: I guess one t hi ng Mr . Chakr avar t y sai d t hat st r uck me
about separ at i ng t he pot ent i al t wo phases of t he t r i al i s t hat
i t ' s t he same j ur y and i t pr obabl y woul d be necessar y t o have
al l di scl osur es bef or e t he sel ect i on of t he j ur y. I d. at 18.
When t he same subj ect ar ose agai n at t he J une 18, 2014
st at us conf er ence, t he gover nment ar gued:
[ To] t he ext ent t hat t he def ense i s goi ng t o of f er
af f i r mat i ve exper t s i n t he penal t y phase, we need t he
same amount of t i me pr et r i al t o r espond t o t hemas
t hey woul d need t o r espond t o us. That ' s been our
poi nt al l al ong, t hat t hi s i s not t he nor mal ki nd of
case. The def ense i s goi ng t o be put t i ng on
af f i r mat i ve exper t s i n t he penal t y phase t hat ar e
ever y bi t as much af f i r mat i ve as t he gover nment
t ypi cal l y put s on i n t he gui l t phase. And t her e' s no
way t o r espond t o t hat i n t he cour se of t he t r i al .
That ' s why we pi cked 90 days f r omt he begi nni ng of
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 9
3

t r i al [ f or pr oduct i on of def ense penal t y- phase
di scover y] .

( Tr ans. 06/ 18/ 14 at 18- 19) . The Cour t r esponded, I under st and
t hat and I gener al l y agr ee wi t h i t , i t ' s j ust put t i ng i t i nt o
t he cal endar , i s r eal l y t he quest i on. I d. at 19. Thi s
col l oquy l eaves no doubt t hat when t he Cour t , f i ve days l at er ,
or der ed t he def ense t o pr ovi de r eci pr ocal di scover y under Rul e
16( b) ( 1) ( A) , ( B) , and ( C) , i ncl udi ng r esponsi ve and af f i r mat i ve
exper t di scover y, i t meant t o i ncl ude penal t y- phase as wel l as
t r i al - phase di scover y.
I t i s har dl y sur pr i si ng t hat Tsar naev woul d pr ef er t o
char act er i ze hi s mot i on as one f or cl ar i f i cat i on r at her t han
r econsi der at i on because i t i s f ar t oo l at e t o be movi ng f or
r econsi der at i on. Tsar naev di d not ar gue t hat i t i s unl awf ul f or
t he Cour t t o or der pr et r i al pr oduct i on of penal t y- phase
di scover y at t he Febr uar y 12, 2014 st at us hear i ng; he di d not
ar gue i t at t he J une 18, 2014 st at us hear i ng; and he di d not
even f i l e a t i mel y mot i on asser t i ng i t when t he Cour t i ssued i t s
J une 23, 2014 schedul i ng or der ; i nst ead, he f i l ed hi s mot i on at
a poi nt when i t woul d not become r i pe f or deci si on unt i l af t er
t he gover nment had pr oduced al l of i t s own af f i r mat i ve exper t
di scover y - - t r i al - phase and penal t y- phase - - but bef or e
Tsar naev had pr oduced any of hi s. Respect f or t he or der l y
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, not t o ment i on si mpl e f ai r ness,
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 9
4

demands t hat t he Cour t deny t he mot i on as unt i mel y wi t hout
r eachi ng i t s mer i t s.
B. Reconsi der at i on of t he Cour t s or der i s not war r ant ed
i n any event .

Mot i ons f or r econsi der at i on ar e appr opr i at e onl y under
l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances such as wher e t he movant ( 1) pr esent s
newl y di scover ed evi dence; ( 2) demonst r at es an i nt er veni ng
change of l aw; or ( 3) shows t hat t he or i gi nal deci si on was
mani f est l y er r oneous or unj ust . Uni t ed St at es v. Al l en, 573
F. 3d 42, 53 ( 1
st
Ci r . 2009) . None of t hose ci r cumst ances i s
pr esent her e.
1. Rule 16 provides authority for the Courts order.
Far f r ombei ng mani f est l y er r oneous, t he Cour t s
r eci pr ocal di scover y or der r ef l ect s a r eadi ng of Rul e 16 f i r st
ur ged by Tsar naev hi msel f . I n an Oct ober 7, 2013 mot i on t o
compel t he gover nment t o pr oduce i t s own penal t y- phase evi dence
as par t of aut omat i c di scover y, Tsar naev ar gued t hat Rul e 16
appl i es t o t he penal t y phase of a capi t al t r i al and pr ovi des a
basi s i ndependent of t he Const i t ut i on f or or der i ng t he
pr oduct i on of penal t y- phase di scover y. Speci f i cal l y, Tsar naev
ar gued t hat he was ent i t l ed t o exculpatory penal t y- phase
i nf or mat i on under Br ady, and t hen wr ot e: I n addi t i on t o
excul pat or y i nf or mat i on, t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e
pr ovi de t hat . . . t he def endant i s ent i t l ed t o r el evant
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 9
5

[ penal t y- phase] evi dence, even i f i ncul pat or y. ( Dkt . 112 at
4) . The Cour t adopt ed Tsar naev s r eadi ng of Rul e 16, hol di ng
t hat Rul e 16 appl i es t o penal t y- phase i nf or mat i on because [ t ] he
penal t y phase i s a par t of t he bi f ur cat ed t r i al . ( Dkt . 151 at
5- 6) . Thi s deci si on was not mani f est l y er r oneous or unj ust
mer el y because t he shoe i s now on t he ot her f oot and Tsar naev s
f or mer posi t i on no l onger sui t s hi s pr esent pur poses.
The Cour t s ear l i er deci si on al so was not mani f est l y
er r oneous because most ot her cour t s t o consi der t he quest i on
have r eached t he same concl usi on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.
Nor t hi ngt on, 2012 WL 2873360, at *4 n. 9 ( E. D. Pa. 2012) ( Tr i al
i ncl udes bot h t he gui l t and penal t y phases of a capi t al
t r i al . . . . Accor di ngl y, t he di scl osur e r equi r ement s of Rul e
16 appl y t o bot h t he gui l t phase and t he sent enci ng phase of a
capi t al t r i al . ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l son, 493 F. Supp. 2d 348,
355 ( E. D. N. Y. 2006) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cat al anRoman, 376
F. Supp. 2d 108, 113 ( D. P. R. 2005) ( same) .
Far f r ombei ng mani f est l y er r oneous, t he Cour t s deci si on
was mani f est l y cor r ect . As t he cour t expl ai ned i n Wi l son:
As a gener al r ul e, t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal
Pr ocedur e appl y t o sent enci ng hear i ngs. See
Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 1 ( These r ul es gover n t he pr ocedur e i n
al l cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs i n t he Uni t ed St at es di st r i ct
cour t s. . . . ) . Addi t i onal l y, subsect i on ( 5) of Rul e 1
expl i ci t l y excl udes cer t ai n pr oceedi ngs f r omt he
pur vi ew of t he Feder al Rul es, but sent enci ng hear i ngs
i s not among t hose excl uded. I d. 18 U. S. C.
3593( c) , whi ch gover ns deat h penal t y sent enci ng
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 9
6

pr oceedi ngs, expr essl y wai ves t he pr esent ence r epor t
r equi r ement of Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( c) , whi ch suggest s
t he negat i ve i mpl i cat i on t hat t he Rul es of Cr i mi nal
Pr ocedur e usual l y do appl y t o sent enci ng hear i ngs
under t he FDPA. Uni t ed St at es v. Webst er , 162 F. 3d
308, 346 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 1998) ; see al so Lor enzo- Cat al an-
Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 113- 14. . . . [ Fi nal l y, ] t he
i mpor t ant goal s ser ved by Rul e 16( b) di scl osur e ar e
i mpl i cat ed i n t he penal t y phase and ar e wel l - ser ved by
appl yi ng Rul e 16( b) i n t hi s cont ext .

493 F. Supp. 2d at 355.
Bot h t he Wi l son and Lor enzo- Cat al an cour t s squar el y
r ej ect ed Tsar naev s ar gument t hat i t was t he ver y
i nappl i cabi l i t y of Rul es 12. 2 and 16 t o t he penal t y phase of a
f eder al capi t al case t hat mot i vat ed t he 2002 amendment s t o Rul e
12. 2. ( Def t . Mot . at 3) . They f ound i nst ead t hat Congr ess
amended Rul e 12. 2 si mpl y t o codi f y t he cour t s power t o i ssue
cer t ai n t ypes of di scover y or der s t hat t hey had l ong been
i ssui ng pur suant t o t hei r i nher ent power s, and t hat t he
amendment t hus r eveal ed not hi ng about t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he
Rul es as a whol e t o t he penal t y phase of a capi t al t r i al . See
Wi l son, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 355; Lor enzo- Cat al an, 376 F. Supp. 2d at
114.
2. The Courts inherent authority also provided a lawful
basis for its Order.

Even assumi ng f or t he sake of ar gument t hat t hi s Cour t s
ear l i er deci si on r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of Rul e 16 i s not
onl y er r oneous but so mani f est l y er r oneous as t o j ust i f y
r econsi der at i on pur suant t o an unt i mel y mot i on, t he Cour t shoul d
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 6 of 9
7

r each t he same deci si on on ot her gr ounds - - namel y, i t s i nher ent
aut hor i t y t o r egul at e di scover y i n cr i mi nal cases. I n Uni t ed
St at es v. Beckf or d, 962 F. Supp. 748 ( E. D. Va. 1997) - - t he ver y
deci si on Tsar naev ci t es as aut hor i t at i ve i n t hi s ar ea - - t he
cour t hel d t hat t he aut hor i t y t o i mpose not i ce and r eci pr ocal
di scover y i s an i nher ent j udi ci al power whi ch need not be
gr ounded i n a speci f i c st at ut e or r ul e . . . [ and may] be
exer ci sed i n exact l y t he same manner as pr escr i bed by Rul es 12. 2
and Rul e 16( b) . I d. at 754- 55. The Wi l son cour t hel d t he same
t hi ng. See 493 F. Supp. 2d at 355 ( [ T] he pol i ci es whi ch under l i e
Rul e 16 ar e i mpl i cat ed i n t he penal t y phase cont ext , and t hus
Rul e 16 di scl osur e ought t o be ext ended i n t hi s manner , even i f
not st at ut or i l y r equi r ed. ) . So di d t he Lor enzo- Cat al an cour t ,
whi ch added t hat i t i s i mper at i ve t hat t he f act s af f ect i ng a
sent enci ng det er mi nat i on be as t r ust wor t hy as t hose i nf or mi ng a
gui l t y ver di ct , and i t i s beyond di sput e t hat t he adequat e
pr epar at i on eased by ear l y di scl osur e wi l l cont r i but e t o t he
t r ut h- seeki ng pr ocess, r esul t i ng i n a mor e r el i abl e sent enci ng
det er mi nat i on. 376 F. Supp. 2d at 114. These r ul i ngs ar e al l
consi st ent wi t h t he goal s of t he Feder al Deat h Penal t y Act ,
whi ch aut hor i zes t he par t i es t o r ebut i nf or mat i on of f er ed at t he
penal t y phase and pr ovi des t hat each shal l be gi ven a f ai r
oppor t uni t y t o do so. 18 U. S. C. 3593( c) .
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 7 of 9
8

Cl ar i f yi ng f or Tsar naev t hat he must do what he was
or der ed t o do woul d be f ai r not onl y t o t he gover nment , whi ch
has pr oduced i t s own penal t y- phase di scover y, and t o Tsar naev,
who has r ecei ved t hat di scover y mont hs bef or e t r i al , but al so t o
t he j ur y, whi ch wi l l be cal l ed upon t o make an i mpor t ant
deci si on dur i ng t he t r i al s penal t y phase. Unl ess Tsar naev
pr ovi des r eci pr ocal di scover y on t he dat e set i n t he Cour t s
J une 23, 2014 schedul i ng or der , t he gover nment wi l l not have
suf f i ci ent t i me t o i dent i f y r ebut t al exper t s, hi r e t hem, and
pr epar e t hemf or t r i al . That , i n t ur n, wi l l depr i ve t he j ur y of
an oppor t uni t y t o make a f ai r and f ul l y i nf or med penal t y
deci si on.
WHEREFORE, t he gover nment r espect f ul l y ur ges t hi s Cour t t o
deny Tsar naev s mot i on f or cl ar i f i cat i on.


Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

CARMEN M. ORTI Z
Uni t ed St at es At t or ney

By: / s/ Wi l l i amD. Wei nr eb
WI LLI AM D. WEI NREB
ALOKE S. CHAKRAVARTY
NADI NE PELLEGRI NI
Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I her eby cer t i f y t hat t hi s document , f i l ed t hr ough t he ECF
syst em, wi l l be sent el ect r oni cal l y t o t he r egi st er ed par t i ci pant s as
i dent i f i ed on t he Not i ce of El ect r oni c Fi l i ng ( NEF) and t hat paper
copi es wi l l be sent t o t hose i ndi cat ed as non- r egi st er ed par t i ci pant s
on t hi s dat e.
/s/ William D. Weinreb
WI LLI AM D. WEI NREB

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 462 Filed 08/08/14 Page 9 of 9