DOJ Abused Classification to Delay Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Presentment

As a number of outlets are reporting, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers have submitted a long anticipated motion to suppress the statements he made during the weekend the FBI interviewed him while he kept asking — 10 times — for a lawyer.

The motion also provides detail on something that bmaz and I found to be just as important — DOJ’s delay in presentment, basically delaying the time before he got a lawyer. It describes how the Public Defenders Office tried to inform Dzhokhar they could represent him, twice trying to give the FBI lawyers letters to do so. The FBI refused the letters each time.

More troubling still, after the Court assured the Public Defenders they would be informed and appointed as soon as Dzhokhar was charged, that didn’t happen. Instead, the court permitted DOJ to seal the complaint, thereby delaying notice to the PDs, permitting another long interrogation session.

Throughout April 20 and 21, the Federal Public Defender and other lawyers from her office contacted court officials, asking to be appointed. Court personnel informed the lawyers that they would be appointed as soon as a complaint was filed. McGinty Aff.

This turned out to be incorrect. A complaint was signed at 6:47 pm on April 21, DE 3, and filed under seal. Interrogation continued through the night and well into the morning of April 22. The government’s motion to seal, DE 1, explained that “public disclosure of these materials might jeopardize the ongoing investigation of this case.” This baffling assertion ignores the fact, well-known to anyone with access to a television, radio, newspaper, smartphone or computer, that Mr. Tsarnaev was in custody. Nothing in the application for the complaint revealed information that had not already been reported by media around the world. It thus appears that the sole reason to seal the complaint was to allow the interrogation to continue by delaying the defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer and the appointment of counsel.

And, as the motion notes, the FBI was well beyond asking public safety questions.

The government needs none of this testimony to convict Dzhokhar, even assuming this thing would go to trial.

Which is probably why DOJ and the Court assumed they could get away with this.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

7 Responses to DOJ Abused Classification to Delay Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Presentment

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Sorry. Where did I say that? I didn't. You're straw manning again, as usual. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Abt what the jury heard? Me. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq I have said to those who have asked that 1) Hunt was desperate 2) obv can't be true. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Which has nothing to do with what came into the trial (again, not as fact, which I said) @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq That may be your opinion. But that doesn't change the transcript or sworn testimony. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq So when I write abt facts--not Hunt's sworn claims--fair to say you weren't lawyer who called? @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq No. I'm reporting what the jury heard, I said ZERO abt legal strategy. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Because I actually attended the trial, which you didn't? Because it was? @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Which I wrote in the piece, which you claim you've read. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq That's your explanation. Not Hunt's, so not what jury heard. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Again, as I noted, it was not entered as fact. But jury still heard it. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq yes. And it must be or you would have testified. But it came in nevertheless. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
14mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031