UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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



GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR LIST OF MITIGATING FACTORS

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 moves f or an or der di r ect i ng
t hat def endant , Dzhokhar Tsar naev, pr ovi de f i l e a l i st of t he
mi t i gat i ng f act or s on whi ch he i nt ends t o r el y at sent enci ng at
l east 30 days bef or e t he dat e f or submi ssi on of j ur y
quest i onnai r es.
INTRODUCTION
The Feder al Deat h Penal t y Act ( FDPA) , 18 U. S. C. 3591 et .
seq. , st at es t hat a j ur y must consi der bot h aggr avat i ng
f act or s and mi t i gat i ng f act or [ s] i n det er mi ni ng whet her t o
r ecommend a deat h sent ence. 18 U. S. C. 3592. The FDPA
expr essl y r equi r es t hat t he gover nment gi ve not i ce of
aggr avat i ng f act or s i t wi shes t he j ur y t o consi der . I d.
3592( c) . Al t hough t he FDPA does not i mpose t he same expr ess
obl i gat i on on t he def endant , cour t s have power under t he FDPA,
as wel l as i nher ent power , t o or der such not i ce, and have done
so. Or der i ng Tsar naev t o pr ovi de not i ce of mi t i gat i ng f act or s
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 6
2

at l east 30 days bef or e t he deadl i ne f or submi t t i ng j ur y
quest i onnai r es wi l l gi ve bot h par t i es an equal oppor t uni t y t o
ensur e t hat j ur or s ar e f ai r and unbi ased. Such di scl osur e i s
[ al so] consi st ent wi t h t he pr omot i on of ot her goal s such as
mi ni mi zi ng sur pr i se, accel er at i ng t he sent enci ng pr ocess, and
avoi di ng cont i nuances. United States v. Catalan Roman, 376
F. Supp. 2d 108, 117 ( D. P. R. , 2005) .
ARGUMENT
Bot h t he FDPA and Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e
empower t he Cour t t o or der Tsar naev t o pr ovi de not i ce of
mi t i gat i ng f act or s on a dat e cer t ai n. The FDPA nei t her r equi r es
nor exempt s t he def ense f r ompr ovi di ng not i ce of mi t i gat i ng
f act or s; i t i s si mpl y si l ent on t he mat t er . I n cases such as
t hi s one wher e t he FDPA i s ot her wi se si l ent as t o pr ocedur e, i t
cl ear l y does not pur por t t o pr ovi de a compr ehensi ve penal t y
phase pr ocedur e, and i t f ol l ows t hat Congr ess l ef t t he
f ashi oni ng of such pr ocedur es, i ncl udi ng di scl osur e mat t er s, t o
t he cour t s. Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 112. Mor e
gener al l y, Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 57( b) al l ows a cour t t o r egul at e
pr act i ce i n any manner consi st ent wi t h f eder al l aw, t hese r ul es,
and t he l ocal r ul es of t he di st r i ct . And t he cour t s i nher ent
super vi sor y aut hor i t y pr eser ve[ s] t he i nt egr i t y of t he
j udi ci ar y by ensur i ng t hat a convi ct i on r est s upon appr opr i at e
consi der at i ons val i dl y bef or e t he j ur y. United States v.
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 6
3

Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 505 ( 1983) . See Uni t ed St at es v.
Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166, 200 ( D. Mass. 2004)
( [ A] cknowl edgi ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t has such i nher ent
aut hor i t y f ur t her s t he goal s of t he FDPA. ) .
Rel yi ng on t hese aut hor i t i es, cour t s have or der ed
def endant s t o pr ovi de not i ce of mi t i gat i ng f act or s t o t he
gover nment . See United States v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 464
( E. D. N. Y. 2007) ; Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d 108; United
States v. Pepin Taveras, 2006 WL 1875339 ( E. D. N. Y. 2006) . These
deci si ons ar e i n keepi ng wi t h t he Supr eme Cour t s obser vat i on
t hat not i ce r equi r ement s ar e a sal ut ar y devel opment whi ch, by
i ncr easi ng t he evi dence avai l abl e t o bot h par t i es, enhances t he
f ai r ness of t he adver sar y syst em. Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U. S.
145, 151 ( 1991) . They ar e al so i n keepi ng wi t h t he FDPA s
r equi r ement t hat each par t y have a f ai r oppor t uni t y t o pr esent
ar gument as t o t he adequacy of t he i nf or mat i on t o est abl i sh t he
exi st ence of any aggr avat i ng or mi t i gat i ng f act or s. 18 U. S. C.
3593( c) . See United States v. Lujan, Cr i m. No. 05- 924, Sl i p
Op. at *3 ( D. N. M. May 18, 2011) ( The pol i ci es under l yi ng t he
FDPA and t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e suppor t t he
di scl osur e of penal t y- phase i nf or mat i on by t he def endant . ) .
Al t hough t he gover nment i s not awar e of any cour t s havi ng
or der ed not i ce of mi t i gat i ng f act or s 30 days bef or e t he deadl i ne
f or submi t t i ng j ur y quest i onnai r es, t hat deadl i ne i s f ai r t o
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 3 of 6
4

Tsar naev and wi l l ensur e t hat t he j ur y i s f ai r and wel l -
i nf or med. Accel er at i ng di scl osur es of a par t i cul ar def ense
does not vi ol at e a def endant s const i t ut i onal r i ght s, because a
cr i mi nal t r i al i s not a poker game i n whi ch pl ayer s enj oy an
absol ut e r i ght al ways t o conceal t hei r car ds unt i l pl ayed,
Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 82 ( 1970) . I ndeed, or der i ng
not i ce at t he r equest ed t i me wi l l si mpl y compel Tsar naev t o
di scl ose r i ght bef or e j ur y sel ect i on what he woul d di scl ose t o
t he j ur y l at er i n any event .
At t he same t i me, or der i ng ear l y di scl osur e wi l l enabl e t he
gover nment t o use t he i nf or mat i on t o sel ect a f ai r and i mpar t i al
j ur y. I t i s a common t act i c dur i ng voi r di r e f or t he def endant
t o r ead t o a pr ospect i ve j ur or a l i st of al l of t he aggr avat i ng
f act or s and t hen ask whet her , assumi ng t hose f act or s ar e pr oved,
any mi t i gat i ng f act or coul d possi bl y count er bal ance t hem. A
j ur or who i s unawar e of t he actual mi t i gat i ng f act or s t he
def ense wi l l seek t o pr ove i s i n no posi t i on t o gi ve a
meani ngf ul answer t o t hat quest i on. Wi t hout knowi ng t he act ual
mi t i gat i ng f act or s t he def ense wi l l seek t o pr ove, many
pr ospect i ve j ur or s si mpl y answer No. The r esul t i s t hat
j ur or s can be excused f or cause essent i al l y at t he def endant s
wi l l . Ti mel y di scl osur e of mi t i gat i ng f act or s i s al so needed so
t he gover nment can expl or e whet her j ur or s have deepl y hel d
bel i ef s about t hose mi t i gat i ng f act or s t hat mi ght pr event t hem
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 4 of 6
5

f r ombei ng f ai r and i mpar t i al .
Fi nal l y, t i mel y di scl osur e of mi t i gat i ng f act or s i s needed
t o ensur e t hat t he j ur y makes a wel l - i nf or med sent enci ng
r ecommendat i on. I n a capi t al case, t he j ur y shoul d have bef or e
i t al l possi bl e r el evant i nf or mat i on about t he i ndi vi dual
def endant whose f at e i t must det er mi ne. Jurek v. Texas, 428
U. S. 262, 276 ( 1976) . Tsar naev has r epeat edl y emphasi zed hi s
r i ght t o put a br oad spect r umof mi t i gat i ng evi dence bef or e t he
j ur y. But t he FDPA al so gi ves t he gover nment a st at ut or y r i ght
t o r ebut t hat evi dence. See 18 U. S. C. 3593( c) . That r i ght
wi l l be meani ngf ul - - and t he j ur y wi l l be f ul l y i nf or med - -
onl y i f t he gover nment has suf f i ci ent not i ce of mi t i gat i ng
f act or s t o pr epar e a r ebut t al case.
WHEREFORE, t he gover nment r espect f ul l y moves t he Cour t t o
or der Tsar naev t o f i l e not i ce of t he mi t i gat i ng f act or s on whi ch
he wi l l r el y no l at er t han 30 days bef or e t he deadl i ne f or
submi t t i ng j ur y quest i onnai r es.
Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

CARMEN M. ORTI Z
Uni t ed St at es At t or ney
Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s

By: / s/ Nadi ne Pel l egr i ni
NADI NE PELLEGRI NI
WI LLI AM D. WEI NREB
ALOKE S. CHAKRAVARTY
Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys


Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I her eby cer t i f y t hat t hese document ( s) f i l ed t hr ough t he ECF
syst emwi 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) on May 7, 2014.
/ s/ Nadi ne Pel l egr i ni
Nadi ne Pel l egr i ni
Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney


Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 294 Filed 05/07/14 Page 6 of 6