[Defense attorney David] Bruck urged the jury to sentence the defendant [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] to life in prison without the possibility of ever being released.
"His legal case will be over for good, and no martyrdom, just years and years of punishment," the lawyer said. "All the while, society is protected."
I am reluctant to call anyone a liar based on a press report, as I have been quoted out of context a time or three myself, but if this report is accurate and in context then Bruck told the jury a bald-faced lie in open court.
Bruck knows, I know, and everyone knowledgeable in the field knows that if the jury returns a life verdict then Tsarnaev will have a right to appeal and then a right to file a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. ยง2255. By no stretch of the imagination will "his legal case be over for good." That is absolutely false.
Mr. Scheidegger the salient fact you state is that Mr. Tsarnev would have the right to appeal. You have no knowledge of whether he intends to exercise that right or not. Respectfully, I would want a little more evidence before I called another lawyer a liar in a public forum.
A representation to the jury that the case "will be over for good" is a false one whether this particular defendant appeals or not. It is a promise of finality that is not there.
My post does stop short of saying that this is a lie because I don't have the full statement and it is possible that elsewhere he corrects the false impression.
A statement that is false in isolation can be corrected or given a different meaning by other statements. My favorite example is Will Rogers' famous quip: "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Hence, I qualify with "if the report is accurate and in context."
So if anyone finds a transcript of the full statement online, please post a link.
"Mr. Scheidegger the salient fact you state is that Mr. Tsarnev would have the right to appeal. You have no knowledge of whether he intends to exercise that right or not."
He did everything he could to avoid capture, hid out in a boat while scrawling a flaming anti-American message justifying the murders, brings in Judy Clarke, pleads "not guilty" in the face of insurmountable evidence -- and now you want to tell us it's just up in the air if he's going to appeal?
OK, let's bet on that.
I'll bet you $100 to $1 here and now that there is an appeal in this case.
If you think there's a ghost of a realistic doubt about that, you should be eager to take me up.
Are we on?