Tsarnaev Document

8/12/2019 Tsarnaev Document

1/7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO

)DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )

Defendant )

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO

FED.R.CRIM.P.16(d)(1)

The Uni t ed St at es, by under si gned counsel , hereby moves f or

a pr otect i ve order pr ohi bi t i ng t he def endant , DZHOKHAR A.

TSARNAEV, f r om personal l y r evi ewi ng aut opsy phot ographs of

vi ct i ms i n t hi s case, except f or t hose phot os t hat ar e of f er ed

as exhi bi t s at t r i al or sent enci ng.

To be cl ear , t he gover nment i s not seeki ng t o prevent

Tsar naev s at t or neys f r om r evi ewi ng and copyi ng any of t he

aut opsy phot os, whi ch have been avai l abl e f or t hei r i nspect i on

and r evi ew at t he U. S. At t or ney s Of f i ce, or f r om al l owi ng

Tsar naev t o r evi ew per sonal l y any phot os t hat wi l l act ual l y be

used agai nst hi m at t r i al or sent enci ng. The gover nment

mai nt ai ns, however , t hat Tsarnaev has no need t o revi ew

per sonal l y t he many photos t hat wi l l not be used agai nst hi m,

and t hat al l owi ng hi m t o do so woul d vi ol at e t he vi ct i ms r i ght s

t o di gni t y and pr i vacy and subj ect t hem t o needl ess har m and

suf f er i ng. Speci f i cal l y, al l owi ng phot os of t he mut i l at ed

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 225 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 6


2/7

2

bodi es of t he vi ct i ms t o be vi ewed by t he man accused of

mut i l at i ng them woul d needl essl y r evi ct i mi ze t he f ami l y member s

i n t he same way t hat i nnocent chi l dr en who are phot ogr aphed

pornogr aphi cal l y ar e r evi ct i mi zed whenever t hose photos ar e seen

by ot hers. Here, as i n ot her cases where a def endant has no

need per sonal l y t o revi ew sensi t i ve or cl assi f i ed evi dence t hat

wi l l not be used agai nst hi m, t he Cour t has t he power t o f ashi on

an appr opr i at e or der t hat wi l l saf eguar d t he def endant s r i ght s

wi t hout needl essl y ri ski ng har m t o ot her s.

I. Background

On Febr uary 12, 2014, t he government pr ovi ded copi es of t he

aut opsy r epor t s f or Kr yst l e Mar i e Campbel l , Li ngzi Lu, Mar t i n

Ri char d and Sean Col l i er t o def ense counsel . I n i t s cover

l et t er t o t he def ense, t he gover nment i ndi cat ed t hat , due t o t he

sensi t i ve natur e of t he aut opsy photogr aphs, t he gover nment

woul d not suppl y copi es of t he photogr aphs t o def ense counsel

but woul d make al l phot ogr aphs avai l abl e f or i nspect i on and

r evi ew at t he of f i ces of t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney.

On Thursday, Febr uar y 13, 2014, gover nment counsel spoke

wi t h a member of t he def ense t eam and r ei t er at ed i t s posi t i on

t hat , i n or der t o saf eguar d t he di gni t y and pr i vacy of t he

vi ct i ms and pr ot ect t hei r f ami l i es f r om unnecessar y gr i ef ,

Tsar naev shoul d not be permi t t ed t o vi ew t he phot ographs, except

t hose t hat woul d act ual l y be used agai nst hi m. The government



3/7

3

i ndi cat ed t hat i f def ense counsel i nt ended t o al l ow Tsar naev t o

vi ew al l t he phot ogr aphs wi t hout r est r i ct i on, t he gover nment

woul d cont i nue t o make t hem avai l abl e f or counsel s r evi ew but

woul d decl i ne t o pr ovi de copi es. Def ense counsel r ef used t o

accept any l i mi t at i on on Tsar naev s abi l i t y to vi ew t he aut opsy

photos and r epeated t hei r demand f or copi es of al l of t hem.

II. Statutory Framework

Under t he Cr i me Vi ct i ms Ri ght s Act , a cr i me vi ct i m has t he

r i ght t o be t r eat ed wi t h f ai r ness and wi t h r espect f or t he

vi ct i m s di gni t y and pr i vacy. 18 U. S. C. 3771( a) ( 8) . Wher e a

cr i me vi ct i m i s deceased, t he l egal guar di ans of t he cr i me

vi ct i m or t he r epr esent at i ve of t he cri me vi ct i m s est at e [ or ]

f ami l y members . . . may assume t he cr i me vi ct i m s r i ght s under

t hi s chapt er . . . . 18 U. S. C. 3771( e) .

Al t hough Fed. R. Cr i m. P 16( a) ( 1) ( E) and ( F) per mi t a

def endant t o i nspect and copy t he r esul t s or r epor t s of any

physi cal or ment al exami nat i on such as an aut opsy, Fed. R.

Cr i m. P. 16( d) ( 1) al l ows t he cour t t o deny, r est r i ct , or def er

di scover y or i nspecti on, or gr ant ot her appr opr i at e r el i ef , i f

good cause i s shown. A suf f i ci ent showi ng of good cause must

be based on a par t i cul ar f act ual demonst r at i on of pot ent i al

harm, not on concl usor y st atement s. Anderson v. Cryovac, I nc.

805 F. 2d 1, 8, ( 1st Ci r . 1986) . The nat ur e of t he showi ng of

par t i cul ar i t y . . . depends upon t he nat ur e or t ype of



4/7

4

pr ot ect i ve or der at i ssue. United States v. Bulger, 283 F. R. D.

46, 52 ( D. Mass. 2012) .

The aut opsy phot os ar e ext r emel y graphi c. They show t he

vi ct i ms, who ar e al l badl y mut i l at ed, i n var i ous st at es of

undr ess, i ncl udi ng compl et el y naked. Al t hough t he phot os, whi ch

ar e a st andar d par t of al l aut opsi es, ar e necessar y, al l owi ng

Tsar naev t he unr est r i ct ed r i ght t o r evi ew al l of t hem i s

compl etel y unnecessary. He does not need t o r evi ew phot os that

wi l l not be used agai nst hi m i n or der t o pr epar e hi s case or

exer ci se any of hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. To t he ext ent any of

t he phot os mi ght pr ove hel pf ul t o hi s case, hi s at t or neys are

f ul l y capabl e of i dent i f yi ng t hem and t hei r pot ent i al uses.

I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat a cour t may deny a def endant access

t o i nf or mat i on t hat wi l l not be used agai nst hi m so l ong as hi s

at t or neys ar e per mi t t ed t o make f ul l use of i t . I n In re:

Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F. 3d

93, 125 ( 2nd Ci r . 2008) , f or exampl e, t he cour t hel d i t was not

er r or t o pr ohi bi t t he def endant f r om per sonal l y vi ewi ng

cl assi f i ed mat er i al so l ong as t he mat er i al was made avai l abl e

t o def ense counsel . The Cour t not ed t hat pr oduct i on of

mat er i al s t o a par t y s at t or ney al one f al l s wi t hi n t he common

meani ng of di scover y. I d. Si mi l ar l y, i n United States v.

Ahmed, 2011 WL 4915005 ( S. D. N. Y. 2011) , t he cour t hel d that

pr ohi bi t i ng t he def endant f r om r evi ewi ng cl assi f i ed mat er i al s



5/7

5

di d not vi ol at e hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght s because hi s at t or neys

wer e abl e t o revi ew t hem and make i nqui r i es on t he def endant s

behal f . And i n United States v. Worman, 2007 WL 2221425 ( E. D.

Pa. 2007) , a chi l d por nogr aphy case, t he cour t hel d t hat t he

def endant di d not need t o vi ew each and ever y i mage and vi deo

t ape i n t he government s possessi on so l ong as he had access t o

t hose t hat woul d be used agai nst hi m and hi s l awyer s had access

t o t he ot her s.

Her e, gr ant i ng Tsarnaev an unl i mi t ed r i ght t o vi ew t he

naked and mut i l ated corpses of t he vi ct i ms woul d needl essl y

i nvade t he vi ct i ms pr i vacy and expose t hei r f ami l i es t o

unnecessary angui sh. J ust as each new vi ewi ng of a def amat ory

st at ement , or of an i mage of a naked chi l d i n pai n or t or ment ,

causes new i nj ur y, see, e.g., Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal. , 535

U. S. 234, 249 ( 2002) , each unnecessary vi ewi ng of t he aut opsy

phot os i s an avoi dabl e har m. The gover nment wi l l , of cour se,

need t o of f er many of t he aut opsy photos ( wi t h appr opr i ate

pr i vacy bl ocks) i nt o evi dence t o meet i t s bur den of pr oof , and

Tsar naev wi l l have an oppor t uni t y t o r evi ew t hose phot os ahead

of t i me; but Tsarnaev has no l egi t i mat e need to per sonal l y vi ew

all t he aut opsy photos of t hose he i s accused of mur der i ng - -

cer t ai nl y no need t hat out wei ghs t he vi ct i ms r i ght s t o di gni t y

and pr i vacy and t hei r f ami l i es r i ght t o an unmol est ed r ecover y.



6/7

6

Accordi ngl y, t he gover nment seeks a pr otect i ve order

pr ohi bi t i ng t he def ense f r om al l owi ng Tsar naev per sonal l y t o

vi ew any aut opsy photos of t he vi ct i ms except t hose t hat are

of f er ed as exhi bi t s at t r i al or sent enci ng.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,CARMEN M. ORTI ZUni t ed St at es At t or neyDi st r i ct of Massachuset t s

By: / s/ Nadi ne Pel l egr i niNadi ne Pel l egr i niWi l l i am D. Wei nr ebAl oke Chakr avar t yAssi st ant U. S. At t or neys

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I , Nadi ne Pel l egr i ni , Assi stant U. S. At t or ney, cer t i f y t hat I

served a PDF ver si on of t hi s document upon counsel of r ecord f ort he def endant on March 17, 2014 by el ect r oni c mai l .

/ s/ Nadi ne Pel l egr i niNadi ne Pel l egr i niAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney



7/7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO

)

DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )

Defendant )

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Cour t , havi ng f ound t hat good cause exi st s, enter s t he

f ol l owi ng pr ot ect i ve or der wi t h r espect t o t he aut opsy

phot ogr aphs of Kr yst l e Mar i e Campbel l , Sean Col l i er , Li ngzi Lu,

and Mar t i n Ri char d ( t he vi ct i ms) .

1. DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV i s pr ohi bi t ed f r om personal l y vi ewi ng

any aut opsy photos of t he vi ct i ms produced i n di scover y except

t hose t hat ar e of f er ed as evi dence by ei t her par t y at t r i al or

sent enci ng.

2. Al l ot her pr ovi si ons of t he Pr ot ect i ve Or der f i l ed

8/ 19/ 13 ( Docket #91) r emai n i n ef f ect .

GEORGE A. OTOOLE

United States District Court

Date:

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 225-1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 1

Documents

Tsarnaev Document