United States v. Tsarnaev
Docket: No. 13-2106-MBB
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; April 29, 2013; Federal District Court
Defendant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev filed a motion to appoint two attorneys knowledgeable in capital law, specifically requesting Judy Clarke and David I. Bruck, to represent him in a case involving charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a(a) and 844(i), both of which carry the potential for the death penalty. Currently, he is represented by three attorneys from the federal public defender’s office. The court noted that Tsarnaev’s request for learned counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3005 is premature because he is currently charged by criminal complaint, not indictment. Section 3005 applies to individuals indicted for capital crimes and requires prompt counsel assignment upon request. The court highlighted that the statute emphasizes the need for counsel after an indictment, which has not yet occurred in this case. Additionally, the court referenced 18 U.S.C. § 3599, which governs the appointment of counsel in federal capital cases, stating it supersedes § 3006A for defendants facing execution. This statute ensures indigent defendants receive adequate legal representation throughout their proceedings and allows for the appointment of multiple attorneys if necessary. The Guide to Judicial Policies and Procedures supports this interpretation, affirming that more than two attorneys may be appointed under § 3599. An attorney is appointed to represent a defendant in a federal capital case due to the specific procedural requirements involved. At least one of the defendant's current counsel meets the qualifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(b). The case necessitates a defense attorney with substantial experience in federal death penalty cases, as indicated by precedents such as United States v. Lopez-Matias and In re Sterling-Suarez. Attorney Clarke has been deemed suitably qualified based on her background and experience, while the request to appoint a second attorney, Attorney Brack, is denied for now, with the possibility of renewal pending further developments. The defendant has demonstrated financial inability to secure adequate representation, satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(1). The motion for Attorney Clarke's appointment is therefore granted, aligning with the provisions in the Guide to Judicial Policies and Procedures.