SCOTUS reinstates death sentence for scumcrumpet Boston Marathon bomber

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled against a federal appeals court and supported the reimposing of the death sentence for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber.

NBC News reported “the 6-3 decision rejected defense claims that the judge at [the bomber’s] 2015 trial improperly restricted the questioning of prospective jurors and was wrong to exclude evidence of a separate crime two years before the bombing.”

This is what happens when you have a Supreme Court that isn't ruling with its ideology but ruling by the law instead.

In 2013, two brothers who along with their family immigrated to the U.S. from Chechnya became Islamic jihadis. They attended the Boston Marathon and covertly placed a homemade pressure cooker bomb near the finish line of the race beside a child and others standing there as runners passed by. The brothers walked away and the blast that followed killed three people, including the boy, and seriously injured hundreds of others nearby. Some had lost limbs and had other injuries.

The brothers ran from the cops, killing one in his attempt to escape. 

One brother was shot and killed by police and pronounced dead at the hospital. The surviving brother fled but later apprehended when he was found hiding in a boat in a backyard of the boat's owner in Watertown, Massachusetts. 

He was tried in court, found guilty and sentenced to death. His attorney argued that although he was an accomplice, “he was easily manipulated by his brother, who they called the mastermind,” NBC News reported. The bomber’s lawyer argued the judge in the original case acted improperly in several ways:

The three-judge panel of the far-left U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ordered a new sentencing hearing, ruling unanimously that U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. failed to allow enough questioning of potential jurors about how closely they followed extensive news coverage of the bombings.

The appeals court also said the judge should have allowed [the bomber’s] lawyers to bring up a 2011 triple homicide in the Boston suburb of Waltham that investigators suspected was committed by [the elder bomber]. The defense wanted to use that crime to show that the younger brother [bomber] was dominated by his violent older brother and therefore was less responsible for the bombings, because of his influence.

So if your older sibling tells you to kill someone and you do, that's not as bad as you getting the idea all on your own.  

However, the Justice Department under both Presidents Donald Trump and our current houseplant in office argued that the death sentence was appropriate and that the earlier evidence purportedly showing a pattern of violent abuse from the older brother should be inadmissible.

“The Justice Department said the evidence of who committed the Waltham killings was unreliable,” NBC News reported. “[The older bomber] and another man suspected of having been at the crime scene were both dead by the time of the bombing trial, so there was no way to know for certain what happened."

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against global warming, the heebie-jeebies and COVID-19.

* * *

Likewise, the DOJ “argued that holding a new sentencing hearing would further traumatize the Boston community,” according to NBC. Attorney General Merrick Garland, a far-left hack, has placed a moratorium on executions but surprisingly did not apply that order in this case.

Now, [the bomber] will sit on death row at a Colorado maximum-security prison for twenty years or so because it takes forever for justice to be served.