TOTALLY GEEKED!

Here's the letter they wrote which appeared in the Boston Globe recently:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

If I were them, I would tell Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney, that they are done. That they will not come to court, will not testify, will not be at all involved in any of his appeals if he gets the death penalty. I certainly hope they have the legal right to not be involved, to be left alone. Bill Richard testified in the trial, and Martin's death was centerpieced by the prosecution. This thing has been too harrowing for them, and they need to be done.

But they are only one set of victims. Other victims want the death penalty. And the decision cannot be based only on the victims' wants. I imagine the jury will be instructed to remember that. 

Frankly I don't want Tsarnaev getting any more airtime than he already has. He deserves to be forgotten, to fade into oblivion.

The sentencing "trial" (for lack of a better word) begins next week, with the same jury.

I hope they will not call Bill Richard to testify as a witness again. For God's sake, let it be over already for them.

What happens next?

US District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. will hold a second phase of the trial, in which prosecutors and defense lawyers will give opening statements, present witnesses and evidence, and give closing arguments supporting their arguments about what penalty Tsarnaev deserves. Prosecution witnesses could include Marathon victims, while the defense is likely to call experts to talk about Tsarnaev’s troubled upbringing and family life, meant to convince the jury that their client deserves some sympathy and is not deserving of a death sentence.

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

The Martin's opinion certainly should carry more weight then mine, but they aren't the only ones harmed by the bombings. As a country, we are all harmed when ever there is a terror attack. I don't want his name and face in the news for the unforeseeable future either, but I do think the death penalty is warranted here.

---

Their opinion can and will carry some weight.  Whether they testify in the future, or not, is up to them. 

However, at the end of the day, it is the state's call on what penalty to seek and a jury will decide it.  They will take in the points of view of ALL the victims, as well as the need of the state to mete out a fitting punishment for this type of crime.   

Blankie wrote:

---

It's a federal case, not state.

---

Oh good lord.  The term "state" is a general term meaning the government.   

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Blankie wrote:

---

It's a federal case, not state.

---

Oh good lord.  The term "state" is a general term meaning the government.   

---

 Husker we are sensitive here to the difference between state and Federal. For the past 5 years we have had so many high profile State and Federal trials.  It's tiring.

---

Again, it's a general term that refers to the government.

Like "Head of State" or "Chief of State" can refer to the president. We also have a "Secretary of State".  It doesn't just refer to one particular state. 

It's especially a common term when referring to courts and trials--whether state or federal.