Telling the Boston Marathon Jury about the Separation of Powers
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

This morning I posted a lengthy Open Letter to Judge George A. O’Toole, at Gumshoenews.com (linked at the end of this article). It contains suggested “Instructions to the Jury,” reprinted here.

I’ve been told that the separation of powers is old-fashioned. Well, no, it isn’t. We can’t afford to give up the Constitution. The Framers thereof, being mathematically aware of how power accumulates, put such clever architecture into it. That was back in pre-technology 1787, but don't be fooled -- the math does not change.

Were we to lose the Constitution (and I can’t say that it won’t happen – there are signs of it everywhere), our progeny would someday have to put it back together again, pretty much as it is now, and there would be a lot of suffering in the meantime. Completely unnecessary suffering.

Anyway, for my fellow conspiracy theorists, and also for those who utterly reject conspiracy theory, here are the proposed Instructions for use in the Tsarnaev case (or any similar case, should – God forbid – we have more ‘terrorist” episodes).

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
It is your solemn duty to see that justice is done. The accused is always innocent until proven guilty. There must be the act of the crime itself and the intention to commit the act. You have heard the evidence from the prosecution and listened to witnesses.

The defense gave a relatively short presentation. The fact that the defense started with an admission of guilt does not mean you must bring in a guilty verdict. It is your job to decide whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed the crimes with which he is charged. If you don’t think he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, per each charge, he is entitled to an acquittal.

It is a famous case and you almost certainly read about it and have heard people talking about it. I want to remind you that it is unavoidable for you to use any knowledge you possess, in deciding the case, yet you must come to your verdict by considering all that has been put forth in this courtroom.

Now I want to do something unusual. I want to help you realize that, since this is a case of “the people” versus an individual, we need to know how the people are represented by a government-employed prosecutor. In particular, I wish to point out that government's interest is not always identical with that of “the people.”

An example would be as follows. The number of car thefts in a given town could have multiplied rapidly. The prosecutor may feel that this fact is unbalancing her workload and thus she wants to make deals, plea-bargaining with those accused of car theft. While it is possible that this is also exactly what “the people” want, it could be that we are really looking at an institutional ‘interest’ of the prosecutor’s office.

I should also point out to you that it is one of the greatest strengths of the American constitution that we have a separation of powers. The legislative branch is separate from the executive branch. The judicial branch, of which I am a member, is separate from the executive branch.

Madame Prosecutor works ultimately for the president of the United States whose job it is to execute the law. My job is to adjudicate the law. Your job is to find guilt or innocence in this case. The defense is entitled to get from the prosecutor any information she is holding, especially if it is exculpatory.

When evaluating evidence, such as that of witnesses, it is your responsibility to determine the credibility of the witness. You can judge their honesty by whatever criteria you ordinarily use. For example, if the witness seems to hold a bias, you must take that into consideration. If he or she has said contradictory things, or physically impossible things, let that alert you about him or her.

Let’s talk about “terrorism”
This case of the bombing that occurred on April 15, 2013 at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, has often been referred to as a “terrorist” incident. You members of the jury may be old enough to remember when there was virtually no terrorism occurring in the United States.

Then, beginning in the 1960s, there was an outbreak of serial killings, such as the so-called Boston strangler. In the 1970s we heard a lot about terrorist acts in Ireland and in the Middle East. The word terrorism, in ordinary parlance, means a type of violence that is committed unpredictably so that everyone fears it may happen at any time.

Congress has stipulated a federal crime of terrorism as one that “is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;” it must also violate other statutes, per 18 USC 2332.

By 1993 there was a bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center; by 1995 there was the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Although persons have been convicted — Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in Oklahoma, and Messrs Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima, and Ajaj, in the WTC case, the community is not completely satisfied that all facts were considered.

In both cases there was involvement by the FBI and/or CIA, with the accused. Indeed, if we think back to the assassination of JFK, Americans were not told at the time, but they found out later, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the CIA when he was in the Marines.

In the 1993 bombing of the WTC basement, the FBI has admitted that it was creating a sting operation. A man named Emah Salem, an ex-officer of the Egyptian Army, was very involved in this as an informant. He has provided hours of conversation that he taped with his FBI comrade.

Salem feels remorse at the loss of life (there was also hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage). Salem points out that at the very least, since the FBI knew about the bombing in advance, it could have prevented it.

In the current case, the mother of the accused, Mrs Zubeidat Tsarnaev, has said to the media “I am 100% sure that this is a set-up. [My older son] was consulted by the CIA for years.”

Dzohokhar’s aunt has said, on Youtube, that she called the FBI immediately when she heard her nephews were suspects, to tell them of this CIA business. She says “I’m suspicious that this was staged.”

I will read to you now a statement that state judges in California are required to make to the jurors:

“You must decide what the facts are. It is up to all of you, and you alone, to decide what happened, based only on the evidence that has been presented to you in this trial.
Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. Bias includes, but is not limited to, bias for or against the witnesses, attorneys, defendant[s] or alleged victim[s], based on disability, gender, nationality, national origin, race or ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, [or] socioeconomic status….”

I also want to remind you, Jurors, of the role of government in this case. The FBI persons who gave testimony here did so as witnesses. They presented evidence in the same way other witnesses do. And to repeat, the prosecutor is bringing the case on behalf of society. The defense attorney’s represent the accused. The jury is the decider of the facts in the case.

There will be a later part of the case, known as sentencing, if you bring in a verdict of guilty. Your decision about guilt has to be based on the case as presented up to this point. You should not be attempting to calculate what may happen at sentencing. That would be wrong.

Quite simply you must find Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty if you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did what he is accused of having done. He must not only have physically committed the act of killing and injuring, he must have had the intention of killing and injuring.

Try to picture his motive, his mind. Don’t think his admission of guilt closes the case for you. You are the trier-of-facts.

Years from now, the public may want to know what happened at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, and they will look partly to your judgment. Your judgment should be based, I repeat, on the evidence presented here, and on your evaluation of the credibility of witnesses.

Don’t be afraid or embarrassed to float any ideas in the jury room and don’t let yourself be controlled by anyone.

ADDENDUM
To the readers of this piece at Rumor Mill News.com:
As I said, the Jury Instructions are suitable for conspiracy theorists and anyone else. To the “Anyone Else” I’d now like to add a word.

Last night I happened to find, on dear old Youtube, a documentary about the methods by which kids are being made to reach teenage-hood faster than they should. I think the video is excellent proof that there are hidden masters making decision for us all the time, even in regard to fashion, or children’s dolls.

(Do you recall Lawrence Dunegan, MD, predicting that puberty would be forced to an earlier age?).

Here is the video, well worth 38 minutes of your time.

-- Mary W Maxwell can be found at ProsecutionForTreason.com