Doc 518; Tsarnaev Motion for Continuance With Exhibits 082914

8/11/2019 Doc 518; Tsarnaev Motion for Continuance With Exhibits 082914

1/80


2/80

arbitrary capital sentencing determination under the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth

Amendments.

In summary, the reasons justifying a reasonable continuance are as follows:

1. The normal challenges to investigating potential mitigating factors

in a high-profile capital case have been enormously increased and the

investigation has been hobbled and slowed by barriers of distance,

language, and culture, among many others.

2. The sheer scope of the law enforcement investigation of the

Marathon bombing, and the massive amount of testimonial, physical,

digital and expert evidence that it has generated, have overwhelmed the

ability of defense counsel to evaluate and respond to the governments case

in the time allotted. This already enormous challenge has beenexacerbated by the governments slow, inconsistent and disorganized

production of discovery material, and by its long-delayed and abstruse

expert disclosures, which have diverted defense time and resources, caused

needless litigation, and impeded defense preparation for trial.

3. Domestic defense mitigation investigation has been conducted amid

a growing atmosphere of anxiety and agitation generated by highly-

publicized arrests, indictments, prosecutions, deportations (and, in one

instance, the FBI killing) of members of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan

Tsarnaevs peer groups. The investigation has been further hampered byaggressive FBI follow-up tracking and questioning of potential witnesses,

as well as by the unrelenting attention of the news media. As a result, the

most basic defense investigative work of contacting and interviewing

witnesses who possess important information has been unusually time-

consuming and laborious.

In combination, these three extraordinary problems have created a situation in

which the defense cannot be prepared adequately to test the governments case, nor to

present the defendants own evidence in mitigation of sentence, by the current trial date

of November 3. Given the vital importance to the defendant and to the community that

any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather

2

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 16


3/80

than caprice or emotion, Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 357 (1977), it would be

constitutionally intolerable to adhere to any trial schedule that would allow time for only

the governments side to be fully heard.

A. The current trial schedule is unusually fast compared to the normal practice

in the federal courts.

There can be no uniform answer to the question of how much time is needed to

prepare the defense of a capital case for trial, since each case differs in many ways from

every other. But before turning to the reasons why the defense in this case cannot be

expected to be ready for trial by November 3, it is instructive to establish a framework

based on the actual experience of the federal courts throughout the nation.

The main reason that we cannot be ready for a trial beginning on November 3 is

the governments decision to seek the death penalty. The threat of the death penalty

exponentially increases the issues and evidence that the defense must investigate and

prepare for. This is true of capital cases generally, not just this one. It is the reason why

capital cases almost always take longer to prepare and try.

To be sure, most federal capital cases are resolved by negotiated guilty pleas

leading to sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of release, rather than by

adversarial trials by jury. However, since January 1, 2004, we are aware of 150 federal

capital defendants who have proceeded to trial with the government seeking imposition

of the death penalty. SeeExhibit A, Declaration Of Kevin McNally Regarding Pre-Trial

Preparation Time (August 29, 2014). In these 150 federal cases that have actually

reached trial, district courts have allowed the defendants an averageof approximately 36

3



4/80

months preparation time between indictment and the start of trial. Id. The mediantime-

to-trial has been 32 months.Id. In this case, by contrast, the period between the

defendants indictment on June 27, 2013, and the current trial date of November 3, 2014

is just over 16 months one-half of the median pretrial period, and a mere 44 percent of

the time allowed in the average defendants case.1

In a previous declaration filed four months before the government announced its

intention to seek the death penalty in this case, the defendant advised the Court that data

collected for the vast majority of the 493 defendants against whom the Attorney General

had authorized the death penalty showed the average interval between indictment and the

trial date to be 28 months. SeeDeclaration of Kevin McNally Regarding Pre-Trial

Preparation Time, DE 107-2 (filed Sept. 27, 2013). Though much longer than the 16-

month pretrial period currently in effect here, this 28-month figure significantly

understated the amount of pretrial preparation time generally allowed in the federal

courts, because roughly half of these defendants cases ended without trial, mainly

through plea bargains for life-without-release sentences. SeeExhibit E, Federal Death

Penalty Resource Counsel Project, The Federal Death Penalty (Aug. 28, 2014). Thus, it

cannot be known whether those cases would actually have begun trial on the dates

reflected on the dockets. By contrast, the 36-month average and the 32-month median

1An alphabetical listing of all 150 defendants known to have begun capital trials since

January 1, 2004 is provided as Exhibit B. We also have provided a spreadsheet arranging

these 150 defendants by the number of months that elapsed between their indictments and

the start date of their trials. SeeExhibit C. Exhibit D arranges this same data by trial

rather than by defendant, and reflects that a total of 119 separate capital trials have

commenced during the period since January 1, 2004.

4



5/80

reflected in Exhibit A encompass only those cases with unquestionably real trial dates

because all of those trials actually got underway on the dates listed. We have also

focused on the last decade so as to best reflect current practice.2

We do not suggest that the trial schedule in this case should be dictated by the

schedules adopted in all of the federal capital trials over the past decade, or by any other

single consideration. But in deciding whether a given trial schedule allows the defense

too little time to prepare, the contemporary practices of all of the federal courts

throughout the nation provide a valuable baseline for comparison. Such a comparison

shows that this case is on a very fast track to trial. Indeed, if the case actually starts trial

on November 3, it will rank as the sixteenth-fastest federal capital case to reach trial out

of 119 such trials since 2004, see Exhibit D, and the pretrial preparation time permitted

the defendant will be less than that afforded 127 of the 150 individual defendants who

have stood trial in those cases. See Exhibit C. In considering the particular reasons why

the defense in this case needs more time to prepare, we submit that the Court can and

should give due regard to the overall record and practices of the federal courts on this

important question.

B. The legal standard.

The law governing appellate review of rulings on motions for continuance is well-

established. A half-century ago, the Supreme Court set forth these broad governing

2The 2004 start point is also appropriate because it encompasses the entire period since

the Supreme Court underscored defense counsels constitutional obligation to conduct an

in-depth social history investigation in capital cases in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510

(2003).

5



6/80

principles:

The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the

trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that

violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is

compelled to defend without counsel. A myopic insistence uponexpeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can

render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality. There

are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance

is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in

the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons

presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.

Ungar v. Sarafite, 378 U.S. 575, 598-99 (1964) (internal citations omitted); accord,

United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014). To be sure, because

each case is sui generis, United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 770 (1st Cir. 1995),

appellate rulings on claims that trial courts abused their discretion in denying

continuances provide only limited guidance to a trial judge seeking to exercise

discretion fairly. That said, the First Circuit has listed these general factors governing

appellate review of denials of continuance:

A reviewing court must look first at the reasons contemporaneously

presented in support of the request for the continuance. See United States

v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 28 (1st Cir.1991). Other relevant factors may

include such things as the amount of time needed for effective preparation,

the amount of time actually available for preparation, the amount of time

previously available for preparation and how assiduously the movant used

that time, the extent to which the movant has contributed to his perceived

predicament, the complexity of the case, the availability of assistance from

other sources, the probable utility of a continuance, the extent ofinconvenience to others (such as the court, the witnesses, and the opposing

party) should a continuance ensue, and the likelihood of injustice or unfair

prejudice attributable to the denial of a continuance.

Saccoccia, 58 F.3d at 770.

6



7/80

A few of these factors may be dealt with at the outset. Because this motion is

made sufficiently in advance of trial, before jurors or witnesses have been summoned

(and indeed before the Court has determined the venue for trial), granting a continuance

now is unlikely to cause any substantial inconvenience to the Court, the witnesses, or the

government. As the Court is already aware, and as will be discussed in additional detail

below, the complexity of the case is obviously great. And while the amount of time

needed for effective preparation can never be calculated with precision, the fact that

much more preparation time is normally afforded in far less complex federal death

penalty cases across the United States weighs in favor of a finding that more time is

required for the defense to be effectively prepared. It is also important that this is the

defendants first request to continue the trial date, and that the case has not previously

been continued. ContrastUnited States v. Maldonaldo, 708 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2013)

(upholding denial of ninth continuance in order to allow third substitution of retained

defense counsel). Ultimately, however, the question raised by this motion must be

decided by considering the reasons . . . presented in support of the continuance.

Saccoccia, 58 F.3d at 770. The following reasons touch on each of the remaining

Saccoccia factors and militate in favor of a continuance.

C. The reasons why a continuance is warranted

1. Overseas mitigation investigation. The first of these challenges the

impossibility of investigating the life history of a youthful suspect in just 16 months when

so much of the evidence must be sought across barriers of language, culture and

suspicion in conflict-torn regions of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Central Asia is

7



8/80

described in detail in an sealed ex partesubmission that accompanies this motion. The

reasons why this filing must be made under seal is explained in a separate pleading.

Suffice it to say here that public disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the defense

investigation in this case would greatly exacerbate the already-formidable obstacles that

counsel face.

2. The volume of potentially relevant evidence. The second extraordinary

feature of this case is its sheer size. The Boston Marathon bombing has been investigated

by more than 1,000 FBI and other agents from additional federal, state, and local law

enforcement agencies, by an inter-agency task force representing the entire United States

Intelligence Community, and by at least five separate committees of the United States

Congress. The government has gradually produced some 6.7 terabytes of discovery,

including more than 100,000 pages (over 10,500 documents) of witness statements,

reports, photographs, and scientific tests produced in scanned formats; thousands of items

of physical evidence; and perhaps most daunting of all thousands of gigabytes of

digital evidence derived from a large and steadily-growing array of personal computers,

cellular telephones, portable hard drives and other digital storage devices, internet web

sites, and social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and the Russian-language

Odnoklassniki. Most recently, the governments continuing expert disclosures were

accompanied by more than 90 gigabytes of additional data, including more than 110,000

non-Bates-stamped files contained in 10,000 unindexed folders.3

3Even these dizzying statistics understate the magnitude of the discovery and other

disclosures received so far. Much of the 6.7 terabytes of discovery was provided in

8



9/80

In a non-capital case, where the only question to be resolved is the defendants

factual guilt or innocence of the crimes charged in the indictment, defense counsel might

safely ignore much of this tsunami of evidence and information, and limit their attention

to the relatively narrow (albeit still massive) categories of evidence bearing directly on

whether the defendant helped perpetrate the offenses alleged. But in a capital case, the

issues bearing on the issue of sentence are much broader. In this case, for example, they

include the apportionment of responsibility between the defendant and his plainly

dominant older brother. Pursuing this single question and there are many others like it

requires that the defense identify and classify thousands of items of circumstantial

evidence contained in each of the brothers various computers and digital storage devices

so as to show precisely when, and in which direction, violent ideological material cited in

the indictment flowed between them. The government has already indicated that it plans

to call two FBI specialists in computer forensics and the management of digital

information to provide the prosecutions answers to these questions, but has yet to

provide any hint of precisely what evidence they intend to use from the digital devices or

what they intend to say about them. In a declaration filed along with this motion, the

defense has explained how laborious and time-consuming is the task of independently

analyzing this vast body of digital evidence, what remains to be done, and why the work

compressed files; we do not know (and have not used scarce time to find out) the volume

in terabytes those files proved to be, collectively, once unzipped. Likewise, to pick out

just one of many such examples, a single scanned page of the more than 100,000 pages

referred to above, Bates No. DT-0015743, bearing the title Discovery Photography

Drive, is actually a scanned picture of a hard drive which itself contains 24,558 separate

photo and video files in 794 folders.

9



10/80

could not have been completed in the relatively short time allotted so far. See Exhibit F,

Declaration of William Fick.

Nor may the defense ignore the vast quantity of discovery bearing on the impact of

the Marathon bombings on the victims and the wider Boston community. Given the

governments repeated claims that the bombing was one of the most effective and

devastating terrorist crimes in recent U.S. history, and its recent disclosure that it will

seek to prove at sentencing the likely traumatic impact of the bombing and its aftermath

on countless thousands of Boston children and youth, defense counsel would fail to

fulfill their constitutionally-mandated role unless they fully evaluated both these claims

and the vast array of evidence on which they are based. See generallyGardner v.

Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362 (1977) (due process violated by death sentence that was

imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which [the defendant] had no

opportunity to deny or explain);Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (defense

counsels failure to review court file that they knew would be used in aggravation of

sentence denied capital clients Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of

counsel). There is, in short, very little in this truly massive array of documentary, digital,

physical and expert evidence that the defense can safely disregard without examination.

For the foregoing reasons, this case would have proven too massive for the

defense to be prepared for a November 3 trial and the capital sentencing proceeding that

may follow even had government adopted a more cooperative approach to discovery.

But as exemplified by recent litigation regarding the governments inadequate and

untimely expert disclosures, the already-formidable obstacles have been compounded by

10



11/80

the government's needless delays, disorganized data dumps, and its recurrent practice of

requiring the defense to litigate (at considerable cost in time and effort) our entitlement to

evidence (such as Tsarnaev family A-files, FBI interviews, and expert disclosures), only

to turn around months later and provide the information anyway, sometimes without

comment or explanation, in the midst of some new massive round of disclosures.

Countless FBI lab reports that were completed a year ago or more are only now being

disclosed, with the result that our deadlines for responding to and challenging the vast

array of scientific and technical evidence in this case have been needlessly compressed

into the last two months before the current trial date of November 3.4 Leaving aside

whether the government has complied with its minimum discovery obligations, it might

have been expected to do better than this after pressing successfully for such an early trial

date. In any event, the governments actual performance in managing the discovery and

expert disclosures in this case provides yet another reason why this massive case simply

cannot be fairly brought to trial in less than half the time of the average federal capital

prosecution.

3. The impact of a growing atmosphere of fear on the mitigation

investigation.

In addition tothe unusual obstacles created by distance, language, culture, and the

huge scale of the law enforcement investigation in this case, the defense mitigation

investigation within the United States has been hampered by continuing arrests,

4A description of some of the challengesand time requirementsinvolved in

reviewing and evaluating the governments scientific and technical evidence as it has

been provided in this case is contained in the declaration of Frederick Whitehurst,

attached hereto as Exhibit G.

11



12/80

prosecutions, and other law enforcement activity focused on those close to the Tsarnaevs

and the community in which they lived. By its very nature, this is an impediment that

can never be quantified with certainty, because witnesses who are too intimidated to talk

to us about our client or about his brother Tamerlan, for example, also are likely to be too

intimidated to tell us why. But it is undeniable that the period between the defendants

arrest on April 19, 2013 and the present has been marked by a succession of highly-

publicized arrests, deportations, federal criminal prosecutions, and even one killing of

former friends and acquaintances of both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Most of

those targeted have been foreign nationals who inevitably fear deportation regardless of

whether criminal charges are ever brought or proven against them. The sequence of

events includes the following:

May 1, 2013.Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev, two Kazakh nationals

and college friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are arrested and later convicted of

obstruction of justice and conspiracy in connection with their handling of certain

of the defendants belongings. Tazhayakov was convicted by a jury on July 21,2014, and Kadyrbayev pled guilty on August 21, 2014. The prosecutions of both

men continue to be highly publicized throughout the Boston area.

May 1, 2013.Robel Phillipos, Dzhokhars high school and college friend, is

arrested and charged along with Tazhayakov and Kadyrbayev with making false

statements to the FBI. Philliposs trial is set to begin on September 29, 2014.

May 22, 2013. Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Tamerlans

suspected accomplice in a 2011 murder of three men in Waltham, Massachusetts,

is shot to death by an FBI agent during questioning at Todashevs Floridaapartment.

May 30, 2014. Another friend of Tamerlan, Khairullozhon Matanov, is arrested

and charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI.

He is currently being held without bond.

12



13/80

May 30, 2014. Konstantin Morozov, a friend of Tamerlan, is arrested and jailed

pending deportation, despite a pending appeal on his asylum application. The

arrest reportedly followed Morozovs refusal of an FBI request to wear a wire

while speaking to yet another of Tamerlans Chechen friends.

July 22, 2014. Stephen Silva, a high school and college friend of Dzhokhar, isarrested on federal drug and gun possession charges. Law enforcement sources

immediately leak the allegation that Silva provided the gun named in the

indictment to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and that the same gun was later used to kill

MIT police officer Sean Collier. Silva is currently being held without bond.

In addition to these public arrests and prosecutions, the defense is aware of other

acquaintances of the Tsarnaevs who have been detained and placed in deportation

proceedings. Others with lawful immigration status have been detained for hours and

required to surrender their electronic devices upon re-entry to the United States.

To be clear, we do not to question the governments motives in pursuing criminal

or immigration violations. Rather, we list these subsequent cases and law enforcement

activities simply to make the intuitively obvious point that as such arrests, prosecutions,

deportations, and detentions increase, members of the Tsarnaevs peer groups inevitably

come to feel that any sort of cooperation with the defense investigation will risk attracting

attention from law enforcement and immigration authorities. Many of the witnesses who

are most necessary to the mitigation investigation are also most vulnerable to fear of law

enforcement reprisal. These include Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs high-school and college

friends and classmates, his fellow athletes, and members of the Chechen, Russian and

Muslim communities in Boston. These difficult circumstances are compounded by a

continuing pattern of aggressive FBI re-interviewing of potential witnesses on

13



14/80

occasion within hours of an attempted contact by a defense investigator. And all of this

is occurring under the glare of unrelenting news media coverage.

To be sure, patient, time-intensive work with a few of these potential witnesses

has gradually secured some degree of cooperation. But in such a generalized atmosphere

of fear, where any sort of cooperation with the defense (as opposed to the FBI or the

prosecution) reasonably appears to carry great personal risk, it is taking the defense much

longer than normal to carry out the most basic investigative task of interviewing the

defendants friends, peers and acquaintances. And this in turn constitutes another reason

why this case has proven to be a poor candidate for a much faster-than-usual trial

schedule.

D. Other factors weighing in favor of continuance.

There are several other factors which support, even if they do not independently

compel, a continuance that would put this case on a pace closer to that of the great

majority of federal death penalty trials. These include:

Continuing leaks and outright advocacy in the news media on the part of current or

recently-retired members of law enforcement have exacerbated already high levels

of prejudice among the potential jury pool, and further diverted defense time and

attention into efforts ineffective so far to prevent recurrence.

As the government has argued in opposing the defendants request for a change of

venue, there is authority for the proposition that the prejudicial impact of pretrial

publicity tends to lessen over time. DE 512 at 14-16. To the extent that the

government is correct, the prejudicial impact of the undeniably massive publicity

14



15/80

surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing (and the more recent follow-on arrests

and prosecutions of several of the Tsarnaev brothers friends) will tend to decrease

if this case were placed on a more typical pace to trial.

If the defendant is convicted of the capital counts against him, the current trial

schedule is likely to result in the jurys beginning sentencing deliberations around

the time of the second anniversary of the bombing (April 15, 2015), an event

which can be expected to produce an intense surge of highly emotional publicity

that could threaten the fairness of the proceedings.

We cannot overemphasize that this motion does not ask that Mr. Tsarnaev be

treated differently than other federal capital defendants. Rather, we are asking that he

notto be treated differently, and that he not be given far less time to prepare for trial

than is typically allowed in much less complex federal capital cases.

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the defendant requests that this motion be set for

oral argument. Counsel believe that argument may assist in the Court in resolving the

important issue raised by the motion.

Dated: August 29, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

DZHOKHAR TSARNAEVby his attorneys

/s/ Judy Clarke

Judy Clarke, Esq. (CA Bar # 76071)

CLARKE & RICE, APC

1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1800

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 308-8484

15



16/80


17/80

EXHIBIT A

Declaration of Kevin McNally

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 6


18/80

DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY

REGARDING PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION TIME

1.

I currently serve as the Director of the Federal Death Penalty Resource

Counsel Project, assisting court-appointed and defender attorneys charged with the

defense of capital cases in the federal courts. I have served as Resource Counsel

since the inception of the Resource Counsel Project in January, 1992. The Project is

funded and administered under the Criminal Justice Act by the Defender Services

Office of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

2. My responsibilities as federal resource counsel include the monitoring of

all federal capital prosecutions throughout the United States in order to assist in the

delivery of adequate defense services to indigent capital defendants in such cases.

This effort includes the collection of data on the initiation and prosecution of federal

capital cases.1

11The work of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project is described in

a report prepared by the Subcommittee on Federal Death Penalty Cases, Committee

on Defender Services, Judicial Conference of the United States,

www.uscourts.gov/dpenalty/1COVER.htm. The Subcommittee report urges the

judiciary and counsel to maximize the benefits of the Federal Death Penalty ResourceCounsel Project ..., which has become essential to the delivery of high quality, cost-

effective representation in death penalty cases ....Id.at 50. A recent update to the

Report stated: Many judges and defense counsel spoke with appreciation and

admiration about the work of Resource Counsel. Judges emphasized their assistance1



19/80

In order to carry out the duties entrusted to me, I maintain a comprehensive

list of federal death penalty prosecutions and information about these cases. I

accomplish this by internet news searches, reviewing dockets, and downloading

and obtaining indictments, pleadings of substance, notices of intentto seek or not

seek the death penalty, and orders and opinions by the District Courts. I also

conduct telephonic or in-person interviews with defense counsel, and

consultation withchambers. This information is regularly updated and is

checked for accuracy byconsulting with defense counsel. The Projects

information regarding federal capitalprosecutions has been relied upon by the

Administrative Office of the United StatesCourts, by the Federal Judicial Center,

and by various federal district courts.

4.Resource counsel collect comprehensive and accurate data concerning

variouspractices that have emerged since the federal courts resumed trying capital

cases in1990. This collection of data includes the intervals of time between various

in recruiting and recommending counsel for appointments and their availability to

consult on matters relating to the defense, including case budgeting. Defense

counsel found their knowledge, national perspective, and case-specific assistance

invaluable.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/AppointmentOfCounsel/Publications/U

p dateFederalDeathPenaltyCases.aspx

2



20/80

pretrialmilestones and trial and mitigation submission.

5. There have been 150 defendants whose federal capital cases have

actually commenced trial since January 1, 2004. A number of these cases involved

two or more capital co-defendants; as a result, the 150 defendants cases

represent a total of 119 trials.2

6. The average time between indictment and the trial date for the 150

federal capital defendants who actually began trial from January 1, 2004 forward,

is approximately 36.5 months.

7. The median time between indictment and the trial date for the 150

federal capital defendants who actually began trial from January 1, 2004 forward,

is approximately _32.6__ months

8. The average time between indictment and the trial date in the 119 federal

capitalcases which actually began trial from January 1, 2004 forward, is

approximately 37.1 months.

9. The median for the time between indictment and the actual trial date

in these 119 federalcapital cases, from 2004 forward is 32.6 months.

2There are three defendants included in this total (Donnell Young, Ronell Wilson

and George Lecco) who two trials during the period. These figures include only the

first trial.3



21/80

10. In order to determine whether these time-to-trial calculations were of

trials of Bureau of Prison inmates for murders committed while incarcerated, I

recalculated the time-to-trial intervals with 18 BOP cases removed. This was done

to test the hypothesis that BOP murder cases might typically to take longer to reach

trial for reasons unrelated to the needs of the parties for adequate preparation time.

Removing the 18 BOP cases had little effect on the average or median time-to-trial

intervals, which remained at 36.1 (average) and 31.6 (median).

11. Of the 150 federal defendants to stand trial during this period, three

(in one case) were Russian nationals whose cases involved mitigation investigation in

Russia. Two of these defendants (Iouri Mikhel and Jurijus Kadamovas) were tried

jointly; the case of the third co-defendant (Petro Krylov) was severed, and he was

tried last. The first of these trials began 52.9 months after indictment. The second

and last began 60.3 months after indictment.

12. Pursuant to declarant's responsibilities as Federal Death Penalty Resource

Counsel, declarant has compiled the above information regarding federal capital

cases in the regular course of the business of the Federal Death Penalty Resource

Counsel Project.

4



22/80

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America, 28 U.S.C. 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 29th

day of August, 2014.

/s/ Kevin McNally

Kevin McNally

5



23/80

EXHIBIT B

Alphabetical List of Capital Trials Since 2004



24/80

Federal Capital Cases that Went to Trial Starting in 2004 - 8/25/2014

Def Name

Abrar, Shani Nurani Shiekh

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 2:11CR34

Status of Case

Life sentence from jury

Trial D

6/4/2013

Indictment

3/8/2011

Notice of Intent

4/17/2012

Def Name

Agofsky, Shannon Wayne

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TX 1:03-CR 173

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

6/18/2004

Indictment

8/21/2003

Notice of Intent

1/30/2004

Def Name

Aguilar, Martin

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY No. 01-CR-1367

Status of Case


Trial D

10/30/200

Indictment

12/10/2001

Notice of Intent

5/14/2004

Def Name

Aquart, Azibo

D Ct Docket #

D. CT 3:06CR160 (PCD)

Status of Case

Death Row - Appeal

Trial D

3/21/201

Indictment

11/8/2006

Notice of Intent

1/29/2009

Def Name

Argueta, Antonio

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 8:05 CR

00393-DKC

Status of Case


Trial D

1/12/2010

Indictment

8/23/2005

Notice of Intent

5/8/2007

Def Name

Ayala-Lopez, Carlos L.

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 03-CR-55

Status of Case


Trial D

2/15/2006

Indictment

2/13/2003

Notice of Intent

12/17/2003



25/80


Def Name

Baker, Antoine Demetris

D Ct Docket #

E.D. AR No. 4:06 CR

00041 GTE

Status of Case

Guilty plea at trial

Trial D

10/13/200

Indictment

2/8/2006

Notice of Intent

8/8/2007

Def Name

Barnes, Khalid

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 7:04-CR

-00186-SCR

Status of Case


Trial D

2/11/2008

Indictment

2/27/2004

Notice of Intent

1/19/2006

Def Name

Barrett, Kenneth Eugene

D Ct Docket #

E.D. OK CR No. 04-100-

M-S

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

9/26/2005

Indictment

11/9/2004

Notice of Intent

2/15/2005

Def Name

Basciano, Vincent

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY No. 05-CR-0060

(S-3) (NGG)

Status of Case


Trial D

2/14/201

Indictment

1/26/2005

Notice of Intent

4/2/2007

Def Name

Basham, Branden

D Ct Docket #

D. SC No. 02-CR-992

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

8/23/2004

Indictment

12/17/2002

Notice of Intent

9/12/2003

Def Name

Baskerville, William

D Ct Docket #

D. NJ CR No. 03-836

(JAP)

Status of Case


Trial D

2/15/2007

Indictment

12/2/2003

Notice of Intent

6/16/2006



26/80


Def Name

Benjamin, Terrance

D Ct Docket #

E.D. LA No. 03-CR-274

Status of Case


Trial D

6/10/2008

Indictment

8/19/2003

Notice of Intent

10/19/2004

Def Name

Beyle, Abukar Osman

D Ct Docket #


Status of Case


Trial D

6/4/2013

Indictment

3/8/2011

Notice of Intent

4/17/2012

Def Name

Bingham, Tyler Davis

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

3/14/2006

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

6/28/2005

Def Name

Bodkins, Lanny Benjamin

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 4:04-CR

-70083-JLK

Status of Case

Authorization withdrawn at trial

Trial D

8/15/2005

Indictment

7/15/2004

Notice of Intent

2/17/2005

Def Name

Bolden, Robert, Sr.

D Ct Docket #

E.D. MO No. 4:02-CR

0557 CEF (AGF)

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

4/24/2006

Indictment

11/7/2002

Notice of Intent

10/7/2003

Def Name

Bourgeois, Alfred

D Ct Docket #

S.D. TX CR No. 02-216

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

2/19/2004

Indictment

7/25/2002

Notice of Intent

7/23/2003



27/80


Def Name

Breeden, Shawn

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 03-CR-13

Status of Case


Trial D

9/27/2004

Indictment

2/5/2003

Notice of Intent

7/15/2003

Def Name

Bridgewater, Wayne

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

2/21/2007

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

11/14/2006

Def Name

Burgos-Montes, Edison

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 06-009 JAG

Status of Case


Trial D

4/9/2012

Indictment

1/12/2006

Notice of Intent

6/27/2007

Def Name

Byers, Patrick Albert, Jr.

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 08-056

Status of Case


Trial D

3/9/2009

Indictment

2/5/2008

Notice of Intent

8/5/2008

Def Name

Candelario-Santana, Alexis

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 3:09-CR-00427-

JAF

Status of Case


Trial D

1/14/2013

Indictment

12/16/2009

Notice of Intent

7/8/2012

Def Name

Cannon, Amesheo D.

D Ct Docket #

E.D. MO No. S1

-1:01CR00073RWS

Status of Case


Trial D

2/28/2005

Indictment

10/18/2001

Notice of Intent

10/31/2002



28/80


Def Name

Caraballo, Gilberto

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY No. 01-CR-1367

Status of Case


Trial D

1/14/2008

Indictment

12/10/2001

Notice of Intent

5/14/2004

Def Name

Caro, Carlos David

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 06 CR

00001

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

1/22/2007

Indictment

1/3/2006

Notice of Intent

1/11/2006

Def Name

Carpenter, Michael Anthony

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 03-CR-13

Status of Case


Trial D

9/27/2004

Indictment

2/5/2003

Notice of Intent

7/15/2003

Def Name

Casey, Lashaun

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 3:05-CR-0277-

JAG

Status of Case


Trial D

1/22/2013

Indictment

8/17/2005

Notice of Intent

7/17/2007

Def Name

Chance, David Alan

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

10/4/2006

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

5/9/2005

Def Name

Cheever, Scott

D Ct Docket #

D. KS CR No. 05-10050

-01-06-MLB

Status of Case


Trial D

9/13/2006

Indictment

3/9/2005

Notice of Intent

7/8/2005



29/80


Def Name

Church, Walter Lefight

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 00-CR-104

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

2/17/2004

Indictment

12/13/2000

Notice of Intent

5/11/2001

Def Name

Cisneros, Ismael

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283

Status of Case


Trial D

3/1/2005

Indictment

6/24/2004

Notice of Intent

10/1/2004

Def Name

Clay, Vertis

D Ct Docket #

E.D. AR No. 4:04-CR

-00035 WRW

Status of Case


Trial D

10/1/2007

Indictment

5/5/2004

Notice of Intent

10/21/2005

Def Name

Coonce, Wesley Paul Jr.

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO 10-03029-01/02-

CR-S-GAF

Status of Case

Death row

Trial D

4/28/2014

Indictment

4/7/2010

Notice of Intent

7/22/2011

Def Name

Cooper, Andre

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512

Status of Case


Trial D

1/9/2006

Indictment

8/28/2001

Notice of Intent

5/23/2005

Def Name

Corley, Odell

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IN No. 02-CR-116

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

9/7/2004

Indictment

11/21/2002

Notice of Intent

8/14/2003



30/80


Def Name

Covarrubius, Javier

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA No. 05 CR 578

Status of Case


Trial D

7/11/2007

Indictment

6/16/2005

Notice of Intent

6/28/2006

Def Name

Cyrus, Dennis, Jr.

D Ct Docket #

N.D. CA No. 05-00324-

MMC

Status of Case


Trial D

1/12/2009

Indictment

5/24/2005

Notice of Intent

11/1/2006

Def Name

Dinkins, James

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 1:06-CR

-00309-JFM

Status of Case


Trial D

5/4/2009

Indictment

7/11/2006

Notice of Intent

1/25/2008

Def Name

Duncan, Joseph

D Ct Docket #

D. ID CR No. 07-23-N-

EJL

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

4/14/2008

Indictment

1/18/2007

Notice of Intent

1/23/2007

Def Name

Duong, Anh The

D Ct Docket #

N.D. CA No.

5:01CR20154 JF

Status of Case


Trial D

2/22/2010

Indictment

9/26/2001

Notice of Intent

5/13/2004

Def Name

Ebron, Joseph

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TX No. 1:07-CR-142

(1:08-CR-00036)

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

3/27/2009

Indictment

8/15/2007

Notice of Intent

9/11/2007



31/80


Def Name

Eye, Gary

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO No. 4:05-CR

-00344-ODS

Status of Case


Trial D

4/22/2008

Indictment

9/29/2005

Notice of Intent

7/17/2006

Def Name

Fell, Donald

D Ct Docket #

D. VT 2:01-CR-12-01

Status of Case

Awaiting resentencing or retrial

Trial D

5/1/2005

Indictment

2/1/2001

Notice of Intent

1/30/2002

Def Name

Fields, Edward

D Ct Docket #

E.D. OK No. 6:03-CR

-00073

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

7/5/2005

Indictment

8/1/2003

Notice of Intent

3/15/2004

Def Name

Fields, Sherman Lamont

D Ct Docket #

W.D. TX No. 01-CR-164

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

1/12/2004

Indictment

12/11/2001

Notice of Intent

5/23/2003

Def Name

Fort, Emile

D Ct Docket #

N.D. CA No. 05-00167

(WHA)

Status of Case


Trial D

11/17/200

Indictment

3/17/2005

Notice of Intent

10/3/2006

Def Name

Friend, Valeri

D Ct Docket #

S.D. WV CR No. 2:05

-00107

Status of Case

Guilty plea

Trial D

4/16/2007

Indictment

5/4/2005

Notice of Intent

8/16/2006



32/80


Def Name

Frye, James Ernest

D Ct Docket #

S.D. MS No. 01-CR-8

Status of Case


Trial D

1/24/2005

Indictment

2/23/2001

Notice of Intent

1/18/2002

Def Name

Fulks, Chadrick

D Ct Docket #

D. SC No. 02-CR-992

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

6/1/2004

Indictment

12/17/2002

Notice of Intent

9/12/2003

Def Name

Galan, Thomas A.

D Ct Docket #

N.D. OH No. 3:06-CR

-00730-JGC-1

Status of Case


Trial D

10/9/2007

Indictment

3/2/2006

Notice of Intent

11/14/2006

Def Name

Garcia-Orellana, Oscar

Alexander

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

3/1/2005

Indictment

6/24/2004

Notice of Intent

10/1/2004

Def Name

Garcia, Edgar B.

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TX 1:09-CR-00015-

MAC-KFG All

Status of Case

Death Row - Appeal

Trial D

5/3/2010

Indictment

1/21/2009

Notice of Intent

2/13/2009

Def Name

Gilbert, Melvin

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 1:06-CR

-00309-JFM

Status of Case


Trial D

5/4/2009

Indictment

8/22/2006

Notice of Intent

1/25/2008



33/80


Def Name

Gilmore, Charles Wesley

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 00-CR-104

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

2/17/2004

Indictment

2/5/2003

Notice of Intent

7/24/2003

Def Name

Gonzales-Lauzan, Luis

D Ct Docket #

S.D. FL No. 02-CR-20572

Status of Case


Trial D

1/20/2004

Indictment

7/11/2002

Notice of Intent

6/19/2003

Def Name

Gonzalez, Fausto

D Ct Docket #

D. CT No. 02-CR-7

Status of Case


Trial D

9/7/2004

Indictment

1/10/2002

Notice of Intent

1/21/2003

Def Name

Gooch, Larry

D Ct Docket #

D. DC CR No. 04-128

Status of Case


Trial D

1/9/2007

Indictment

3/12/2004

Notice of Intent

10/19/2005

Def Name

Gordon, Lorenzo

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-58

Status of Case


Trial D

10/25/200

Indictment

3/2/2004

Notice of Intent

9/30/2004

Def Name

Grande, Oscar

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283

Status of Case


Trial D

3/1/2005

Indictment

6/24/2004

Notice of Intent

10/1/2004



34/80


Def Name

Green, Steven

D Ct Docket #

W.D. KY No. 5:06-CR

-00019-TBR

Status of Case


Trial D

4/6/2009

Indictment

11/7/2006

Notice of Intent

7/3/2007

Def Name

Griffin, Robert Lee

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

10/4/2006

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

6/27/2005

Def Name

Hager, Thomas Morocco

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 1:05-CR

-00264-TSE

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

9/17/2007

Indictment

6/9/2005

Notice of Intent

5/30/2006

Def Name

Hall, Charles Michael

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO 10-03029-01/02-

CR-S-GAF

Status of Case

Death row

Trial D

4/28/2014

Indictment

4/7/2010

Notice of Intent

7/22/2011

Def Name

Hans, Eric Preston

D Ct Docket #

D. SC No. 6:05 CR 01227-

HMH

Status of Case


Trial D

7/16/2007

Indictment

11/16/2005

Notice of Intent

8/1/2006

Def Name

Hargrove, Demetrius R.

D Ct Docket #

D. KS No. 2:03-CR-20192-

CM-DJW

Status of Case


Trial D

10/3/2005

Indictment

12/10/2003

Notice of Intent

7/30/2004



35/80


Def Name

Henderson, Darryl

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 1:02-CR

-00451-MBM

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

11/8/2006

Indictment

4/16/2002

Notice of Intent

2/23/2005

Def Name

Henderson, Thomas

D Ct Docket #

S.D. OH No. 2:06-CR

-00039

Status of Case


Trial D

6/5/2007

Indictment

2/9/2006

Notice of Intent

12/8/2006

Def Name

Hinestroza, Edwin R.

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO No. 98- 00311

-01/05-CR-W-2

Status of Case


Trial D

10/31/200

Indictment

12/16/1998

Notice of Intent

5/4/2005

Def Name

Honken, Dustin

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IA No.3:01-CR

-03047-MWB

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

8/17/2004

Indictment

8/30/2001

Notice of Intent

6/10/2003

Def Name

Houston, Henry Michael

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

2/21/2007

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

11/14/2006

Def Name

Hyles, Tyrese

D Ct Docket #

E.D. MO No. 01-CR-73

Status of Case


Trial D

5/9/2005

Indictment

10/18/2001

Notice of Intent

10/31/2002



36/80


Def Name

Irby, James Allen

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 8:03-CR

-00490-RDB

Status of Case

Lesser included conviction

Trial D

10/3/2005

Indictment

10/29/2003

Notice of Intent

8/2/2004

Def Name

Jackson, David Lee

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TX No. 1:06-CR-51

Status of Case

Death Sentence Vacated and

Authorization Withdrawn

Trial D

10/2/2006

Indictment

4/20/2005

Notice of Intent

1/4/2006

Def Name

James, Richard

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY CR No. 02-778 (S

-1) (SJ)

Status of Case


Trial D

3/26/2007

Indictment

6/27/2002

Notice of Intent

8/1/2003

Def Name

Jimenez-Bencevi, Xavier

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 3:12-CR-00221-

JAF

Status of Case


Trial D

4/15/2013

Indictment

3/23/2012

Notice of Intent

12/7/2012

Def Name

Johnson, Angela

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IA No. 3:01-CR

-03046-MWB

Status of Case

Awaiting resentencing or retrial

Trial D

4/13/2005

3/2/2015

Indictment

7/26/2000

Notice of Intent

4/25/2002

Def Name

Johnson, John

D Ct Docket #

E.D. LA No. 2:04-CR

-00017-HGB-SS

Status of Case

Authorization withdrawn

Trial D

5/11/2009

Indictment

1/16/2004

Notice of Intent

2/1/2005



37/80


Def Name

Jordan, Peter

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-58

Status of Case


Trial D

10/25/200

Indictment

3/2/2004

Notice of Intent

9/30/2004

Def Name

Julian, Jermaine Michael

D Ct Docket #

M.D. FL No. 8:07-CR-9-T

-27TGW

Status of Case


Trial D

2/19/2009

Indictment

1/9/2007

Notice of Intent

10/15/2007

Def Name

Kadamovas, Jurijus

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02-220

(A)-NM

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

7/11/2006

Indictment

3/5/2002

Notice of Intent

8/3/2004

Def Name

Krylov, Petro

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02-220

(A)-NM

Status of Case


Trial D

3/9/2007

Indictment

3/5/2002

Notice of Intent

8/3/2004

Def Name

Lawrence, Daryl

D Ct Docket #

S.D. OH No. 2:05-CR

-00011-GLF-1

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

2/13/2006

Indictment

1/20/2005

Notice of Intent

9/26/2005

Def Name

Lecco, George

D Ct Docket #

S.D. WV CR No. 2:05

-00107

Status of Case


Trial D

4/16/2007

4/5/2010

Indictment

5/4/2005

Notice of Intent

8/16/2006



38/80


Def Name

LeCroy, William Emmett

D Ct Docket #

N.D. GA No. 02-CR-38

Status of Case

Death Row - 2255

Trial D

2/17/2004

Indictment

5/15/2002

Notice of Intent

12/20/2002

Def Name

Ledesma, Jose

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA No. 05 CR 578

Status of Case


Trial D

7/11/2007

Indictment

6/16/2005

Notice of Intent

6/28/2006

Def Name

Lighty, Kenneth Jamal

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 8:03-CR

-00457-PJM

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

9/6/2005

Indictment

10/8/2003

Notice of Intent

12/28/2004

Def Name

Lujan, Larry

D Ct Docket #

D. NM No. 05-924

Status of Case


Trial D

6/20/201

Indictment

4/27/2005

Notice of Intent

7/12/2007

Def Name

Mallay, Ronald

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY CR No. 02-778 (S

-1) (SJ)

Status of Case


Trial D

3/26/2007

Indictment

6/27/2002

Notice of Intent

8/1/2003

Def Name

Mayhew, John Richard

D Ct Docket #

S.D. OH CR No. 02 03

-165

Status of Case


Trial D

8/1/2005

Indictment

10/2/2003

Notice of Intent

10/5/2004



39/80


Def Name

McClure, Cornell Winfrei

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 01-CR-367

Status of Case

Life sentence from judge

Trial D

1/5/2005

Indictment

7/9/2001

Notice of Intent

3/4/2002

Def Name

McCluskey, John Charles

D Ct Docket #

D. NM No. 1:10-CR-02734

Status of Case


Trial D

7/22/2013

Indictment

9/29/2010

Notice of Intent

1/26/2012

Def Name

McGriff, Kenneth

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY CR No. 04-966

(ERK) (VVP)

Status of Case


Trial D

11/27/200

Indictment

11/2/2004

Notice of Intent

3/22/2006

Def Name

McTier, James

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY CR No. 05-401

Status of Case


Trial D

10/15/200

Indictment

5/20/2005

Notice of Intent

12/7/2006

Def Name

Merritt, Robert

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 2:07-CR

-00550-RBS

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

11/5/2012

Indictment

9/12/2007

Notice of Intent

3/14/2011

Def Name

Mikhel, Iouri

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02-220

(A)-NM

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

7/11/2006

Indictment

3/5/2002

Notice of Intent

8/3/2004



40/80


Def Name

Mikos, Ronald

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IL No. 02-CR 137

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

4/13/2005

Indictment

6/6/2002

Notice of Intent

12/16/2002

Def Name

Mills, Barry Byron

D Ct Docket #

C.D. CA CR No. 02

-00938-GHK

Status of Case


Trial D

3/14/2006

Indictment

8/28/2002

Notice of Intent

6/28/2005

Def Name

Montgomery, Lisa

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO No. 5:05-CR

-06002-GAF

Status of Case

Death Row - 2255

Trial D

10/1/2007

Indictment

1/12/2005

Notice of Intent

11/16/2005

Def Name

Moonda, Donna

D Ct Docket #

N.D. OH No. 1:06-CR

-00395-DDD

Status of Case


Trial D

6/4/2007

Indictment

8/16/2006

Notice of Intent

9/6/2006

Def Name

Moses, Keon

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 02-CR-410

Status of Case


Trial D

1/12/2004

Indictment

9/17/2002

Notice of Intent

3/31/2003

Def Name

Mosher, Ellis

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TX No. 1:06 CR

00101-TH

Status of Case


Trial D

1/7/2008

Indictment

7/19/2006

Notice of Intent

12/11/2006



41/80


Def Name

Moussaoui, Zacarias

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 01-CR-455

Status of Case


Trial D

2/6/2006

Indictment

12/11/2001

Notice of Intent

3/28/2002

Def Name

Natson, Michael Antonio

D Ct Docket #

M.D. GA No. 4:05-CR

-00021-CDL-GMF

Status of Case


Trial D

2/26/2007

Indictment

6/16/2005

Notice of Intent

12/8/2005

Def Name

Northington, Steven

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 2:07-CR

-00550-RBS

Status of Case


Trial D

11/5/2012

Indictment

9/12/2007

Notice of Intent

3/14/2011

Def Name

OReilly, Timothy

D Ct Docket #

E.D. MI No. 05-80025

Status of Case


Trial D

6/7/2010

Indictment

1/11/2005

Notice of Intent

11/1/2006

Def Name

Pepin-Taveras, Humberto

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY CR No. 04-0156

Status of Case


Trial D

9/15/2008

Indictment

2/20/2004

Notice of Intent

3/3/2005

Def Name

Perez, Wilfredo

D Ct Docket #

D. CT No. 02-CR-7

Status of Case


Trial D

6/1/2004

Indictment

1/10/2002

Notice of Intent

1/21/2003



42/80


Def Name

Phillips, Maurice

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 2:07-CR

-00549-JCJ

Status of Case


Trial D

1/4/2010

Indictment

9/12/2007

Notice of Intent

5/4/2009

Def Name

Plunkett, Antoine

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 4:04-CR

-70083-JLK

Status of Case


Trial D

8/15/2005

Indictment

7/15/2004

Notice of Intent

2/17/2005

Def Name

Quinones, Alan

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 00 CR 0761

(JSR)

Status of Case


Trial D

6/14/2004

Indictment

7/20/2000

Notice of Intent

10/26/2001

Def Name

Richardson, Brian

D Ct Docket #

N.D. GA No. 1:08CR139

Status of Case


Trial D

2/27/2012

Indictment

4/15/2008

Notice of Intent

12/2/2008

Def Name

Rivera, Denis

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283

Status of Case

Acquittal

Trial D

3/1/2005

Indictment

6/24/2004

Notice of Intent

10/1/2004

Def Name

Rodriguez, Alfonso, Jr.

D Ct Docket #

D. ND No. 04-CR-55

Status of Case

Death row - 2255

Trial D

7/6/2006

Indictment

5/11/2004

Notice of Intent

10/28/2004



43/80


Def Name

Rodriguez, Diego

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 00 CR 0761

(JSR)

Status of Case


Trial D

6/14/2004

Indictment

7/20/2000

Notice of Intent

10/26/2001

Def Name

Roman, Lorenzo Catalan

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 3:02-CR-117

Status of Case


Trial D

1/24/2005

Indictment

4/3/2002

Notice of Intent

7/31/2003

Def Name

Rudolph, Eric Robert

D Ct Docket #

N.D. AL No. 00-CR-422

Status of Case


Trial D

4/6/2005

Indictment

11/15/2000

Notice of Intent

12/11/2003

Def Name

Runyon, David

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA CR No. 4:08-CR

-16

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

6/30/2009

Indictment

2/13/2008

Notice of Intent

7/17/2008

Def Name

Sablan, Rudy

D Ct Docket #

D. CO No. 00-CR-531

Status of Case


Trial D

3/17/2008

Indictment

12/12/2000

Notice of Intent

5/1/2001

Def Name

Sablan, William

D Ct Docket #

D. CO No. 00-CR-531

Status of Case


Trial D

1/22/2007

Indictment

12/12/2000

Notice of Intent

5/1/2001



44/80


Def Name

Salad, Ahmed Muse

D Ct Docket #


Status of Case


Trial D

6/4/2013

Indictment

3/8/2011

Notice of Intent

4/17/2012

Def Name

Sanchez, Ricardo

D Ct Docket #

S.D. FL 06-80171-CR-

HURLEY/VITUNAC(s)(s)

Status of Case

Death Row - Appeal

Trial D

1/6/2009

Indictment

11/3/2006

Notice of Intent

2/20/2008

Def Name

Sandstrom, Steven

D Ct Docket #

W.D. MO No. 4:05-CR

-00344-ODS

Status of Case


Trial D

4/22/2008

Indictment

9/29/2005

Notice of Intent

7/17/2006

Def Name

Savage, Kaboni

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 2:07-CR

-00550-RBS

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

11/5/2012

Indictment

9/12/2007

Notice of Intent

3/14/2011

Def Name

Shakir, Jamal

D Ct Docket #

M.D. TN CR No. 3:98

-00038 (NIXON)

Status of Case


Trial D

2/20/2007

Indictment

11/20/1998

Notice of Intent

10/29/2002

Def Name

Simmons, Brent

D Ct Docket #

W.D. VA No. 5:04-CR

-30014-SGW

Status of Case


Trial D

2/7/2005

Indictment

3/3/2004

Notice of Intent

7/28/2004



45/80


46/80


Def Name

Taylor, Michael Lafayette

D Ct Docket #

D. MD No. 02-CR-410

Status of Case


Trial D

1/12/2004

Indictment

9/17/2002

Notice of Intent

3/31/2003

Def Name

Taylor, Rejon

D Ct Docket #

E.D. TN No. 1:04-CR

-00160-1

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

8/25/2008

Indictment

10/13/2004

Notice of Intent

6/1/2006

Def Name

Taylor, Styles

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IN CR No. 2:01 CR

073 JM

Status of Case


Trial D

7/5/2004

Indictment

4/23/2001

Notice of Intent

7/25/2003

Def Name

Thomas, Keoin

D Ct Docket #

N.D. IN No. 2:01 CR 073

JM

Status of Case


Trial D

7/5/2004

Indictment

7/23/2001

Notice of Intent

7/25/2003

Def Name

Torrez, Jorge Avila

D Ct Docket #

E.D. VA No. 1:11-CR-115

Status of Case

Death Row - Appeal

Trial D

4/1/2014

Indictment

5/26/2011

Notice of Intent

2/9/2012

Def Name

Troya, Danny

D Ct Docket #

S.D. FL 06-80171-CR-

HURLEY/VITUNAC(s)(s)

Status of Case

Death Row - Appeal

Trial D

1/6/2009

Indictment

11/3/2006

Notice of Intent

2/20/2008



47/80


Def Name

Umana, Alejandro Enrique

D Ct Docket #

W.D. NC No. 3:08-CR

-134-RJC

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

3/12/2010

Indictment

6/23/2008

Notice of Intent

9/23/2008

Def Name

Villegas, Hernardo Medina

D Ct Docket #

D. PR No. 3:02-CR-117

Status of Case


Trial D

1/24/2005

Indictment

4/3/2002

Notice of Intent

7/31/2003

Def Name

Wilk, Kenneth

D Ct Docket #

S.D. FL No. 04-CR-60216

Status of Case


Trial D

4/2/2007

Indictment

8/26/2004

Notice of Intent

2/19/2005

Def Name

Williams, Connell C.

D Ct Docket #

W.D. OK No. 5:11-CR

-298

Status of Case


Trial D

2/11/2013

Indictment

9/7/2011

Notice of Intent

4/17/2012

Def Name

Williams, Elijah Bobby

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 00-CR-1008

Status of Case


Trial D

3/14/2005

Indictment

9/26/2000

Notice of Intent

2/4/2003

Def Name

Williams, Jamain

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512

Status of Case


Trial D

1/9/2006

Indictment

8/28/2001

Notice of Intent

5/23/2005



48/80


Def Name

Williams, Michael

D Ct Docket #

S.D. NY No. 00-CR-1008

Status of Case


Trial D

3/14/2005

Indictment

9/26/2000

Notice of Intent

2/4/2003

Def Name

Williams, Naeem

D Ct Docket #

D. HI No. 1:06-CR-00079-

DAE

Status of Case


Trial D

10/29/13

voir d

1/28/2014

Indictment

2/15/2006

Notice of Intent

9/8/2006

Def Name

Williams, Tyrone

D Ct Docket #

S.D. TX No. 03-CR-221

Status of Case


Trial D

2/22/2005

10/3/2006

Indictment

6/12/2003

Notice of Intent

3/15/2004

Def Name

Williams, Vincent

D Ct Docket #

E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512

Status of Case


Trial D

1/9/2006

Indictment

8/28/2001

Notice of Intent

5/23/2005

Def Name

Wilson, Ronell

D Ct Docket #

E.D. NY No. 1:04-CR

-01016-NGG

Status of Case

Death row - Appeal

Trial D

9/1/2006;

4/17/2013

Indictment

11/17/2004

Notice of Intent

8/2/2005

Def Name

Young, Donnell

D Ct Docket #

M.D. TN CR No. 3:98

-00038 (NIXON)

Status of Case


Trial D

10/15/200

and

1/12/2009

Indictment

11/20/1998

Notice of Intent

10/29/2002



49/80

EXHIBIT C

Chart of Median Time in Monthsfrom Indictment to Trial

for Capital Defendants 2004-2014



50/80

Median of Time Between Indictment to Trial - 2004-2014 8-27-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

A B C D E

Def Name Indictment DP notice Trial Date Ind to Trial

Rivera, Denis 6/24/2004 10/1/2004 3/1/2005 8.0

Garcia-Orellana, Oscar Alexander 6/24/2004 10/1/2004 3/1/2005 8.0

Grande, Oscar 6/24/2004 10/1/2004 3/1/2005 8.0

Cisneros, Ismael 6/24/2004 10/1/2004 3/1/2005 8.0

Moonda, Donna 8/16/2006 9/6/2006 6/4/2007 9.5

Agofsky, Shannon Wayne 8/21/2003 1/30/2004 6/18/2004 9.9

Barrett, Kenneth Eugene 11/9/2004 2/15/2005 9/26/2005 10.4

Simmons, Brent 3/3/2004 7/28/2004 2/7/2005 11.0Lawrence, Daryl 1/20/2005 9/26/2005 2/13/2006 12.0

Gilmore, Charles Wesley 2/5/2003 7/24/2003 2/17/2004 12.2

Caro, Carlos David 1/3/2006 1/11/2006 1/22/2007 12.4

Jimenez-Bencevi, Xavier 3/23/2012 12/7/2012 4/15/2013 12.7

Byers, Patrick Albert, Jr. 2/5/2008 8/5/2008 3/9/2009 12.9

Bodkins, Lanny Benjamin 7/15/2004 2/17/2005 8/15/2005 13.0

Plunkett, Antoine 7/15/2004 2/17/2005 8/15/2005 13.0

Talik, Eugene J., Jr. 12/5/2006 12/29/2006 1/15/2008 13.2

Duncan, Joseph 1/18/2007 1/23/2007 4/14/2008 14.7

Snarr, Mark 1/21/2009 2/13/2009 5/3/2010 15.2

Garcia, Edgar B. 1/21/2009 2/13/2009 5/3/2010 15.2

Moses, Keon 9/17/2002 3/31/2003 1/12/2004 15.7

Taylor, Michael Lafayette 9/17/2002 3/31/2003 1/12/2004 15.7

Henderson, Thomas 2/9/2006 12/8/2006 6/5/2007 15.7

Runyon, David 2/13/2008 7/17/2008 6/30/2009 16.4Jackson, David Lee 4/20/2005 1/4/2006 10/2/2006 17.3

Fulks, Chadrick 12/17/2002 9/12/2003 6/1/2004 17.3

Mosher, Ellis 7/19/2006 12/11/2006 1/7/2008 17.5

Cheever, Scott 3/9/2005 7/8/2005 9/13/2006 18.0

Gonzales-Lauzan, Luis 7/11/2002 6/19/2003 1/20/2004 18.2

Bourgeois, Alfred 7/25/2002 7/23/2003 2/19/2004 18.7

Galan, Thomas A. 3/2/2006 11/14/2006 10/9/2007 19.2

Ebron, Joseph 8/15/2007 9/11/2007 3/27/2009 19.2

Breeden, Shawn 2/5/2003 7/15/2003 9/27/2004 19.4

Carpenter, Michael Anthony 2/5/2003 7/15/2003 9/27/2004 19.4

Jordan, Peter 3/2/2004 9/30/2004 10/25/2005 19.6



51/80


36

37

38

39

40

41

42

4344

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

5758

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

A B C D E

Gordon, Lorenzo 3/2/2004 9/30/2004 10/25/2005 19.6

Hans, Eric Preston 11/16/2005 8/1/2006 7/16/2007 19.6

Basham, Branden 12/17/2002 9/12/2003 8/23/2004 20.1

Natson, Michael Antonio 6/16/2005 12/8/2005 2/26/2007 20.3

Umana, Alejandro Enrique 6/23/2008 9/23/2008 3/12/2010 20.6

LeCroy, William Emmett 5/15/2002 12/20/2002 2/17/2004 21.1

Wilson, Ronell 11/17/2004 8/2/2005 9/1/2006; #2

4/17/2013

21.2

Solomon, Jelani 12/14/2005 12/29/2006 9/24/2007 21.3Corley, Odell 11/21/2002 8/14/2003 9/7/2004 21.5

Hargrove, Demetrius R. 12/10/2003 7/30/2004 10/3/2005 21.7

Mayhew, John Richard 10/2/2003 10/5/2004 8/1/2005 21.7

Street, John P. 9/10/2004 11/16/2005 7/24/2006 22.2

Lighty, Kenneth Jamal 10/8/2003 12/28/2004 9/6/2005 22.8

Irby, James Allen 10/29/2003 8/2/2004 10/3/2005 23.1

Fields, Edward 8/1/2003 3/15/2004 7/5/2005 23.1

Friend, Valeri 5/4/2005 8/16/2006 4/16/2007 23.4

Lecco, George 5/4/2005 8/16/2006 4/16/2007;

4/5/2010

23.4

Will iams, Connell C. 9/7/2011 4/17/2012 2/11/2013 24.3

McGriff, Kenneth 11/2/2004 3/22/2006 11/27/2006 24.7

Fields, Sherman Lamont 12/11/2001 5/23/2003 1/12/2004 24.9

Covarrubius, Javier 6/16/2005 6/28/2006 7/11/2007 24.9

Ledesma, Jose 6/16/2005 6/28/2006 7/11/2007 24.9Julian, Jermaine Michael 1/9/2007 10/15/2007 2/19/2009 25.2

Rodriguez, Alfonso, Jr. 5/11/2004 10/28/2004 7/6/2006 25.8

Sanchez, Ricardo 11/3/2006 2/20/2008 1/6/2009 25.9

Troya, Danny 11/3/2006 2/20/2008 1/6/2009 25.9

Salad, Ahmed Muse 3/8/2011 4/17/2012 6/3/2013 26.8

Beyle, Abukar Osman 3/8/2011 4/17/2012 6/3/2013 26.8

Abrar, Shani Nurani Shiekh 3/8/2011 4/17/2012 6/3/2013 26.8

Hager, Thomas Morocco 6/9/2005 5/30/2006 9/17/2007 27.0

Phillips, Maurice 9/12/2007 5/4/2009 1/4/2010 27.7

Perez, Wilfredo 1/10/2002 1/21/2003 6/1/2004 28.6

Green, Steven 11/7/2006 7/3/2007 4/6/2009 29.1



52/80


69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

7778

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

9293

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

A B C D E

McTier, James 5/20/2005 12/7/2006 10/15/2007 29.6

Eye, Gary 9/29/2005 7/17/2006 4/22/2008 30.7

Sandstrom, Steven 9/29/2005 7/17/2006 4/22/2008 30.7

Wilk, Kenneth 8/26/2004 2/19/2005 4/2/2007 31.2

Will iams, Tyrone 6/12/2003 3/15/2004 2/22/2005 31.6

Gonzalez, Fausto 1/10/2002 1/21/2003 9/7/2004 31.8

Gilbert, Melvin 8/22/2006 1/25/2008 5/4/2009 32.3

Montgomery, Lisa 1/12/2005 11/16/2005 10/1/2007 32.6

Villegas, Hernardo Medina 4/3/2002 7/31/2003 1/24/2005 33.7Roman, Lorenzo Catalan 4/3/2002 7 /31/2003 1 /24/2005 33.7

Gooch, Larry 3/12/2004 10/19/2005 1/9/2007 33.7

Dinkins, James 7/11/2006 1/25/2008 5/4/2009 33.7

McCluskey, John Charles 9/29/2010 1/26/2012 7/22/2013 33.7

Mikos, Ronald 6/6/2002 12/16/2002 4/13/2005 34.1

Torrez, Jorge Avila 5/26/2011 2/9/2012 4/1/2014 34.2

Thomas, Keoin 7/23/2001 7/25/2003 7/5/2004 35.3

Honken, Dustin 8/30/2001 6/10/2003 8/17/2004 35.5

Ayala-Lopez, Carlos L. 2/13/2003 12/17/2003 2/15/2006 36.0

Candelario-Santana, Alexis 12/16/2009 7/8/2012 1/14/2013 36.9

Church, Walter Lefight 12/13/2000 5/11/2001 2/17/2004 38.1

Taylor, Styles 4/23/2001 7/25/2003 7/5/2004 38.3

Baskerville, William 12/2/2003 6/16/2006 2/15/2007 38.4

Cannon, Amesheo D. 10/18/2001 10/31/2002 2/28/2005 40.4

Clay, Vertis 5/5/2004 10/21/2005 10/1/2007 40.9Bolden, Robert, Sr. 11/7/2002 10/7/2003 4/24/2006 41.4

McClure, Cornell Winfrei 7/9/2001 3/4/2002 1/5/2005 42.1

Mills, Barry Byron 8/28/2002 6/28/2005 3/14/2006 42.4

Bingham, Tyler Davis 8/28/2002 6/28/2005 3/14/2006 42.4

Hyles, Tyrese 10/18/2001 10/31/2002 5/9/2005 42.8

Cyrus, Dennis, Jr. 5/24/2005 11/1/2006 1/12/2009 43.6

Fort, Emile 3/17/2005 10/3/2006 11/17/2008 43.9

Baker, Antoine Demetris 2/8/2006 8/8/2007 10/13/2009 44.1

Richardson, Brian 4/15/2008 12/2/2008 2/27/2012 46.4

Taylor, Rejon 10/13/2004 6/1/2006 8/25/2008 46.4

Quinones, Alan 7/20/2000 10/26/2001 6/14/2004 46.8



53/80


104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

A B C D E

Rodriguez, Diego 7/20/2000 10/26/2001 6/14/2004 46.8

Frye, James Ernest 2/23/2001 1/18/2002 1/24/2005 47.2

Barnes, Khalid 2/27/2004 1/19/2006 2/11/2008 47.3

Coonce, Wesley Paul Jr. 4/7/2010 7/22/2011 4/28/2014 48.7

Hall, Charles Michael 4/7/2010 7/22/2011 4/28/2014 48.7

Argueta, Antonio 8/23/2005 5/8/2007 1/12/2010 48.8

Griffin, Robert Lee 8/28/2002 6/27/2005 10/4/2006 49.1

Stinson, John William 8/28/2002 5/9/2005 10/4/2006 49.2

Chance, David Alan 8/28/2002 5/9/2005 10/4/2006 49.2Moussaoui, Zacarias 12/11/2001 3/28/2002 2/6/2006 49.9

Fell, Donald 2/1/2001 1/30/2002 5/1/2005 50.8

Lujan, Larry 4/27/2005 7/12/2007 6/20/2011 51.8

Williams, Vincent 8/28/2001 5/23/2005 1/9/2006 52.4

Williams, Jamain 8/28/2001 5/23/2005 1/9/2006 52.4

Cooper, Andre 8/28/2001 5/23/2005 1/9/2006 52.4

Aquart, Azibo 11/8/2006 1/29/2009 3/21/2011 52.4

Rudolph, Eric Robe

Documents

Doc 518; Tsarnaev Motion for Continuance With Exhibits 082914