BOSTON — A three-judge federal appeals panel on Thursday sharply questioned lawyers in the marathon bombing case, challenging assumptions about the ability of prospective jurors to be impartial as the judges weighed whether to move the trial out of Boston.
Defense lawyers for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of planting deadly bombs at the 2013 marathon finish line, say that the trial should be moved because the case has affected almost everyone in Eastern Massachusetts and that the vast majority of people believe their client is guilty.
Sentiment against him is so pervasive, the defense argued, that even the cement mixers at a construction site outside the federal courthouse where the arguments were heard are plastered with “Boston Strong” — the slogan of resilience and unity that arose after the bombings, which killed three people and injured more than 260 others.
Lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev have tried and failed several times to have the trial moved, but Thursday’s hearing gave them the opportunity to make oral arguments on the issue for the first time to three judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
–
A juror in Washington, D.C., for example, would not refer to “my best friend at the finish line,” she said, or would not have a spouse working at a hospital that treated bombing victims, as prospective jurors here have said under questioning.
“This is not an appropriate place to try this case,” she concluded.
The appeals court will issue its decision at a later time. After the arguments, Judge O’Toole resumed his questioning of prospective jurors.
