Judge Amy Coney Barrett pressured Biden’s attorney general to explain why he was trying to return the death sentence to Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev even though the attorney general ordered the suspension of the assassination earlier this year.
“What’s the last state game here?” Barrett questioned State Department Attorney Eric Feigin during the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday.
Barrett said that if Biden’s management found its way, Tsarnaev would “stop living under the threat of a death sentence that the government did not plan to carry out.”
Feigin replied that the situation could change because the reinstated death sentence would not be the end of the courts or the case in Tsarnaev’s case. Furthermore, he said, the courts should respect the decision of the court that sentenced the terrorist to death even if the party in power does not agree with the idea of the death penalty and may not immediately pass sentence.
BOSTON BOMBER CASE: KAVANAUGH, KAGAN CLASH IN RARE TESTY TURN OUT
“Good judgment of 12 of [Tsarnaev’s] your peers … deserve to be respected, ”said Feigin.
The Wednesday verbal dispute in Tsarnaev’s case came after a 2015 death court ruling overturned by the appellate court over alleged misconduct by the court and the court’s refusal to allow prosecution at the time of sentencing.
Some judges focused on the evidence to discredit the evidence: that Dzhokhar allegedly controls his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who incited Dzhokhar to commit a heinous act and that Dzhokhar would not have done so had he not been his brother.
Click here for the FOX NEWS APP
Tsarnaev’s defense lawyers wanted to present evidence during the trial that Tamerlan may have been involved in a three-fold murder in 2011 to substantiate their claim that Tamerlan was the leader between the two and a powerful figure that would be difficult for Dzhokhar to deny.
But the district court dismissed the evidence because of its weakness, something the defendants said was wrong because the defendants have the right to give convincing evidence at trial.
The Supreme Court can rule on the matter in June 2022, at the end of the current period.