Supreme Court reinstates death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is pictured in this handout photo presented as evidence by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts on March 23, 2015.

The United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty on Friday for Boston Marathon bomber.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court rejected defense arguments that the judge at the criminal trial of the Boston Marathon bomber wrongly ruled on issues relating to the jury selection and evidence presented in the case.

The opinion of the court was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Sixth Amendment gave him a fair trial. He got one. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's judgement is reversed.

The court's conservative supermajority was split by the vote. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the Court of Appeals acted correctly.

The Boston bombings were called one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks since the 9/11 atrocities by prosecutors.

Three people, including an 8-year-old child, were killed and hundreds were wounded when two pressure-cooker bombs exploded near the marathon finish line. The MIT police officer Sean Collier was shot to death during the four-day search for the two brothers who fled the scene.

Tamerlan was killed in a gunfight with police. A man who ran over his brother as he drove away in a stolen Mercedes was found hiding in a boat in a backyard.

A jury in Massachusetts recommended the death penalty for six of the 30 counts they found him guilty of. The capital sentences were canceled by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in July 2020.

The lower court wrongly denied requests from the defense to have prospective jurors be asked about their media exposure to the case during jury selection.

The appeals court ruled that the district court was wrong to exclude evidence related to a triple murder in Massachusetts on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The Government argues that the Court of Appeals should not have thrown out the capital sentences.

The District Court did not abuse its broad discretion by declining to ask about the content and extent of each juror's media consumption.

This is breaking news. You can check back for updates.