(Doc 518) 8-29-2014 D Motion To Continue

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
)
)
)
)
)
CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, by and through counsel, respectfully moves to
continue the trial in this case to a date on or after September 1, 2015.
Introduction
The trial in this case is currently scheduled to begin just 16 months after the
defendant was indicted. This 16-month period is one-half the median preparation time
that federal courts have allowed defendants on trial for their lives over the past decade,
and would bring this case to trial faster than 103 of the 119 federal capital trials to get
underway since 2004.
We recognize that the government and many members of the public, especially in
the Boston area, may want the trial to begin quickly. But it is critically important that
any trial be fair, which means giving both sides, not just the government, enough time to
uncover and present all relevant evidence. Despite defense counsels best efforts, the
accelerated trial schedule has outpaced the requirements of so complex a case. A
substantial continuance therefore is necessary in order to secure the defendants rights to
due process of law, the effective assistance of counsel, and an individualized and non-
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 been
exacerbated 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 highlypublicized 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 by
aggressive 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 timeconsuming 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
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. See Exhibit 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 average of approximately 36
3
months preparation time between indictment and the start of trial. Id. The median timeto-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. See Declaration of Kevin McNally Regarding Pre-Trial
Preparation Time, DE 107-2 (filed Sept. 27, 2013). Though much longer than the 16month 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. See Exhibit 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
1
An 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. See Exhibit 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
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 wellestablished. A half-century ago, the Supreme Court set forth these broad governing
2
The 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
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 upon
expeditiousness 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 of
inconvenience 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.
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. Contrast United 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
described in detail in an sealed ex parte submission 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
Even 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
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
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 generally Gardner 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
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 to the 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,
4
A 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
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 highlypublicized 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 Florida
apartment.
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
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, is
arrested 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
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
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
not to 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 TSARNAEV
by 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
JUDYCLARKE@JCSRLAW.NET
David I. Bruck, Esq.

220 Sydney Lewis Hall
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 460-8188
BRUCKD@WLU.EDU
Miriam Conrad, Esq. (BBO # 550223)
Timothy Watkins, Esq. (BBO # 567992)
William Fick, Esq. (BBO # 650562)
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE
51 Sleeper Street, 5th Floor
(617) 223-8061
MIRIAM_CONRAD@FD.ORG
TIMOTHY_WATKINS@FD.ORG
WILLIAM_FICK@FD.ORG
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on
August 29, 2014.
/s/ Judy Clarke
16
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
Declaration of Kevin McNally
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
11
The 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 Resource
Counsel Project ..., which has become essential to the delivery of high quality, costeffective 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 assistance
1
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 intent to 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 with chambers. This information is regularly updated and is
checked for accuracy by consulting with defense counsel. The Projects
information regarding federal capital prosecutions has been relied upon by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, by the Federal Judicial Center,
and by various federal district courts.
4. Resource counsel collect comprehensive and accurate data concerning
various practices that have emerged since the federal courts resumed trying capital
cases in 1990. 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
pretrial milestones 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
capital cases 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 federal capital cases, from 2004 forward is 32.6 months.
2
There 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
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.
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
EXHIBIT B
Alphabetical List of Capital Trials Since 2004

Federal Capital Cases that Went to Trial Starting in 2004 - 8/25/2014
Def Name
Abrar, Shani Nurani Shiekh
Def Name
Agofsky, Shannon Wayne
Def Name
Aguilar, Martin
Def Name
Aquart, Azibo
Def Name
Argueta, Antonio
Def Name
Ayala-Lopez, Carlos L.
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 2:11CR34
D Ct Docket #
E.D. TX 1:03-CR 173
D Ct Docket #
E.D. NY No. 01-CR-1367
D Ct Docket #
D. CT 3:06CR160 (PCD)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Life sentence from jury
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Status of Case
Status of Case
Death Row - Appeal
Status of Case
D. MD No. 8:05 CR Life sentence from jury

00393-DKC
D Ct Docket #
D. PR No. 03-CR-55
Status of Case
Indictment
3/8/2011
Indictment
8/21/2003
Indictment
12/10/2001
Indictment
11/8/2006
Indictment
8/23/2005
Indictment
2/13/2003
Notice of Intent Trial Date

4/17/2012
6/4/2013

1/30/2004
6/18/2004

5/14/2004
10/30/2006

1/29/2009
3/21/2011

5/8/2007
1/12/2010

12/17/2003
2/15/2006

Def Name
Baker, Antoine Demetris
Def Name
Barnes, Khalid
Def Name
Barrett, Kenneth Eugene
Def Name
Basciano, Vincent
Def Name
Basham, Branden
Def Name
Baskerville, William
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. AR No. 4:06 CR Guilty plea at trial

00041 GTE
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. NY No. 7:04-CR Life sentence from jury

-00186-SCR
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. OK CR No. 04-100- Death row - 2255

M-S
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. NY No. 05-CR-0060 Life sentence from jury

(S-3) (NGG)
D Ct Docket #
D. SC No. 02-CR-992
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Status of Case
D. NJ CR No. 03-836 Life sentence from jury

(JAP)
Indictment
2/8/2006
Indictment
2/27/2004
Indictment
11/9/2004
Indictment
1/26/2005
Indictment
12/17/2002
Indictment
12/2/2003

8/8/2007
10/13/2009

1/19/2006
2/11/2008

2/15/2005
9/26/2005

4/2/2007
2/14/2011

9/12/2003
8/23/2004

6/16/2006
2/15/2007

Def Name
Benjamin, Terrance
Def Name
Beyle, Abukar Osman
Def Name
Bingham, Tyler Davis
Def Name
Bodkins, Lanny Benjamin
Def Name
Bolden, Robert, Sr.
Def Name
Bourgeois, Alfred
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. LA No. 03-CR-274
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
Guilty plea at trial
Status of Case
No.
D Ct Docket #
02 Life sentence from jury
Status of Case
Indictment
8/19/2003
Indictment
3/8/2011
Indictment
8/28/2002
Indictment
W.D. VA No. 4:04-CR Authorization withdrawn at trial 7/15/2004

-70083-JLK
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. MO No. 4:02-CR Death row - 2255

0557 CEF (AGF)
D Ct Docket #
S.D. TX CR No. 02-216
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Indictment
11/7/2002
Indictment
7/25/2002

10/19/2004
6/10/2008

4/17/2012
6/4/2013

6/28/2005
3/14/2006

2/17/2005
8/15/2005

10/7/2003
4/24/2006

7/23/2003
2/19/2004

Def Name
Breeden, Shawn
Def Name
Bridgewater, Wayne
Def Name
Burgos-Montes, Edison
Def Name
Byers, Patrick Albert, Jr.
Def Name
Candelario-Santana, Alexis
Def Name
Cannon, Amesheo D.
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. VA No. 03-CR-13
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
Status of Case
No.
D Ct Docket #
D. PR No. 06-009 JAG
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No. 08-056
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
D. PR No. 3:09-CR-00427- Life sentence from jury

JAF
D Ct Docket #
E.D.
MO
No.
-1:01CR00073RWS
Status of Case
S1 Life sentence from jury
Indictment
2/5/2003
Indictment
8/28/2002
Indictment
1/12/2006
Indictment
2/5/2008
Indictment
12/16/2009
Indictment
10/18/2001

7/15/2003
9/27/2004

11/14/2006
2/21/2007

6/27/2007
4/9/2012

8/5/2008
3/9/2009

7/8/2012
1/14/2013

10/31/2002
2/28/2005

Def Name
Caraballo, Gilberto
Def Name
Caro, Carlos David
Def Name
Carpenter, Michael Anthony
Def Name
Casey, Lashaun
Def Name
Chance, David Alan
Def Name
Cheever, Scott
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. NY No. 01-CR-1367
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. VA No. 06 CR Death row - 2255

00001
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. VA No. 03-CR-13
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case

JAG
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
No.
Indictment
12/10/2001
Indictment
1/3/2006
Indictment
2/5/2003
Indictment
8/17/2005
Indictment
02 Authorization withdrawn at trial 8/28/2002
Status of Case
Indictment
D. KS CR No. 05-10050 Authorization withdrawn at trial 3/9/2005

-01-06-MLB

5/14/2004
1/14/2008

1/11/2006
1/22/2007

7/15/2003
9/27/2004

7/17/2007
1/22/2013

5/9/2005
10/4/2006

7/8/2005
9/13/2006

Def Name
Church, Walter Lefight
Def Name
Cisneros, Ismael
Def Name
Clay, Vertis
Def Name
Coonce, Wesley Paul Jr.
Def Name
Cooper, Andre
Def Name
Corley, Odell
D Ct Docket #
W.D. VA No. 00-CR-104
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Acquittal
Status of Case
Status of Case
E.D. AR No. 4:04-CR Life sentence from jury

-00035 WRW
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. MO 10-03029-01/02- Death row

CR-S-GAF
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512
D Ct Docket #
N.D. IN No. 02-CR-116
Status of Case
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Indictment
12/13/2000
Indictment
6/24/2004
Indictment
5/5/2004
Indictment
4/7/2010
Indictment
8/28/2001
Indictment
11/21/2002

5/11/2001
2/17/2004

10/1/2004
3/1/2005

10/21/2005
10/1/2007

7/22/2011
4/28/2014

5/23/2005
1/9/2006

8/14/2003
9/7/2004

Def Name
Covarrubius, Javier
Def Name
Cyrus, Dennis, Jr.
Def Name
Dinkins, James
Def Name
Duncan, Joseph
Def Name
Duong, Anh The
Def Name
Ebron, Joseph
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
C.D. CA No. 05 CR 578
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D. CA No. 05-00324- Life sentence from jury

MMC
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No.
-00309-JFM
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
1:06-CR Life sentence from jury
Status of Case
D. ID CR No. 07-23-N- Death row - Appeal

EJL
D Ct Docket #
N.D.
CA
5:01CR20154 JF
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
No. Life sentence from jury
Status of Case
E.D. TX No. 1:07-CR-142 Death row - 2255

(1:08-CR-00036)
Indictment
6/16/2005
Indictment
5/24/2005
Indictment
7/11/2006
Indictment
1/18/2007
Indictment
9/26/2001
Indictment
8/15/2007

6/28/2006
7/11/2007

11/1/2006
1/12/2009

1/25/2008
5/4/2009

1/23/2007
4/14/2008

5/13/2004
2/22/2010

9/11/2007
3/27/2009

Def Name
Eye, Gary
Def Name
Fell, Donald
Def Name
Fields, Edward
Def Name
Fields, Sherman Lamont
Def Name
Fort, Emile
Def Name
Friend, Valeri
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. MO No. 4:05-CR Life sentence from jury

-00344-ODS
D Ct Docket #
D. VT 2:01-CR-12-01
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Awaiting resentencing or retrial
Status of Case
E.D. OK No. 6:03-CR Death row - 2255

-00073
D Ct Docket #
W.D. TX No. 01-CR-164
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Status of Case
N.D. CA No. 05-00167 Guilty plea at trial

(WHA)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. WV CR No. 2:05 Guilty plea

-00107
Indictment
9/29/2005
Indictment
2/1/2001
Indictment
8/1/2003
Indictment
12/11/2001
Indictment
3/17/2005
Indictment
5/4/2005

7/17/2006
4/22/2008

1/30/2002
5/1/2005

3/15/2004
7/5/2005

5/23/2003
1/12/2004

10/3/2006
11/17/2008

8/16/2006
4/16/2007

Def Name
Frye, James Ernest
Def Name
Fulks, Chadrick
Def Name
Galan, Thomas A.
Def Name
Garcia-Orellana,
Alexander
Def Name
Garcia, Edgar B.
Def Name
Gilbert, Melvin
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. MS No. 01-CR-8
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D. SC No. 02-CR-992
D Ct Docket #
Death row - 2255
Status of Case
N.D. OH No. 3:06-CR Life sentence from jury

-00730-JGC-1
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Oscar E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283
D Ct Docket #
Acquittal
Status of Case
E.D. TX 1:09-CR-00015- Death Row - Appeal

MAC-KFG All
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No.
-00309-JFM
Status of Case
Indictment
2/23/2001
Indictment
12/17/2002
Indictment
3/2/2006
Indictment
6/24/2004
Indictment
1/21/2009
Indictment
8/22/2006

1/18/2002
1/24/2005

9/12/2003
6/1/2004

11/14/2006
10/9/2007

10/1/2004
3/1/2005

2/13/2009
5/3/2010

1/25/2008
5/4/2009

Def Name
Gilmore, Charles Wesley
Def Name
Gonzales-Lauzan, Luis
Def Name
Gonzalez, Fausto
Def Name
Gooch, Larry
Def Name
Gordon, Lorenzo
Def Name
Grande, Oscar
D Ct Docket #
W.D. VA No. 00-CR-104
D Ct Docket #
S.D. FL No. 02-CR-20572
D Ct Docket #
D. CT No. 02-CR-7
D Ct Docket #
D. DC CR No. 04-128
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 04-CR-58
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283
Status of Case
Acquittal
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
Indictment
2/5/2003
Indictment
7/11/2002
Indictment
1/10/2002
Indictment
3/12/2004
Indictment
3/2/2004
Indictment
6/24/2004

7/24/2003
2/17/2004

6/19/2003
1/20/2004

1/21/2003
9/7/2004

10/19/2005
1/9/2007

9/30/2004
10/25/2005

10/1/2004
3/1/2005

Def Name
Green, Steven
Def Name
Griffin, Robert Lee
Def Name
Hager, Thomas Morocco
Def Name
Hall, Charles Michael
Def Name
Hans, Eric Preston
Def Name
Hargrove, Demetrius R.
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. KY No. 5:06-CR Life sentence from jury

-00019-TBR
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
No.
Status of Case
Status of Case
W.D. MO 10-03029-01/02- Death row

CR-S-GAF
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D. SC No. 6:05 CR 01227- Life sentence from jury

HMH
D Ct Docket #
11/7/2006
Indictment
E.D. VA No. 1:05-CR Death row - Appeal

-00264-TSE
D Ct Docket #
Indictment
Status of Case
D. KS No. 2:03-CR-20192- Life sentence from jury

CM-DJW
Indictment
6/9/2005
Indictment
4/7/2010
Indictment
11/16/2005
Indictment
12/10/2003

7/3/2007
4/6/2009

6/27/2005
10/4/2006

5/30/2006
9/17/2007

7/22/2011
4/28/2014

8/1/2006
7/16/2007

7/30/2004
10/3/2005

Def Name
Henderson, Darryl
Def Name
Henderson, Thomas
Def Name
Hinestroza, Edwin R.
Def Name
Honken, Dustin
Def Name
Houston, Henry Michael
Def Name
Hyles, Tyrese
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. NY No. 1:02-CR Acquittal

-00451-MBM
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. OH No. 2:06-CR Life sentence from jury

-00039
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. MO No. 98- 00311 Life sentence from jury

-01/05-CR-W-2
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D.
IA
No.3:01-CR Death row - 2255
-03047-MWB
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
Status of Case
No.
D Ct Docket #
E.D. MO No. 01-CR-73
Status of Case
Indictment
4/16/2002
Indictment
2/9/2006
Indictment
12/16/1998
Indictment
8/30/2001
Indictment
8/28/2002
Indictment
10/18/2001

2/23/2005
11/8/2006

12/8/2006
6/5/2007

5/4/2005
10/31/2005

6/10/2003
8/17/2004

11/14/2006
2/21/2007

10/31/2002
5/9/2005

Def Name
Irby, James Allen
Def Name
Jackson, David Lee
Def Name
James, Richard
Def Name
Jimenez-Bencevi, Xavier
Def Name
Johnson, Angela
Def Name
Johnson, John
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No.
-00490-RDB
Status of Case
8:03-CR Lesser included conviction
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. TX No. 1:06-CR-51
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case

JAF
D Ct Docket #
N.D. IA No.
-03046-MWB
D Ct Docket #
10/29/2003
Indictment
Death Sentence Vacated and 4/20/2005

Authorization Withdrawn
E.D. NY CR No. 02-778 (S Life sentence from jury

-1) (SJ)
D Ct Docket #
Indictment
Status of Case
3:01-CR Awaiting resentencing or retrial
Status of Case
E.D. LA No. 2:04-CR Authorization withdrawn

-00017-HGB-SS
Indictment
6/27/2002
Indictment
3/23/2012
Indictment
7/26/2000
Indictment
1/16/2004

8/2/2004
10/3/2005

1/4/2006
10/2/2006

8/1/2003
3/26/2007

12/7/2012
4/15/2013

4/25/2002
4/13/2005;
3/2/2015

2/1/2005
5/11/2009

Def Name
Jordan, Peter
Def Name
Julian, Jermaine Michael
Def Name
Kadamovas, Jurijus
Def Name
Krylov, Petro
Def Name
Lawrence, Daryl
Def Name
Lecco, George
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 04-CR-58
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
M.D. FL No. 8:07-CR-9-T Life sentence from jury

-27TGW
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
C.D. CA CR No. 02-220 Death row - Appeal

(A)-NM
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
C.D. CA CR No. 02-220 Life sentence from jury

(A)-NM
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. OH No. 2:05-CR Death row - Appeal

-00011-GLF-1
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. WV CR No. 2:05 Life sentence from jury

-00107
Indictment
3/2/2004
Indictment
1/9/2007
Indictment
3/5/2002
Indictment
3/5/2002
Indictment
1/20/2005
Indictment
5/4/2005

9/30/2004
10/25/2005

10/15/2007
2/19/2009

8/3/2004
7/11/2006

8/3/2004
3/9/2007

9/26/2005
2/13/2006

8/16/2006
4/16/2007;
4/5/2010

Def Name
LeCroy, William Emmett
Def Name
Ledesma, Jose
Def Name
Lighty, Kenneth Jamal
Def Name
Lujan, Larry
Def Name
Mallay, Ronald
Def Name
Mayhew, John Richard
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D. GA No. 02-CR-38
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
C.D. CA No. 05 CR 578
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No.
-00457-PJM
D Ct Docket #
D. NM No. 05-924
D Ct Docket #
Death Row - 2255
Status of Case
8:03-CR Death row - 2255
Status of Case
Status of Case
E.D. NY CR No. 02-778 (S Life sentence from jury

-1) (SJ)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. OH CR No. 02 03 Life sentence from jury

-165
Indictment
5/15/2002
Indictment
6/16/2005
Indictment
10/8/2003
Indictment
4/27/2005
Indictment
6/27/2002
Indictment
10/2/2003

12/20/2002
2/17/2004

6/28/2006
7/11/2007

12/28/2004
9/6/2005

7/12/2007
6/20/2011

8/1/2003
3/26/2007

10/5/2004
8/1/2005

Def Name
McClure, Cornell Winfrei
Def Name
McCluskey, John Charles
Def Name
McGriff, Kenneth
Def Name
McTier, James
Def Name
Merritt, Robert
Def Name
Mikhel, Iouri
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D. MD No. 01-CR-367
D Ct Docket #
Life sentence from judge
Status of Case
D. NM No. 1:10-CR-02734 Life sentence from jury
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. NY CR No. 04-966 Life sentence from jury

(ERK) (VVP)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. NY CR No. 05-401
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No.
-00550-RBS
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
2:07-CR Acquittal
Status of Case
C.D. CA CR No. 02-220 Death row - Appeal

(A)-NM
Indictment
7/9/2001
Indictment
9/29/2010
Indictment
11/2/2004
Indictment
5/20/2005
Indictment
9/12/2007
Indictment
3/5/2002

3/4/2002
1/5/2005

1/26/2012
7/22/2013

3/22/2006
11/27/2006

12/7/2006
10/15/2007

3/14/2011
11/5/2012

8/3/2004
7/11/2006

Def Name
Mikos, Ronald
Def Name
Mills, Barry Byron
Def Name
Montgomery, Lisa
Def Name
Moonda, Donna
Def Name
Moses, Keon
Def Name
Mosher, Ellis
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D. IL No. 02-CR 137
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
Death row - 2255
Status of Case
No.
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. MO No. 5:05-CR Death Row - 2255

-06002-GAF
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D. OH No. 1:06-CR Life sentence from jury

-00395-DDD
D Ct Docket #
D. MD No. 02-CR-410
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
E.D. TX No. 1:06 CR Life sentence from jury

00101-TH
Indictment
6/6/2002
Indictment
8/28/2002
Indictment
1/12/2005
Indictment
8/16/2006
Indictment
9/17/2002
Indictment
7/19/2006

12/16/2002
4/13/2005

6/28/2005
3/14/2006

11/16/2005
10/1/2007

9/6/2006
6/4/2007

3/31/2003
1/12/2004

12/11/2006
1/7/2008

Def Name
Moussaoui, Zacarias
Def Name
Natson, Michael Antonio
Def Name
Northington, Steven
Def Name
OReilly, Timothy
Def Name
Pepin-Taveras, Humberto
Def Name
Perez, Wilfredo
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. VA No. 01-CR-455
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
M.D. GA No. 4:05-CR Life sentence from jury

-00021-CDL-GMF
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No.
-00550-RBS
Status of Case
D Ct Docket #
E.D. MI No. 05-80025
D Ct Docket #
E.D. NY CR No. 04-0156
D Ct Docket #
D. CT No. 02-CR-7
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
Indictment
12/11/2001
Indictment
6/16/2005
Indictment
9/12/2007
Indictment
1/11/2005
Indictment
2/20/2004
Indictment
1/10/2002

3/28/2002
2/6/2006

12/8/2005
2/26/2007

3/14/2011
11/5/2012

11/1/2006
6/7/2010

3/3/2005
9/15/2008

1/21/2003
6/1/2004

Def Name
Phillips, Maurice
Def Name
Plunkett, Antoine
Def Name
Quinones, Alan
Def Name
Richardson, Brian
Def Name
Rivera, Denis
Def Name
Rodriguez, Alfonso, Jr.
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No.
-00549-JCJ
Status of Case
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Indictment
9/12/2007
Indictment
W.D. VA No. 4:04-CR Authorization withdrawn at trial 7/15/2004

-70083-JLK
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. NY No. 00 CR 0761 Life sentence from jury

(JSR)
D Ct Docket #
N.D. GA No. 1:08CR139
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 04-CR-283
D Ct Docket #
D. ND No. 04-CR-55
Status of Case
Status of Case
Acquittal
Status of Case
Death row - 2255
Indictment
7/20/2000
Indictment
4/15/2008
Indictment
6/24/2004
Indictment
5/11/2004

5/4/2009
1/4/2010

2/17/2005
8/15/2005

10/26/2001
6/14/2004

12/2/2008
2/27/2012

10/1/2004
3/1/2005

10/28/2004
7/6/2006

Def Name
Rodriguez, Diego
Def Name
Roman, Lorenzo Catalan
Def Name
Rudolph, Eric Robert
Def Name
Runyon, David
Def Name
Sablan, Rudy
Def Name
Sablan, William
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. NY No. 00 CR 0761 Life sentence from jury

(JSR)
D Ct Docket #
D. PR No. 3:02-CR-117
D Ct Docket #
N.D. AL No. 00-CR-422
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
E.D. VA CR No. 4:08-CR Death row - Appeal

-16
D Ct Docket #
D. CO No. 00-CR-531
D Ct Docket #
D. CO No. 00-CR-531
Status of Case
Status of Case
Indictment
7/20/2000
Indictment
4/3/2002
Indictment
11/15/2000
Indictment
2/13/2008
Indictment
12/12/2000
Indictment
12/12/2000

10/26/2001
6/14/2004

7/31/2003
1/24/2005

12/11/2003
4/6/2005

7/17/2008
6/30/2009

5/1/2001
3/17/2008

5/1/2001
1/22/2007

Def Name
Salad, Ahmed Muse
Def Name
Sanchez, Ricardo
Def Name
Sandstrom, Steven
Def Name
Savage, Kaboni
Def Name
Shakir, Jamal
Def Name
Simmons, Brent
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
S.D. FL 06-80171-CR- Death Row - Appeal

HURLEY/VITUNAC(s)(s)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case

-00344-ODS
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No.
-00550-RBS
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
2:07-CR Death row - Appeal
Status of Case
M.D. TN CR No. 3:98 Life sentence from jury

-00038 (NIXON)
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. VA No. 5:04-CR Life sentence from jury

-30014-SGW
Indictment
3/8/2011
Indictment
11/3/2006
Indictment
9/29/2005
Indictment
9/12/2007
Indictment
11/20/1998
Indictment
3/3/2004

4/17/2012
6/4/2013

2/20/2008
1/6/2009

7/17/2006
4/22/2008

3/14/2011
11/5/2012

10/29/2002
2/20/2007

7/28/2004
2/7/2005

Def Name
Smith, Thomas
Def Name
Snarr, Mark
Def Name
Solomon, Jelani
Def Name
Stinson, John William
Def Name
Street, John P.
Def Name
Talik, Eugene J., Jr.
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. MO No. 3:02 CR Life sentence from jury

05025
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
E.D. TX 1:09-CR-00015- Death Row - Appeal

MAC-KFG All
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. PA No. 2:05-CR Life sentence from jury

-00385-TFM
D Ct Docket #
C.D. CA CR
-00938-GHK
Status of Case
No.
Indictment
5/2/2002
Indictment
1/21/2009
Indictment
12/14/2005
Indictment
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case

-00298-GAF
D Ct Docket #
N.D. WV No. 5:06-CR-51
Status of Case
Indictment
9/10/2004
Indictment
12/5/2006

8/7/2003
1/24/2007

2/13/2009
5/3/2010

12/29/2006
9/24/2007

5/9/2005
10/4/2006

11/16/2005
7/24/2006

12/29/2006
1/15/2008

Def Name
Taylor, Michael Lafayette
Def Name
Taylor, Rejon
Def Name
Taylor, Styles
Def Name
Thomas, Keoin
Def Name
Torrez, Jorge Avila
Def Name
Troya, Danny
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
D. MD No. 02-CR-410
D Ct Docket #
E.D. TN
-00160-1
No.
Status of Case
1:04-CR Death row - Appeal
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
N.D. IN CR No. 2:01 CR Life sentence from jury

073 JM
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Indictment
9/17/2002
Indictment
10/13/2004
Indictment
4/23/2001
Indictment
N.D. IN No. 2:01 CR 073 Authorization withdrawn at trial 7/23/2001

JM
D Ct Docket #
E.D. VA No. 1:11-CR-115
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Death Row - Appeal
Status of Case
S.D. FL 06-80171-CR- Death Row - Appeal

HURLEY/VITUNAC(s)(s)
Indictment
5/26/2011
Indictment
11/3/2006

3/31/2003
1/12/2004

6/1/2006
8/25/2008

7/25/2003
7/5/2004

7/25/2003
7/5/2004

2/9/2012
4/1/2014

2/20/2008
1/6/2009

Def Name
Umana, Alejandro Enrique
Def Name
Villegas, Hernardo Medina
Def Name
Wilk, Kenneth
Def Name
Williams, Connell C.
Def Name
Williams, Elijah Bobby
Def Name
Williams, Jamain
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
W.D. NC No. 3:08-CR Death row - Appeal

-134-RJC
D Ct Docket #
D. PR No. 3:02-CR-117
D Ct Docket #
S.D. FL No. 04-CR-60216
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
Status of Case
W.D. OK No. 5:11-CR Guilty plea at trial

-298
D Ct Docket #
S.D. NY No. 00-CR-1008
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512
Status of Case
Status of Case
Indictment
6/23/2008
Indictment
4/3/2002
Indictment
8/26/2004
Indictment
9/7/2011
Indictment
9/26/2000
Indictment
8/28/2001

9/23/2008
3/12/2010

7/31/2003
1/24/2005

2/19/2005
4/2/2007

4/17/2012
2/11/2013

2/4/2003
3/14/2005

5/23/2005
1/9/2006

Def Name
Williams, Michael
Def Name
Williams, Naeem
Def Name
Williams, Tyrone
Def Name
Williams, Vincent
Def Name
Wilson, Ronell
Def Name
Young, Donnell
D Ct Docket #
S.D. NY No. 00-CR-1008
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
D. HI No. 1:06-CR-00079- Life sentence from jury

DAE
D Ct Docket #
S.D. TX No. 03-CR-221
D Ct Docket #
E.D. PA No. 01-CR-512
D Ct Docket #
Status of Case
Status of Case
9/26/2000
Indictment
2/15/2006
Indictment
6/12/2003
Indictment
Authorization withdrawn at trial 8/28/2001
Status of Case
E.D. NY No. 1:04-CR Death row - Appeal

-01016-NGG
D Ct Docket #
Indictment
Status of Case
M.D. TN CR No. 3:98 Guilty plea at trial

-00038 (NIXON)
Indictment
11/17/2004
Indictment
11/20/1998

2/4/2003
3/14/2005

9/8/2006
10/29/13
voir
dire;
1/28/2014
trial

3/15/2004
2/22/2005;
10/3/2006

5/23/2005
1/9/2006

8/2/2005
9/1/2006;
4/17/2013

10/29/2002
10/15/2005
and
1/12/2009
EXHIBIT C
Chart of Median Time in Months from Indictment to Trial
for Capital Defendants 2004-2014

Median of Time Between Indictment to Trial - 2004-2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
A
Def Name
Rivera, Denis
Garcia-Orellana, Oscar Alexander
Grande, Oscar
Cisneros, Ismael
Moonda, Donna
Simmons, Brent
Lawrence, Daryl
Gilmore, Charles Wesley
Caro, Carlos David
Plunkett, Antoine
Duncan, Joseph
Snarr, Mark
Garcia, Edgar B.
Moses, Keon
Taylor, Michael Lafayette
Henderson, Thomas
Runyon, David
Jackson, David Lee
Fulks, Chadrick
Mosher, Ellis
Cheever, Scott
Bourgeois, Alfred
Galan, Thomas A.
Ebron, Joseph
Breeden, Shawn
Carpenter, Michael Anthony
Jordan, Peter
B
Indictment
6/24/2004
6/24/2004
6/24/2004
6/24/2004
8/16/2006
8/21/2003
11/9/2004
3/3/2004
1/20/2005
2/5/2003
1/3/2006
3/23/2012
2/5/2008
7/15/2004
7/15/2004
12/5/2006
1/18/2007
1/21/2009
1/21/2009
9/17/2002
9/17/2002
2/9/2006
2/13/2008
4/20/2005
12/17/2002
7/19/2006
3/9/2005
7/11/2002
7/25/2002
3/2/2006
8/15/2007
2/5/2003
2/5/2003
3/2/2004
C
DP notice
10/1/2004
10/1/2004
10/1/2004
10/1/2004
9/6/2006
1/30/2004
2/15/2005
7/28/2004
9/26/2005
7/24/2003
1/11/2006
12/7/2012
8/5/2008
2/17/2005
2/17/2005
12/29/2006
1/23/2007
2/13/2009
2/13/2009
3/31/2003
3/31/2003
12/8/2006
7/17/2008
1/4/2006
9/12/2003
12/11/2006
7/8/2005
6/19/2003
7/23/2003
11/14/2006
9/11/2007
7/15/2003
7/15/2003
9/30/2004
D
Trial Date
3/1/2005
3/1/2005
3/1/2005
3/1/2005
6/4/2007
6/18/2004
9/26/2005
2/7/2005
2/13/2006
2/17/2004
1/22/2007
4/15/2013
3/9/2009
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
1/15/2008
4/14/2008
5/3/2010
5/3/2010
1/12/2004
1/12/2004
6/5/2007
6/30/2009
10/2/2006
6/1/2004
1/7/2008
9/13/2006
1/20/2004
2/19/2004
10/9/2007
3/27/2009
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
10/25/2005
E
Ind to Trial
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.5
9.9
10.4
11.0
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.7
12.9
13.0
13.0
13.2
14.7
15.2
15.2
15.7
15.7
15.7
16.4
17.3
17.3
17.5
18.0
18.2
18.7
19.2
19.2
19.4
19.4
19.6
8-27-14

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
A
Gordon, Lorenzo
Hans, Eric Preston
Basham, Branden
Wilson, Ronell
B
3/2/2004
11/16/2005
12/17/2002
6/16/2005
6/23/2008
5/15/2002
11/17/2004
C
9/30/2004
8/1/2006
9/12/2003
12/8/2005
9/23/2008
12/20/2002
8/2/2005
Solomon, Jelani
Corley, Odell
Street, John P.
Irby, James Allen
Fields, Edward
Friend, Valeri
Lecco, George
12/14/2005
11/21/2002
12/10/2003
10/2/2003
9/10/2004
10/8/2003
10/29/2003
8/1/2003
5/4/2005
5/4/2005
12/29/2006
8/14/2003
7/30/2004
10/5/2004
11/16/2005
12/28/2004
8/2/2004
3/15/2004
8/16/2006
8/16/2006
McGriff, Kenneth
Covarrubius, Javier
Ledesma, Jose
Sanchez, Ricardo
Troya, Danny
Salad, Ahmed Muse
Beyle, Abukar Osman
Abrar, Shani Nurani Shiekh
Phillips, Maurice
Perez, Wilfredo
Green, Steven
9/7/2011
11/2/2004
12/11/2001
6/16/2005
6/16/2005
1/9/2007
5/11/2004
11/3/2006
11/3/2006
3/8/2011
3/8/2011
3/8/2011
6/9/2005
9/12/2007
1/10/2002
11/7/2006
4/17/2012
3/22/2006
5/23/2003
6/28/2006
6/28/2006
10/15/2007
10/28/2004
2/20/2008
2/20/2008
4/17/2012
4/17/2012
4/17/2012
5/30/2006
5/4/2009
1/21/2003
7/3/2007
D
10/25/2005
7/16/2007
8/23/2004
2/26/2007
3/12/2010
2/17/2004
9/1/2006; #2
4/17/2013
9/24/2007
9/7/2004
10/3/2005
8/1/2005
7/24/2006
9/6/2005
10/3/2005
7/5/2005
4/16/2007
4/16/2007;
4/5/2010
2/11/2013
11/27/2006
1/12/2004
7/11/2007
7/11/2007
2/19/2009
7/6/2006
1/6/2009
1/6/2009
6/3/2013
6/3/2013
6/3/2013
9/17/2007
1/4/2010
6/1/2004
4/6/2009
E
19.6
19.6
20.1
20.3
20.6
21.1
21.2
21.3
21.5
21.7
21.7
22.2
22.8
23.1
23.1
23.4
23.4
24.3
24.7
24.9
24.9
24.9
25.2
25.8
25.9
25.9
26.8
26.8
26.8
27.0
27.7
28.6
29.1
8-27-14

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
A
McTier, James
Eye, Gary
Sandstrom, Steven
Wilk, Kenneth
Williams, Tyrone
Gonzalez, Fausto
Gilbert, Melvin
Montgomery, Lisa
Roman, Lorenzo Catalan
Gooch, Larry
Dinkins, James
Mikos, Ronald
Torrez, Jorge Avila
Thomas, Keoin
Honken, Dustin
Taylor, Styles
Cannon, Amesheo D.
Clay, Vertis
Bolden, Robert, Sr.
Mills, Barry Byron
Bingham, Tyler Davis
Hyles, Tyrese
Cyrus, Dennis, Jr.
Fort, Emile
Richardson, Brian
Taylor, Rejon
Quinones, Alan
B
5/20/2005
9/29/2005
9/29/2005
8/26/2004
6/12/2003
1/10/2002
8/22/2006
1/12/2005
4/3/2002
4/3/2002
3/12/2004
7/11/2006
9/29/2010
6/6/2002
5/26/2011
7/23/2001
8/30/2001
2/13/2003
12/16/2009
12/13/2000
4/23/2001
12/2/2003
10/18/2001
5/5/2004
11/7/2002
7/9/2001
8/28/2002
8/28/2002
10/18/2001
5/24/2005
3/17/2005
2/8/2006
4/15/2008
10/13/2004
7/20/2000
C
12/7/2006
7/17/2006
7/17/2006
2/19/2005
3/15/2004
1/21/2003
1/25/2008
11/16/2005
7/31/2003
7/31/2003
10/19/2005
1/25/2008
1/26/2012
12/16/2002
2/9/2012
7/25/2003
6/10/2003
12/17/2003
7/8/2012
5/11/2001
7/25/2003
6/16/2006
10/31/2002
10/21/2005
10/7/2003
3/4/2002
6/28/2005
6/28/2005
10/31/2002
11/1/2006
10/3/2006
8/8/2007
12/2/2008
6/1/2006
10/26/2001
D
10/15/2007
4/22/2008
4/22/2008
4/2/2007
2/22/2005
9/7/2004
5/4/2009
10/1/2007
1/24/2005
1/24/2005
1/9/2007
5/4/2009
7/22/2013
4/13/2005
4/1/2014
7/5/2004
8/17/2004
2/15/2006
1/14/2013
2/17/2004
7/5/2004
2/15/2007
2/28/2005
10/1/2007
4/24/2006
1/5/2005
3/14/2006
3/14/2006
5/9/2005
1/12/2009
11/17/2008
10/13/2009
2/27/2012
8/25/2008
6/14/2004
E
29.6
30.7
30.7
31.2
31.6
31.8
32.3
32.6
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
34.1
34.2
35.3
35.5
36.0
36.9
38.1
38.3
38.4
40.4
40.9
41.4
42.1
42.4
42.4
42.8
43.6
43.9
44.1
46.4
46.4
46.8
8-27-14

104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
A
Rodriguez, Diego
Frye, James Ernest
Barnes, Khalid
Hall, Charles Michael
Argueta, Antonio
Griffin, Robert Lee
Chance, David Alan
Moussaoui, Zacarias
Fell, Donald
Lujan, Larry
Williams, Vincent
Williams, Jamain
Cooper, Andre
Aquart, Azibo
Mikhel, Iouri
Kadamovas, Jurijus
Williams, Michael
Williams, Elijah Bobby
Bridgewater, Wayne
Henderson, Darryl
Basciano, Vincent
Johnson, Angela
Smith, Thomas
James, Richard
Mallay, Ronald
Benjamin, Terrance
Aguilar, Martin
OReilly, Timothy
Krylov, Petro
Savage, Kaboni
B
7/20/2000
2/23/2001
2/27/2004
4/7/2010
4/7/2010
8/23/2005
8/28/2002
8/28/2002
8/28/2002
12/11/2001
2/1/2001
4/27/2005
8/28/2001
8/28/2001
8/28/2001
11/8/2006
11/15/2000
3/5/2002
3/5/2002
9/26/2000
9/26/2000
8/28/2002
8/28/2002
2/20/2004
4/16/2002
1/26/2005
7/26/2000
5/2/2002
6/27/2002
6/27/2002
8/19/2003
12/10/2001
1/11/2005
3/5/2002
9/12/2007
C
10/26/2001
1/18/2002
1/19/2006
7/22/2011
7/22/2011
5/8/2007
6/27/2005
5/9/2005
5/9/2005
3/28/2002
1/30/2002
7/12/2007
5/23/2005
5/23/2005
5/23/2005
1/29/2009
12/11/2003
8/3/2004
8/3/2004
2/4/2003
2/4/2003
11/14/2006
11/14/2006
3/3/2005
2/23/2005
4/2/2007
4/25/2002
8/7/2003
8/1/2003
8/1/2003
10/19/2004
5/14/2004
11/1/2006
8/3/2004
3/14/2011
D
6/14/2004
1/24/2005
2/11/2008
4/28/2014
4/28/2014
1/12/2010
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
2/6/2006
5/1/2005
6/20/2011
1/9/2006
1/9/2006
1/9/2006
3/21/2011
4/6/2005
7/11/2006
7/11/2006
3/14/2005
3/14/2005
2/21/2007
2/21/2007
9/15/2008
11/8/2006
2/14/2011
4/13/2005
1/24/2007
3/26/2007
3/26/2007
6/10/2008
10/30/2006
6/7/2010
3/9/2007
11/5/2012
E
46.8
47.2
47.3
48.7
48.7
48.8
49.1
49.2
49.2
49.9
50.8
51.8
52.4
52.4
52.4
52.4
52.7
52.9
52.9
53.6
53.6
53.8
53.8
54.7
55.0
56.1
56.6
56.8
57.1
57.1
58.0
58.7
59.8
60.3
61.9
8-27-14

139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
A
Northington, Steven
Merritt, Robert
Johnson, John
Caraballo, Gilberto
Sablan, William
Young, Donnell
Sablan, Rudy
Casey, Lashaun
Williams, Naeem
Duong, Anh The
Shakir, Jamal
B
9/12/2007
9/12/2007
1/16/2004
12/10/2001
12/12/2000
1/12/2006
12/16/1998
11/20/1998
12/12/2000
8/17/2005
2/15/2006
9/26/2001
11/20/1998
C
3/14/2011
3/14/2011
2/1/2005
5/14/2004
5/1/2001
6/27/2007
5/4/2005
10/29/2002
5/1/2001
7/17/2007
9/8/2006
5/13/2004
10/29/2002
D
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
5/11/2009
1/14/2008
1/22/2007
4/9/2012
10/31/2005
10/15/2005: #2
1/12/2009
3/17/2008
1/22/2013
1/28/2014
2/22/2010
2/20/2007
E
61.9
61.9
62.2
73.2
73.4
75.1
82.7
83.1
87.3
89.4
95.6
96.3
99.3
8-27-14
EXHIBIT D
Chart of Months from Indictment to Trial for Capital Defendants
2004-2014

Indictment to Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A
Def Name
Rivera, Denis
Moonda, Donna
Simmons, Brent
Lawrence, Daryl
Caro, Carlos David
Duncan, Joseph
Snarr, Mark
Henderson, Thomas
Moses, Keon
Runyon, David
Fulks, Chadrick
Jackson, David Lee
Mosher, Ellis
Cheever, Scott
Bourgeois, Alfred
Galan, Thomas A.
Ebron, Joseph
Breeden, Shawn
Hans, Eric Preston
Gordon, Lorenzo
Basham, Branden
Wilson, Ronell
33
34 Solomon, Jelani
Trials - 2004-2014
B
Indictment
6/24/2004
8/16/2006
8/21/2003
11/9/2004
3/3/2004
1/20/2005
1/3/2006
3/23/2012
2/5/2008
7/15/2004
12/5/2006
1/18/2007
1/21/2009
2/9/2006
9/17/2002
2/13/2008
12/17/2002
4/20/2005
7/19/2006
3/9/2005
7/11/2002
7/25/2002
3/2/2006
8/15/2007
2/5/2003
11/16/2005
3/2/2004
12/17/2002
6/16/2005
6/23/2008
5/15/2002
11/17/2004
C
DP notice
10/1/2004
9/6/2006
1/30/2004
2/15/2005
7/28/2004
9/26/2005
1/11/2006
12/7/2012
8/5/2008
2/17/2005
12/29/2006
1/23/2007
2/13/2009
12/8/2006
3/31/2003
7/17/2008
9/12/2003
1/4/2006
12/11/2006
7/8/2005
6/19/2003
7/23/2003
11/14/2006
9/11/2007
7/15/2003
8/1/2006
9/30/2004
9/12/2003
12/8/2005
9/23/2008
12/20/2002
8/2/2005
12/14/2005 12/29/2006
D
Trial Date
3/1/2005
6/4/2007
6/18/2004
9/26/2005
2/7/2005
2/13/2006
1/22/2007
4/15/2013
3/9/2009
8/15/2005
1/15/2008
4/14/2008
5/3/2010
6/5/2007
1/12/2004
6/30/2009
6/1/2004
10/2/2006
1/7/2008
9/13/2006
1/20/2004
2/19/2004
10/9/2007
3/27/2009
9/27/2004
7/16/2007
10/25/2005
8/23/2004
2/26/2007
3/12/2010
2/17/2004
9/1/2006; #2
4/17/2013
9/24/2007
8-27-14
E
Ind to Trial
8.0
9.5
9.9
10.4
11.0
12.0
12.4
12.7
12.9
13.0
13.2
14.7
15.2
15.7
15.7
16.4
17.3
17.3
17.5
18.0
18.2
18.7
19.2
19.2
19.4
19.6
19.6
20.1
20.3
20.6
21.1
21.2
21.3

Indictment to Trial
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
A
Corley, Odell
Street, John P.
Irby, James Allen
Fields, Edward
Friend, Valeri
McGriff, Kenneth
Covarrubius, Javier
Troya, Danny
Salad, Ahmed Muse
Phillips, Maurice
Perez, Wilfredo
Green, Steven
McTier, James
Eye, Gary
Wilk, Kenneth
Williams, Tyrone
Gonzalez, Fausto
Montgomery, Lisa
Gooch, Larry
Dinkins, James
Mikos, Ronald
Torrez, Jorge Avila
Honken, Dustin
Trials - 2004-2014
B
11/21/2002
10/2/2003
12/10/2003
9/10/2004
10/8/2003
10/29/2003
8/1/2003
5/4/2005
9/7/2011
11/2/2004
12/11/2001
6/16/2005
1/9/2007
12/13/2000
5/11/2004
11/3/2006
3/8/2011
6/9/2005
9/12/2007
1/10/2002
11/7/2006
5/20/2005
9/29/2005
8/26/2004
6/12/2003
1/10/2002
1/12/2005
3/12/2004
7/11/2006
9/29/2010
4/3/2002
6/6/2002
5/26/2011
8/30/2001
2/13/2003
C
8/14/2003
10/5/2004
7/30/2004
11/16/2005
12/28/2004
8/2/2004
3/15/2004
8/16/2006
4/17/2012
3/22/2006
5/23/2003
6/28/2006
10/15/2007
5/11/2001
10/28/2004
2/20/2008
4/17/2012
5/30/2006
5/4/2009
1/21/2003
7/3/2007
12/7/2006
7/17/2006
2/19/2005
3/15/2004
1/21/2003
11/16/2005
10/19/2005
1/25/2008
1/26/2012
7/31/2003
12/16/2002
2/9/2012
6/10/2003
12/17/2003
D
9/7/2004
8/1/2005
10/3/2005
7/24/2006
9/6/2005
10/3/2005
7/5/2005
4/16/2007
2/11/2013
11/27/2006
1/12/2004
7/11/2007
2/19/2009
2/17/2004
7/6/2006
1/6/2009
6/3/2013
9/17/2007
1/4/2010
6/1/2004
4/6/2009
10/15/2007
4/22/2008
4/2/2007
2/22/2005
9/7/2004
10/1/2007
1/9/2007
5/4/2009
7/22/2013
1/24/2005
4/13/2005
4/1/2014
8/17/2004
2/15/2006
8-27-14
E
21.5
21.7
21.7
22.2
22.8
23.1
23.1
23.4
24.3
24.7
24.9
24.9
25.2
25.2
25.8
25.9
26.8
27.0
27.7
28.6
29.1
29.6
30.7
31.2
31.6
31.8
32.6
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
34.1
34.2
35.5
36.0

Indictment to Trial
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
A
Taylor, Styles
Cannon, Amesheo D.
Clay, Vertis
Bolden, Robert, Sr.
Mills, Barry Byron
Hyles, Tyrese
Cyrus, Dennis, Jr.
Fort, Emile
Taylor, Rejon
Richardson, Brian
Quinones, Alan
Frye, James Ernest
Barnes, Khalid
Argueta, Antonio
Moussaoui, Zacarias
Fell, Donald
Lujan, Larry
Cooper, Andre
Aquart, Azibo
Mikhel, Iouri
Williams, Michael
Henderson, Darryl
Basciano, Vincent
Johnson, Angela
Smith, Thomas
James, Richard
Trials - 2004-2014
B
12/16/2009
4/23/2001
12/2/2003
10/18/2001
5/5/2004
11/7/2002
7/9/2001
8/28/2002
10/18/2001
5/24/2005
3/17/2005
2/8/2006
10/13/2004
4/15/2008
7/20/2000
2/23/2001
2/27/2004
4/7/2010
8/23/2005
8/28/2002
12/11/2001
2/1/2001
4/27/2005
8/28/2001
11/8/2006
11/15/2000
3/5/2002
9/26/2000
8/28/2002
2/20/2004
4/16/2002
1/26/2005
7/26/2000
5/2/2002
6/27/2002
C
7/8/2012
7/25/2003
6/16/2006
10/31/2002
10/21/2005
10/7/2003
3/4/2002
6/28/2005
10/31/2002
11/1/2006
10/3/2006
8/8/2007
6/1/2006
12/2/2008
10/26/2001
1/18/2002
1/19/2006
7/22/2011
5/8/2007
5/9/2005
3/28/2002
1/30/2002
7/12/2007
5/23/2005
1/29/2009
12/11/2003
8/3/2004
2/4/2003
11/14/2006
3/3/2005
2/23/2005
4/2/2007
4/25/2002
8/7/2003
8/1/2003
D
1/14/2013
7/5/2004
2/15/2007
2/28/2005
10/1/2007
4/24/2006
1/5/2005
3/14/2006
5/9/2005
1/12/2009
11/17/2008
10/13/2009
8/25/2008
2/27/2012
6/14/2004
1/24/2005
2/11/2008
4/28/2014
1/12/2010
10/4/2006
2/6/2006
5/1/2005
6/20/2011
1/9/2006
3/21/2011
4/6/2005
7/11/2006
3/14/2005
2/21/2007
9/15/2008
11/8/2006
2/14/2011
4/13/2005
1/24/2007
3/26/2007
8-27-14
E
36.9
38.3
38.4
40.4
40.9
41.4
42.1
42.4
42.8
43.6
43.9
44.1
46.4
46.4
46.8
47.2
47.3
48.7
48.8
49.1
49.9
50.8
51.8
52.4
52.4
52.7
52.9
53.6
53.8
54.7
55.0
56.1
56.6
56.8
57.1

Indictment to Trial
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Trials - 2004-2014
A
Benjamin, Terrance
Aguilar, Martin
OReilly, Timothy
Krylov, Petro
Merritt, Robert
Johnson, John
Caraballo, Gilberto
Sablan, William
Young, Donnell
B
8/19/2003
12/10/2001
1/11/2005
3/5/2002
9/12/2007
1/16/2004
12/10/2001
12/12/2000
1/12/2006
12/16/1998
11/20/1998
C
10/19/2004
5/14/2004
11/1/2006
8/3/2004
3/14/2011
2/1/2005
5/14/2004
5/1/2001
6/27/2007
5/4/2005
10/29/2002
Sablan, Rudy
Casey, Lashaun
Williams, Naeem
Duong, Anh The
Shakir, Jamal
12/12/2000
8/17/2005
2/15/2006
9/26/2001
11/20/1998
5/1/2001
7/17/2007
9/8/2006
5/13/2004
10/29/2002
D
6/10/2008
10/30/2006
6/7/2010
3/9/2007
11/5/2012
5/11/2009
1/14/2008
1/22/2007
4/9/2012
10/31/2005
10/15/2005: #2
1/12/2009
3/17/2008
1/22/2013
1/28/2014
2/22/2010
2/20/2007
8-27-14
E
58.0
58.7
59.8
60.3
61.9
62.2
73.2
73.4
75.1
82.7
83.1
87.3
89.4
95.6
96.3
99.3
EXHIBIT E
Summary of Dispositions of Federal Death Penalty Cases Since
1988
The Federal Death Penalty

August 28, 2014
Since 1988, the federal government has taken to trial a total of 200 federal death penalty cases involving
293 defendants in 229 trials. These 293 defendants were culled from a larger pool of 493 against whom the
Attorney General had authorized the government to seek the death penalty. Excluding 11 defendants who are
awaiting or currently on trial on capital charges, 231 of the remaining 482 defendants avoided trial by negotiated
plea, when the government dropped its request for the death penalty without a plea agreement, dismissed charges
entirely or the judge barred the death penalty. Fourteen were found not guilty of the capital charge. Two others
were declared innocent by the government. Charges were dismissed against a third when grave questions were
raised about his guilt. There have been three executions. One death row inmate was granted clemency. In cases
where juries actually reached the point of choosing between life and death, they imposed 150 (66%) life sentences
and 79 (34%) death sentences. Of these 78 sentences of death, 3 defendants received a death sentence twice. Three
additional defendants received death verdicts, but new trials were granted and life sentences resulted - one by jury,
another by plea, a third by judge. The dispositions of these cases is summarized below:
Executed
Sentenced to death and now pending on appeal
19
Sentenced to death and now pending on 2255
39
Died Before Execution
Clemency
Awaiting retrial or re-sentencing after reversal
Death sentence vacated and request for the death penalty withdrawn
Life sentences imposed by juries (150) or judges (3)
153
Acquittal
14
Capital charges dismissed before trial on grounds of actual innocence
Dismissal of death penalty by Judge after death notice filed
26
Requests for the death penalty withdrawn by the government before trial 61
Requests for the death penalty withdrawn at trial
12
Capital prosecution discontinued by government due to plea bargain before 114

trial
Capital prosecution discontinued by government due to plea bargain at trial 21
Committed suicide/died
Lesser included conviction
Incompetent after authorization
Awaiting or on trial on capital charges
11
TOTAL
493

Of the total of 493 defendants against whom the Attorney General has authorized the government to request
the death penalty, 129 have been white, or 26%, 92 Hispanic, or 19%, 20 Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander/Native
American, or 4%, 3 Arab, or 1% and 249 African-Americans, or 50%. 364 of the 493, or 74%, of the defendants
approved for a capital prosecution by the Attorney Generals to date are members of minority groups. Thirty-seven
of the fifty-nine defendants now on federal death row under active death sentences, or 63%, are non-white. 33, or
56%, of federal death row were convicted of killing whites.
EXHIBIT F
Declaration of William W. Fick, Esq.
Declaration of William W. Fick, Esq.

I, William W. Fick, state as follows:
1.
I submit this declaration in support of the Defendants Motion for
Continuance. Specifically, I submit this declaration to explain the challenges posed by the
number, nature, and content of the seized electronic devices and storage media produced
by the government in discovery.
2.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, employed as an Assistant Federal Public Defender, and appointed as one

of the counsel of record to represent defendant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
3.
This declaration is based on my own personal knowledge, review of
documents, review of derivative evidence extracted from electronic devices, discussions

with other members of the defense team who are directly involved in the forensic
processing and review of the electronic devices and storage media, as well as discussions
with employees of Federal Defender Organizations who provide consultation nationally
on issues concerning forensic review of electronic evidence.
4.
To date, the government has produced the contents of approximately 30
electronic devices1 seized from locations connected to Mr. Tsarnaev and his brother
Even at this stage of the case I still use the word approximately because of the oftenambiguous and disorganized manner in which some of these materials have been
produced. It is not always obvious, without considerable examination, what (whose)
electronic device is contained in a particular file or set of files. It appears, moreover, that
certain devices have been produced repeatedly in different forms at different times. The
resulting confusion is compounded because, we have seen, a single device sometimes has
turned out to have more than one FBI-assigned evidence identification number and/or
more than one USAO-assigned bates number (or bates range). The total of 30 is the
1
(thought to have been used principally by them), as well as from individuals who are
immediate family members, friends, and associates of Mr. Tsarnaev and his brother.2
The 30 devices include 7 computers, 10 data storage devices (e.g., USB thumb drives
and/or external hard drives), and 13 cellular telephones. Of these devices, two of the
computers (belonging to Matanov and Tazhayakov, each of whom is charged in a
separate related case and whose computers are very likely to contain substantial relevant
evidence) and 5 of the cellular phones were produced in or after June 2014. Further, in
addition to the items already included in the 30-device total, the government on August
15, 2014 produced some number of electronic devices belonging to Mr. Tsarnaevs
sisters and Matanov. The defense has not yet been able to complete initial processing of
these materials; therefore, I cannot now specify how many devices belonging to whom
were in this latest production.
5.
As the Supreme Court recently recognized:
The term cell phone is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices
are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used
as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players,
rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions,
maps, or newspapers.
....
current best estimate, excluding duplicates, of the number of distinct seized devices and
storage media actually produced by the government to date.
2
The defense has reason to believe that the government seized a considerably larger
number of electronic devices in connection with its investigation than it has produced to
the defense so far, including devices seized from important individuals who were close to
one or both of the brothers, e.g., Ibragim Todashev, who was shot and killed by the FBI
during questioning shortly after he purportedly confessed to participating, with Tamerlan
Tsarnaev, in the September 2011 Waltham triple homicide.
2
The storage capacity of cell phones has several interrelated consequences

for privacy. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of
information an address, a note, a prescription, a bank statement, a video
that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second,
a cell phone's capacity allows even just one type of information to convey
far more than previously possible. The sum of an individuals private life
can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeled with dates,
locations, and descriptions; the same cannot be said of a photograph or two
of loved ones tucked into a wallet. Third, the data on a phone can date back
to the purchase of the phone, or even earlier.
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014). In comparison to a cell phone, an
actual computer or data storage device (such as a USB thumb drive or external hard
drive) typically contains even more extensive information that can help to illuminate the
sum of an individuals private life.
6.
The government has alleged in the indictment that certain files found on
seized electronic media demonstrate Mr. Tsarnaevs interest in radical Islamic ideology
and provide the motive for the Boston Marathon bombing and the other crimes that
followed.
7.
In its August 1expert disclosure letter, the government indicated that
forensic computer examiners will testify concerning unspecified data extracted from
various devices, and will further opine about the timing of certain digital activity (e.g.,
file creation and access) as well as inferences about who was using a particular device at
a particular time. If and when the government discloses the actual substance of this
prospective testimony, the defense will need to verify the governments data and the
inferences its witnesses seek to draw from it. As described below, this will be a timeconsuming and painstaking process.
3
8.
Apart from the governments use of evidence derived from seized devices
that it deems to have evidentiary significance, the defense must conduct its own
comprehensive review of the devices in order to place the governments anticipated proof
in context and to ensure that a complete picture is presented to the jury.
9.
Electronic devices used by Mr. Tsarnaev, his brother, and their family,
friends, and associates provide an enormous trove of information that shed light on the
activities, interests, and interactions with others of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar in the years
leading up to the Boston Marathon bombing. In particular, analysis of evidence derived
from the devices will help to illustrate the developing life trajectories, motivations,
external influences, and relative roles of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan over time. Such
evidence will likely play a critical role in the jurys determination not only concerning
guilt but also, in the event of a guilty verdict, appropriate punishment.
10.
Below, I set forth the basic methodology that must be employed to reliably
examine different types of devices, with examples drawn from the evidence in the case to
illustrate the volume of information some of the particular challenges to review. I also
set forth the basic methodology that must be employed to trace the provenance of certain
files that appear to be have been transferred or copied among multiple devices.
Computers
11.
With regard to computers, two primary software tools are commonly used
to perform forensic examinations and to extract relevant evidence: Internet Evidence

Finder (IEF) and Forensic Toolkit (FTK).
12.
Internet Evidence Finder is a software tool that identifies and extracts
artifacts of internet-related activity on a device such as web browsing traces (links,

cookies, referrer links, partial links), email remnants, Skype activity, cell phone backups,
text messages, twitter remnants, Facebook remnants, and internet chat remnants.
13.
Once IEF identifies artifacts, they must be reviewed manually, one-by-one,
for potential relevance. The universe of potentially relevant information is then provided
to other defense team members (e.g., a mitigation specialist and/or attorney) or expert
witnesses for further review and integration into the defense case preparation.
14.
As an example of an IEF search and extraction, the laptop computer
believed to have been used principally by Tamerlan contained 20,214 internet artifacts,
mostly in Russian. These artifacts were reviewed to identify, e.g., those that contained
Islamic-related terms, anything to do with explosives, guns, ammunition, and terms
related to the political situation in the Caucasus region. Investigation of a single artifact
e.g., a link to a website from browsing history could prove quite time consuming.
Each such link would have to be clicked during the review process in order to ascertain
the nature of the content underlying the link. In some cases, if the link was no longer
active (the particular web page had expired or changed), further research on an internet
archive site was necessary. Ultimately, 1,536 artifacts were identified as potentially
relevant, of which 753 were unique.3 Of these unique artifacts, 551 were in Russian, 153
Some of the artifacts were functionally duplicative, for example, multiple visits to the
Kavkaz Center home page (a Russian-language news site concerning the Caucasus).
While the page likely had different content on each visit, the unique content viewed on
each visit cannot now be reconstructed.
5 -
in English, 11 in Uzbek, 5 in Arabic, 2 in a combination of Arabic and English, and the

rest undefined (e.g., images of conflict in the Caucasus or Middle East that did not have
identifiable language content). The process of extracting and reviewing these artifacts
required approximately a month of full-time work.
15.
FTK is a software tool that is used to process all of the files on a computer,
with the capability to bookmark files for further review or to extract selected files.
FTK can be used to view both files existing at the time the computer was forensically
copied and also has the capability to carve some of the files that were previously
deleted or overwritten.4 Once a computer is processed with FTK, individual files of
interest must be identified. While targeted keyword searching of text files is possible,
informed browsing is still necessary because the aim is to develop an overall
understanding of the computers principal user. Moreover, text searches cannot be used to
narrow the field of relevant images and multimedia files.
16.
As an example of an FTK search and extraction, the same laptop computer
associated with Tamerlan, referenced above, contained 608,262 total files (actual and
carved). It contained 31, 337 text files (7,690 carved) of which, ultimately, just 15 were
of some interest and 11 were Islam-related. It also contained 237,076 graphic files
(198,775 carved), including everything from family photographs to religious imagery. It
Conducting further analysis of a carved file can be more time consuming and
challenging because file attributes such as the name, date, and original directory location
of that file on the computer are absent.
also contained 1,185 multimedia files (audio, video, etc.) of which 74 have been
identified as of interest in a review process that is still ongoing.
17.
To date, the defense has accomplished substantial work on three of the
seven computers produced in discovery: laptops believed to have been principally used
by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, respectively, and a desktop computer apparently shared by
multiple Tsarnaev family members at their Cambridge residence. At the same time,
much work still remains to be performed on evidence derived from these computers
before the defense can move on to focus on others, including devices belonging to other
family members and friends of Mr. Tsarnaev.
Data Storage Media
18.
Data storage media such as USB thumb drives and external hard drives are
examined using FTK, which, as with computers, identifies actual currently-existing files
as well as carved files.
19.
As an example, the external hard drive apparently recovered from one of
the Tsarnaevs vehicles at the Watertown shootout scene contained 46,892 files (15,794
carved) of which 51 are compressed file archives, 2,158 (1,668 carved) are text
documents, 21,515 (13, 947 carved) are graphics, and 9,286 are multimedia. Review is
ongoing; 76 files have proven to be of interest thus far.
20.
To date, the defense has accomplished substantial work on 4 of the 10 data
storage devices.
Cellular Phones
21.
The government has produced phones in this case either in raw image form
(a forensic copy, analogous to the manner in which computers were produced) which is
then processed by the defense or in the form of forensic extraction reports containing
data and other materials taken from the phone.5
22.
Types of information typically extracted from a phone include call records;
phone book, notes, voice notes, voicemail, SMS/MMS text messages, emails, images and
multimedia (from internet as well as photos and videos created by the phone itself), web
browsing history, and GPS data. Much of the textual and multimedia information is in
Russian. As with other devices (computers and media storage), all of this material must
be reviewed manually for potential relevance.
23.
As an example, the phone of Mr. Tsarnaevs friend, Dias Kadyrbaev (who
recently pled guilty to federal charges), is illustrative.

24.
Dias phone contained approximately 13, 000 text messages, most of them
in Russian plus a handful using Kazakh phrases. The phone apparently was shared
between Dias and his mother, and further review revealed that only about 3,000 messages
were actually sent to/from Dias during a couple of months that he had the phone in his
possession. After translation, these text messages with accompanying information filled
250 pages of small-print text. These messages provide a unique and valuable glimpse
In several cases the government has produced multiple reports for the same phone,
made at different times with different software tools. These reports vary in their contents
and completeness such that, as a first step, the defense must create a combined hybrid
collection of material incorporating elements of each report.
8
into the life of our client and his peers at UMass Dartmouth, into the family life of Mr.
Tsarnaev during times when Dias stayed at the Tsarnaev family home in Cambridge and
exchanged texts with his mother about his experiences.
25.
Dias phone also contained approximately 30,000 images. After review, we
managed to distill it to 350 images of interest. As with text messages, these depict the
interests of Mr. Tsarnaev and his friends over time, their whereabouts, and their
associations with others.
26.
To date, the defense has accomplished substantial work on 6 of the 13
phones produced.
File Origin and Transfer History
27.
In addition to extracting derivative evidence from electronic devices and
reviewing that evidence for relevance, additional forensic examination is necessary to

conduct on certain files of particular interest in order to try, with available information, to
determine the device on which the file originated, the history of file transfer among
various seized devices, and the individuals using the relevant devices at the time of
creation or transfer. Multiple tools and sources of information must be employed to
perform this task; the analysis of a single file in this manner can require one or more full
days of work.
Conclusion
28.
While the defense has made substantial progress processing and reviewing
seized electronic devices, the volume of material is daunting. As noted, several
additional device copies were produced in mid-August 2014 and still more can be
expected.
29.
Thorough review of all of these devices would easily require as much as an
additional year of work. Hiring additional computer forensic examiners would be

unlikely to accelerate the process meaningfully because the primary bottleneck is not the
raw processing and extraction of data but rather the review of data, much of it in Russian,
by members of the defense team with sufficient background knowledge to make reasoned
judgments concerning relevance.
Sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury this 29th Day of August, 2014.
/s/ William W. Fick
10
EXHIBIT G
Declaration of Frederic Whitehurst

(Doc 518) 8-29-2014 D Motion To Continue

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Doc 518) 8-29-2014 D Motion To Continue

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 6 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 7 of 16

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 8 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 9 of 16

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 10 of 16

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 11 of 16

A description of some of the challengesand time requirementsinvolved in

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 12 of 16

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

Rather, we list these subsequent cases and law enforcement

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518 Filed 08/29/14 Page 15 of 16

Judy Clarke, Esq. (CA Bar # 76071)

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

David I. Bruck, Esq.

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 6

DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 6

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 6

pretrial milestones and trial and mitigation submission.

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 6

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

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

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

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-2 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 26

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-2 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 26

D. MD No. 8:05 CR Life sentence from jury

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-2 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 26

E.D. AR No. 4:06 CR Guilty plea at trial

S.D. NY No. 7:04-CR Life sentence from jury

E.D. OK CR No. 04-100- Death row - 2255

E.D. NY No. 05-CR-0060 Life sentence from jury

D. NJ CR No. 03-836 Life sentence from jury

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Notice of Intent Trial Date

Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 518-2 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 26

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

E.D. VA No. 2:11CR34

Guilty plea at trial

Life sentence from jury

02 Life sentence from jury