BOSTON (AP) — A juror in the trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev says he probably would not have voted for the death penalty had he known that the families of some victims preferred a life sentence.
Kevin Fagan spoke to WBUR-FM on Monday, the same day a federal judge rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of all jurors. Fagan is believed to be the first juror to speak publicly using his name.
He did not discuss deliberations but said he likely would have changed his vote in the penalty phase had he been aware of the opposition to the death penalty by the parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, who was killed by one of two bombs detonated by Tsarnaev and his brother. The bombs killed three people and injured more than 260.
“If I had known that, I probably — I probably would change my vote. But then again, if I knew that, I wouldn’t be on the jury either,” he said. The jurors were ordered by the judge to avoid media coverage of the trial.
Fagan said he believed the defense claim that Tsarnaev was influenced by his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed several days after the bombings. But he came to the decision that Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty.
- Posted August 26, 2015
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Boston Marathon juror speaks of death penalty
headlines Macomb
- Election overview
- DEA Hosts the 30th National Prescription Drug Take Back Day
- Cooley Law School Innocence Project secures release of man after serving 17 years in prison
- Nessel reminds residents of potential punishments for swatting
- Ex-Michigan coach gets probation for misdemeanors that followed his firing
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




