This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "United States v. Tsarnaev" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "United States v. Tsarnaev" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

United States v. Tsarnaev
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 2021 Decided March 4, 2022
Full case name	United States v. Tsarnaev
Docket no.	20-443
Citations	595 U.S. ___ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
A defendant is entitled to an impartial panel of jurors, not necessarily a panel of jurors who know nothing about the case. Death sentence reinstated.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Concurrence	Barrett, joined by Gorsuch
Dissent	Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan (except part II-C)

United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a defendant is entitled to an impartial panel of jurors, not necessarily a panel of jurors who know nothing about the case. The decision reinstated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing.^[1][2]

Principally, the majority opinion written by Justice Thomas emphasized that the abuse of discretion standard only allows reviewing courts to reverse decisions that are "manifestly unreasonable." He disposed of most arguments by saying the trial court was not so "manifestly unreasonable."^[1]

In dissent, Justice Breyer asserted that the trial court did not meet the abuse of discretion standard. In one part, Breyer alluded to his general opposition to the death penalty; Justices Kagan and Sotomayor declined to join that part of the dissent.^[1]

• Text of United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 20-443, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Justia

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e