Tamar Birckhead was very critical on Twitter of this idea that Tsarnaev was showing lack of remorse because he was not showing any emotions.  And, I totally agree with her.  It was a self-protecting behavior.  

This jury was weird.  The forewoman smiled when prosecutors aggressively tried to decimate defense witnesses.  She acted all along that the defense version of events was poppycock.  It's almost like the government chose this jury - not the defense.  One juror supposedly cried at the end - a man.  But why no mercy?  I'm wondering if the forewoman was dominant in the jury room.  She was definitely part of the prosecution's team.

I don't know what would have mattered.  The government was determined to get a death sentence to show "we are not intimidated," as Carmen Ortiz explained it.  

I can't imagine how Judy Clarke must feel.  I think Miriam Conrad was in shock.  The two men - Watkins and Fick, appeared grim.  

It's like the fix was in.  That's how it seems.  And, this president is making me sick more and more all the time.  I will NOT support Hillary if she supports the death penalty.  That's it.  I'm done with choosing the lesser of two bad candidates.  

In order to return a verdict of death on any count, the jury must first find for that count that Tsarnaev was over 18 at the time the act was committed, and that Government proved at least one gateway factor and one statutory aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are also six non-statutory aggravating factors, but the jury can't consider them unless it has already found the government proved one gateway factor and one statutory aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the gateway factors are not part of the weighing process -- they are just a threshold the government must meet for the jury to even consider a death sentence.

I did find some of the jury's reasoning, as recorded on the verdict form, baffling. Only three out of 12 jurors agreed with the defense team's contention that Tsarnaev would not have committed any of his crimes if not for the influence of his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. That's nuts. Tamerlan was clearly in the driver's seat, in my view. Without Tamerlan, I think Dzhokhar is three bong hits deep and playing Xbox this afternoon. Likewise, only five jurors agreed that Tamerlan had become radicalized first and then encouraged his younger brother. Again, I'm not sure what trial the rest were watching--to me, the evidence was clear that, however radical Dzhokhar eventually became, Tamerlan was the one who arrived there first.

And more should have been made of the FBI's failure to detect Tamerlan's increasing radicalism.  It was a monumental failure!  Why not put the government on trial for that?  Add to that suspicion of the lack of police follow-up to the Waltham murders and the fact that they never questioned Tam about them.  What if the defense had established that Jahar had very good reason to be afraid of his brother?

Now, the fact that the defense admitted guilt will damage Jahar's chances on appeal.  It's possible he could get a new sentencing trial but, unless I'm mistaken, the admittance of guilt pretty much precludes him being able to start over.

I also think Judge O'Toole was permitted to turn his courtroom into a forum for the victims and the community to achieve a catharsis.  Maybe the ritual of the trial is part of its purpose, but the level of blood and gore the prosecution was allowed to present because of modern advances in technology and surveillance made it seem the jurors were transported to the bomb site and experienced it themselves.  It was extremely prejudicial.

Eric M. Freedman, a death penalty specialist at Hofstra University Law School, said that the relative speed of the verdict could provide the defense with two possible grounds for appeal: "the failure to grant a change of venue, despite the overwhelming evidence the defense presented about community attitudes in Boston," he said, and "the failure to instruct the jury that if a single juror refused to vote for death, the result would be a life sentence."

Boston in shock over Tsarnaev death penalty

Daniel Medwed, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, says the jurors made a calculus: "At the end of the day they probably just conducted a balance - that the horror of the crime outweighed any argument that he should be spared."

After the sentencing was delivered, the jurors left the room in single file. A moment later, guards led Tsarnaev through a side doorway.

He walked out of the room in the same way he had done before - with a slight swagger and in high spirits, as if he were going to a place that is fun and exciting and full of marvel.