Ask Federal penalty of death against the bomber accused Boston Tsarnaev

FBI via Reuters

Suspect in bombing of Marathon Boston Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is pictured in a photo without date of alms from the FBI.

By Pete Williams, NBC News correspondent justice

The Justice Department has notified a federal judge he intends to seek the death penalty if a jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of bombings last April at the Boston Marathon.

Tsarnaev is awaiting trial on charges that he and his brother built and put two pumps of pot to pressure that killed three people and injured at least 260 people. He is also accused of killing a police officer in the MIT campus.

Liz Norden, the mother of Boston bombing victims, responding to the news that the Justice Department will seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev if they condemn it.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement: "after consideration of the relevant facts, applicable standards and the proposals made by the counsel for the accused, have determined that United States will seek the death penalty in this case. The nature of the conduct in question and the damage forcing this decision."

Among the factors listed by the Government were that the murders were intentional, as a result of acts calculated to cause severe risks to public safety and were committed in a cruel manner. And prosecutors said that the defendant has not demonstrated any remorse.

"One way or another, based on the evidence, Tsarnaev to die in jail," Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said in a statement. "At every milestone of this case - the announcement of today, judgment, and every other important step in the process of Justice - people hurt by the bombing of Marathon and the rest of us as surprised by what will relive this tragedy." The best thing we can do is to remind one that we are a community that is stronger than ever, and that nothing can break that spirit."

Liz Norden, the mother of two men who lost her legs in the attack, praised the decision.

"You know, it makes me feel relieved that the Attorney general believes that it was a terrorist attack or the death penalty, and we support the decision," said Norden Craig Melvin of MSNBC.

He said officials of the Department of Justice spoke with relatives of the victims before making the decision.

While most legal experts predicted that the Justice Department would seek the death penalty, the decision will be somewhat controversial.

A survey conducted in September by the Boston Globe found that 57 percent of respondents favored a sentence of life without parole if Tsarnaev should be condemned, while 33 percent believed that death would be appropriate for the Government to seek punishment.

Dan Lampariello / Reuters

Explosion in the Boston Marathon, on April 15, 2013.

The executions in the federal system are rare.  In the modern era of the death penalty, since the United States Supreme Court forced a change in sentencing laws in the mid-1970s, the federal Government has carried out three executions.

Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death in 2001 for his role in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The most recent federal execution was more than one decade ago.

The federal system has placed on hold by a battle in court the combination of drugs used to administer a lethal injection. One of the drugs is no longer available, forcing the Bureau of prisons to consider alternatives.

In the event of a conviction and a recommendation of a death sentence, the execution by lethal injection would be held in a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana

A trial date has not been established for Tsarnaev. His next hearing is on February 12.

Legal experts have said seeking the death penalty against Tsarnaev could give an incentive to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.

This story was originally posted on Thu January 30, 2014 3:21 PM EST

Federal judge allows same-sex marriage in Utah to continue

 NBC News' Pete Williams reports on the breaking news that a federal judge has refused, for the third time, to halt same-sex marriages in Utah.By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC NewsSame-sex marriages in Utah can continue after a federal judge denied the state’s request Monday to put a temporary hold on the unions.State attorneys argued the stay is necessary while they appeal U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling Friday that allows gays and lesbians to marry.Shelby, unsurprisingly, decided not to halt his own decision. His earlier ruling had struck down a 2004 state law denying same-sex couples the right to wed, saying the ban is unconstitutional. Jim Urquhart / ReutersNatalie Dicou (left) and her partner Nicole Christensen wait for a marriage license at the Salt Lake County Clerks office in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Friday. A federal judge struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.It’s the latest blow in the battle over gay marriage for Utah’s attorney general. A federal appeals court in Denver on Sunday rejected the state’s initial request for a stay, essentially saying Shelby must rule on the motion first.Now that he has, the state has gone back to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to file for another emergency stay request.Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for Marriage Equality USA, said Shelby upholding gay marriage in Utah is “one of the greatest gifts of all” for supporters.“It’s real impossible to argue that marriage equality hurts anybody. It’s now the law in 18 states plus the District of Columbia,” Gaffney told NBC News.When news first broke Friday of Shelby’s ruling, an estimated 100 same-sex couples rushed to file for marriage licenses — a surge of activity that stunned both sides of the debate in a widely conservative state.“It’s like Black Friday for gay people," MickieVee Cochrane, in line Friday at the Salt Lake County Clerk’s office, told the Salt Lake Tribune.Eager couples continued to line up at county clerk’s offices before Monday’s hearing, although there were reports that at least a half-dozen counties were turning away people until the stay was resolved.“It’s almost like they’re teasing us with it. I just don’t think it’s right,” Tabitha Tuck, 31 told The Herald Journal as she unsuccessfully sought a license with her partner at the Box Elder County Clerk’s Office.“It’s not just about marrying a woman and a woman or a man and a man — it’s about being with who you fall in love with,” Tuck added.State attorneys said putting a temporary hold on same-sex marriages would at least avoid potential “irreparable harm” if, ultimately, the marriages are ruled invalid.“The only potential harm plaintiffs may suffer if a stay is granted is, at most, a delay in their ability to marry in Utah or, in the case of an out-of-state marriage, recognition of that marriage,” the state’s motion said. “Granting the stay simply preserves the status quo.”But during Monday’s court hearing, Shelby shot back at the state, asking if it was “irreparable harm” to deprive Utahns of a constitutional right, The Tribune reported.Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words “chaotic situation” to describe what has been happening in Utah since clerks started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to “take a more orderly approach than the current frenzy.”“Utah should be allowed to follow its Democratically chosen definition of marriage,” he said of the 2004 gay marriage ban.Lott said the state was disappointed with Shelby’s latest ruling and will continue its legal battle.Peggy Tomsic, the lawyer for the same-sex couples who brought the case, called gay marriage the civil rights movement of this generation and said it was the new law of the land in Utah.“The cloud of confusion that the state talks about is only their minds,” she said.Tomsic said she was relieved that Shelby stuck to his ruling and avoided being pressured by a moral or political majority in the state.“It’s awfully easy to get caught up in the emotion and do a kneejerk reaction,” Tomsic said outside the courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City. “Fortunately, we have a judge who takes his oath of office seriously.”Utah Gov. Gary Herbert advised county clerks to check with their attorneys if they were unsure how to proceed during the state’s appeal.Herbert, a Republican, has vowed to protect “traditional marriage.” He called Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, an “activist federal judge attempting to override the will of the people of Utah.”For now, a state considered as one of the most conservative in the nation has joined the likes of California and New York to become the 18th state where same-sex couples can legally wed.Utah is home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was one of the leading forces behind California’s short-lived ban on same-sex marriage.“We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court,” the church said in a statement.NBC News' Pete Williams and The Associated Press contributed to this report.Related:Gay marriage catches conservative Utah off guardJudge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage banThis story was originally published on Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:33 AM EST

Federal court refuses to halt same-sex marriage in Utah

 NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Sunday declined to stop officials in Utah from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples following a judge's ruling last week that overturned the state's ban on gay marriage.Utah Governor Gary Herbert asked for an emergency stay to prevent marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples after U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby on Friday ruled the ban unconstitutional. The parties are due back before Shelby on Monday, as the state begins to appeal his ruling.The ruling, which made Utah the 18th state to allow same-sex nuptials, marked a major victory for gay rights activists in a conservative state where the Mormon Church wields considerable influence.It also touched off a rush to the altar by gay couples, especially in Salt Lake City, where a festive atmosphere broke out in the county government building that played host to a string of impromptu weddings - including that of a state senator to his longtime partner.Shelby found in the case brought by three gay couples that Utah's state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the rights of gay couples to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution."I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said in a statement after the ruling.Advocates of gay marriage have won repeated victories in recent years as a growing portion of the American electorate has taken a more favorable view of same-sex relationships. A year and a half ago, just six states and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage.In June, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for gay rights by forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and paving the way for gay marriage in California.On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled to allow same-sex marriage across the state. In November, Hawaii and Illinois governors signed bills to legalize same-sex weddings.Related:Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Federal judge strikes down key parts of Utah's polygamy law in 'Sister Wives' ruling

   Kyle Christy / TLCKody Brown (Center) with sister wives (L to R) Christine, Meri, Janelle and Robyn.A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show.While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person “purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.”But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the “cohabitation” provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.The decision follows years of litigation in a case brought forth by Kody Brown, a star of the TLC reality television show “The Sister Wives,” which chronicles the lives of Brown, his four wives and their 17 children. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist church that shares historical roots with Mormonism and believes that polygamy is a core religious practice.The Brown family does not have multiple marriage licenses, with only one recorded marriage license between Kody Brown and his wife, Meri.“With this decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah,” their lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said in a post on his website.Turley said the Browns drew attention of Utah authorities because of their television series. The Brown’s filed suit in July 2011, and fled Utah for Nevada under threat of prosecution. Bigamy is punishable by up to five years in prison in Utah.Kody Brown issued a statement through Turley thanking the court for the “historical ruling.“While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs,” he said in the statement. “Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”Judge Waddoups acknowledged in his decision that the ruling was not easy.“The proper outcome of this issue has weighed heavily on the court for many months as it has examined, analyzed, and re-analyzed the numerous legal, practical, moral and ethical considerations and implications of today’s ruling,” he wrote.  Ultimately he ruled that the language of the law was unconstitutional because of its vagueness and “its targeted effect on specifically religious cohabitation,” therefore violating the First Amendment right to free expression of religion.Waddoups said that while “polygamy” was not a fundamental right, the issue in the case of the Brown’s was “religious cohabitation” or “a personal relationship that resembles a marriage in its intimacy but claims no legal sanction” between consenting adults. As such, the language of the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment designed to ensure liberty. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, fled to the Utah area in the 1800s following religious persecution. While the mainstream church abandoned polygamy in 1890 as Utah sought statehood, certain sects have broken off and continue to espouse plural marriage as a tenet of their religion.  The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.