Analysis of the Investigation and Indictment of Tamerlan Tsarnaev

The evidence supports charging Tamerlan Tsarnaev under the material-support statute for domestic offenses rather than the foreign-terrorist-organization statute — because he never conspired with a designated group, and federal law defines domestic terrorism without outlawing it by name.

The paper works the Boston Marathon bombing as a charging problem rather than a narrative. It argues that mens rea and actus reus are both plainly satisfied — the conduct was purposeful and affirmative — but that the statute prosecutors would reach for first does not fit: 18 U.S.C. § 2339B requires material support to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, and on the available evidence Tsarnaev conspired with his brother, not with a designated group.