I think it’s important that all U.S. citizens are afforded their constitutional rights, even when they are accused of committing a mass casualty attack. And it’s important that people understand what their rights are. But let’s not get overwrought about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s alleged mistreatment. If it’s true that he repeatedly asked for a lawyer and was ignored, then he can use that in his defense at trial. Anything he said prior to getting his Miranda rights read to him wasn’t going to be admissible anyway.

This man has supposedly confessed to setting off a bomb that along with the bomb set by his brother killed three people and injured 264 more. He was shot in the throat and barely able to speak at all, using pen and paper instead. Despite reassuring comments by public officials, it was not possible to know whether there was an ongoing threat to public safety, and that is precisely what the questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was intended to determine.

While it is highly unusual to deny or delay a suspect’s request for counsel, it is also highly unusual to question a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights. The reason is the same in both cases. It is rarely the case that the police want to purposively ruin the evidence for trial.

The bigger sin, in my opinion, was to broadcast this man’s inadmissible confession to the world, and therefore to the jury pool. They could have reassured the public without being needlessly prejudicial.

I’m not sure this will go to trial. It’s quite possible that a guilty plea can be obtained in exchange for dropping the death penalty. If it does go to trial, the initial denial of counsel and pre-Miranda questioning won’t have much impact at all, and will mainly benefit the defendant. The challenge will be to find a jury that hasn’t already heard the defendant’s confession.