Read him his goddamn Miranda rights.

[Yo_Mama]

103. Your points don't make sense

First, the Miranda rule still applies for evidence they want to get from him to admit on trial, and the public safety exception is completely and very abnormally evident in this case.

Second, they don't need any of his evidence to convict. If the guy never says a word, they've got a spectacularly tight case already.

But they do have a problem with potential other munitions and other components somewhere. So what he says about that won't be directly admissible, but they don't care. They don't want unexploded bombs sitting around somewhere, or kids wandering into a cache of gunpowder somewhere. No judge anywhere is going to find it unreasonable if they ask him if there were other bombs, if he had confederates, and if there are bomb components sitting around somewhere in a residential neighborhood.

As for the evidence:
They have video of him at the bomb site. They have ID from the guy who saw one of the guys put down the bomb, and is missing lower extremities. A jury will find that evidence very convincing.

They have apparently surveillance video of the hit on the MIT cop. They have the statement and ID from the carjacked guy, to whom they said that they were the bombers.

You have the shoot out and the use of a similar bomb as those used in the Marathon explosions, just to tie it up even tighter. Then you have capture on locus with wounds to prove again that he was in the car, and since they found bloodstains in the car that can be DNA matched (which was how they knew he was wounded), you have a hard and fast tie to the car and those attacks on the cops.

How could the case be more substantiated? It's already carved in stone. You have confession to the carjacking victim, for heaven's sake!

Is there any jury anywhere that wouldn't convict?