Rakesh Mendez, the lawyer for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, told Business Insider over the phone on Thursday that they will not contest the prosecution’s claim.

“It is not their intention to challenge any part of the complaint. We don’t think that is their intention,” he said.

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, right, listens to U.S. District Court Judge Marianne Bowler during his preliminary hearing in Boston on Monday. Courtesy of Marianne Bowler

Mendez indicated that they are waiting on further instruction from CSL, which is a private defense firm that has expertise in criminal defense. It is not uncommon for private firms to take up to a year and a half to prepare charges filed in federal courts.

But Mendez said they are also aware that there will be other proceedings involving potential violations of a federal law known as section 2402, such as civil fines or restitution. “They’re not aware of those in the future. They have the option to challenge this in court,” he said.

“We can’t comment until we get the information from the [CSL],” Mendez added.

But the lawyer said that after his client’s trial, CSL expects the case will be “faster, more efficient and on target” than the other trials of Tsarnaev.

The lawyer said that the government’s “excessive and punitive” demand for documents may lead the defense attorney to be “foolish in their pursuit of the information.”

“I think you should be a pretty smart lawyer who gets to see what’s going on,” Mendez added, noting that they also expect some type of plea agreement in the case.

He did not comment on whether the defense intends to argue the charges against Tsarnaev when Dzhokhar faces trial. “I have no comment on that at this time…I think it will become clear through the proceedings and through the discovery process, but I would caution people who think they know how this will proceed” if they plan to do so, he said.

The Boston Marathon bombings

When Dzhokhar was charged following his arrest in April of 2013, CSL noted that the government is charging him under a federal law known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Although this federal offense is very old, it was adopted in 1980 and criminal law scholars have argued for decades that this statute is one of