The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Transcripts
Terry Nichols
Monday, October 27, 1997 (afternoon)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
Defendant.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury: Volume 48)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 1:30 p.m., on the 27th day of October,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.
Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
APPEARANCES
PATRICK RYAN, United States Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
LARRY MACKEY, BETH WILKINSON, GEOFFREY MEARNS, and
JAMIE ORENSTEIN, Special Attorneys to the U.S. Attorney
General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado,
80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
MICHAEL TIGAR and RONALD WOODS, Attorneys at Law, 1120
Lincoln Street, Suite 1308, Denver, Colorado, 80203, appearing
for Defendant Nichols.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(Reconvened at 1:30 p.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
862.
Good afternoon. Will you please raise your right hand
and take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 862 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated there in the chair by the
microphone.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you understand that as you were told in a summons for
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
jury service that you got back in July that you've been
summoned as a possible juror for the trial of the United States
against Terry Lynn Nichols.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you got that summons, you responded to it as we
asked you to and with a short-form questionnaire, and you told
us in that questionnaire some problems that you had in serving;
but in spite of that, you got a notice to come out to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds on September the 17th, and you did
that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there, you answered a long questionnaire for us, and we
appreciate that.
And at that time -- that is, in Jefferson County -- I
also -- I was there and talked to you and the other members of
the jury panel and introduced some people who were there with
me. They are here again this afternoon, so I want to introduce
them again so you know who's here.
Here at this first table are lawyers for the
Government. You met Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth
Wilkinson. And you did not meet, because he wasn't there,
Mr. Patrick Ryan and Mr. James Orenstein. These are additional
lawyers for the Government.
You did meet Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols was present.
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
And then I talked to you about -- and the others about
the background of the case, explaining that this case arises as
a result of an explosion in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April
the 19th of 1995, when a federal office building there was
destroyed by an explosion and people in it were killed and
injured. Thereafter, charges were filed in Oklahoma City in
the Federal Court there by way of an indictment that accused
Terry Lynn Nichols, together with a man named Timothy James
McVeigh -- and the indictment says "and other persons not
named" -- with a conspiracy -- entering into a conspiracy or a
criminal agreement to bomb that building and to kill and injure
the people in it.
And then the indictment goes on to allege or accuse
the defendants of going ahead and doing what they planned to
do. And included among the 11 charges of the indictment are
eight charges or counts of first-degree murder of eight law
enforcement agents who were in the building, agents of
different federal law enforcement agencies; and to these
charges, the defendants entered their pleas of not guilty,
thereby creating the issues for trial.
And then the case was moved from Oklahoma City where
the indictment was filed here to Colorado for trial because of
a concern about asking people in Oklahoma to sit on the jury.
And after the case came here to Colorado for trial, I separated
the defendants for trial, holding that there should be separate
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
trials to avoid confusion about the evidence and to give each
of the defendants a fair trial with a different jury for each.
And after that, we did go forward with the trial of
the evidence as it related to Mr. McVeigh. The jury was
selected. The jury heard the evidence at that trial and
returned a guilty verdict. Then that jury had to hear more.
There was a second stage or phase trial on the question of
punishment. And after hearing more information relating to
that question concerning Mr. McVeigh, the jury returned a
verdict of -- recommended death sentence. Understand these
points?
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. You have to answer out loud --
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. -- so your answer can be recorded. I mean, I can see you
nod your head, but the court reporter has to put something
down.
Now you're here to answer some questions in addition
to all those that you've already answered and in some respects
to explain or -- or go into some of these points a little more.
But I want to start right off with the thing that you
said in your initial questionnaire. You've got the long-form
questionnaire with you, the one you filled out at the
courthouse, but I don't think you got the first one. And in
the first one, we asked whether you had any special problems,
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
and you told us that -- two problems. One is your back.
A. Yes. I can't sit for eight hours straight. I have to get
up and walk around.
Q. Yeah. Well, you don't have to sit for eight hours
straight.
A. Well, even at an hour, I'm -- my back is hurting like right
now. My back is on fire so bad right now, it hurts real bad
just from waiting in the room in there.
Q. Did you get up and walk around?
A. Yeah. I got up and walked around, but I can only walk so
far.
Q. How do you do your job?
A. I stand on my feet all day. See, I have a problem with
sitting down. But if I'm moving and exercising, moving my
back, it's okay. But if I stay in one position for a long
period of time, it starts hurting and burning. I get like --
feels like somebody's taking a torch to my back.
Q. What's the matter with your back?
A. I have two steel rods and four pins in my back from a
forklift accident, when I got hit in the back by a forklift in
'93.
Q. '93?
A. Yes.
Q. You had surgery and they put in the pins?
A. Yes. I was two years out of work.
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
Q. And the rods?
A. Now I'm just coming back from it, and the doctor says it
will take up to four years for my back to totally heal because
of all the muscles that they have cut in the back.
Q. Yeah. So even when you're just sitting at home in an easy
chair, you have this problem?
A. Yeah. I've got a thousand dollar recliner, and I can't
even sit in it for more than 30 minutes at a time.
Q. And what -- you're doing brick laying?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there, you stand up all day?
A. I stand up all day. Move around, walk all day, causing the
exercise of my back.
Q. Sure.
A. I had to go out and buy a $1,500 mattress just so I could
sleep at night.
Q. Yeah. Well, there's nothing like, you know, the -- the
discomfort of a back to --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- affect you all over.
A. You got that right.
Q. Hard to think about anything but how it hurts. Well, you
know, it isn't because we didn't believe you when you told --
when you told us that you had a bad back.
A. I understand.
Juror No. 862 - Voir Dire
Q. But people don't -- ordinarily don't know just exactly how
it is --
A. I brought a doctor's paper if you'd like to see it.
Q. No. I -- you know, I'm --
A. It explains it.
Q. I'm not judging you.
THE COURT: I wonder if either counsel have any
questions.
MR. MACKEY: We have none, your Honor.
MR. TIGAR: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: We're going to agree to excuse this man?
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
JUROR: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: So you're going to be excused. And like I
say, don't think that we made you come all the way in here just
because we thought you were kidding us about your back.
JUROR: I brought the paper just in case anybody
needed to -- I need a paper to go back to work now.
THE COURT: Thanks for coming in.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: You're now excused with our appreciation.
And please -- it would be best if you didn't talk about this
case with others until there's a jury selected and trial is
underway.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
JUROR: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: You're excused.
We'll go to 531.
Would you please raise your right hand and take the
oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 531 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated there by the microphone.
You don't have to worry about leaning into the microphone or
anything. It'll pick you up. And the only reason for the
microphone is to help us hear you better. All right?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you, of course, know that you've been called in here,
summoned for jury service in connection with the trial of the
United States against Terry Lynn Nichols, that case. You got a
summons about that last July. And you answered that with a
short questionnaire and told us some concerns you had about
serving on the jury, but you then got a notice to go out to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds' auditorium on the 17th of
September and you did that. And you answered a much longer
questionnaire, all of which we appreciate. And now we're
asking you to come in to court, if you believe it, to answer
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
some more questions. So bear with us yet a while if you will.
And before I proceed any further, I would like to
introduce the people who are here with us this afternoon. You
met most of them before when we were at the fairgrounds'
building because I introduced them then along with myself.
Please see here Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth
Wilkinson, at this first table. They are lawyers for the
Government. They are joined now by Mr. Patrick Ryan and
Mr. James Orenstein, who are additional lawyers for the
Government.
You were previously introduced to Mr. Michael Tigar
and Mr. Ronald Woods, attorneys for Terry Nichols; and
Mr. Nichols, of course, was also with us then.
And we -- I gave you some explanation about the
background of the case and what is involved in the trial, you
will recall.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to do that again, not because I think you've
forgotten it already, but, you know, we need to sort of set a
background for this process and make sure that you do
understand fully the background of this matter and what's
involved in the process in which we're engaged in the selection
of the jury for the trial.
And the case arises out of an event in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, on April the 19th of 1995. On that day, there was an
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
explosion at a federal office building, resulting in the
destruction of that building and in deaths and injuries of
persons who occupied it; that after that, there were charges
filed in an indictment in Oklahoma City in the Federal Court
there in which lawyers for the Government accused Mr. Nichols,
together with a man named Timothy James McVeigh -- and the
indictment also refers to and such -- "and other persons not
named" -- with engaging in a conspiracy or forming a conspiracy
or a plan to bomb that building and to kill and injure people
in it.
There are some 11 charges in the indictment. It
includes not only the planning of such a crime, but also
carrying it out and causing the bombing -- excuse me -- to
happen. And among the charges in the indictment are eight
counts of first-degree murder, premeditated murder of eight law
enforcement agents of different agencies of the national
government who died in the explosion.
To these charges, the defendants entered their not
guilty pleas. That created the issues for trial. Then the
case was moved from Oklahoma City here to Denver for trial
because of a concern of the difficulty in asking people in
Oklahoma City and in Oklahoma, where the explosion was, to sit
on a jury and to hear the evidence in the case. So the case
came to Denver, and then I entered orders that there be
separate trials for Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols because of
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
possible confusion and unfairness to both of the defendants if
they were to go before the same jury.
And so we did -- after this separation order that said
each -- each defendant, there should be a separate trial of the
evidence as it relates to him, there was a trial with respect
to the charges and -- as to Mr. McVeigh and a jury selected in
this same manner that we are proceeding here, heard that
evidence and returned a verdict of guilty on the counts
charging Mr. McVeigh. And then the jury was required to go
forward with a sentencing hearing, a second trial. As a result
of that, the jury then came back with a recommendation of a
death sentence for Mr. McVeigh.
Now, you remember these points having been covered,
and you probably knew all that without my telling you about it
anyway. Right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then I did emphasize, though, that as we proceed with
the selection of the jury for the trial of the evidence
relating to Mr. Nichols, it must be understood that whatever
those people may have heard, read, or seen concerning the
McVeigh trial cannot be considered now. And certainly, the
outcomes, the jury's decisions with respect to the case against
Mr. McVeigh, can in no way be considered now with respect to
Mr. Nichols. To do otherwise would violate the whole reason
for the separate trial order. Understand?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then, I went forward with some explanation about just
what is involved with a jury trial, just what is the function
of a jury in the criminal justice system. And I did so because
most of the people have not had any jury service in a criminal
case. And that's true with you; right?
A. Yes, it is true.
Q. And so I -- I just want to spend a few minutes then on the
basics of criminal trial. And these are basics because these
are the things that are required by the Constitution of the
United States. I mean, it's that fundamental that it's in our
constitution; and of course, included in that is that any
person charged with a crime in the United States in any court
in the United States, no matter what the crime charged is or
who the person is, is presumed to be innocent of the charge.
And that presumption of innocence carries throughout the trial
and entitles that person to a not guilty verdict, an acquittal
unless every person serving on the jury considering now only
the evidence that's submitted at trial in that case and
following the instructions about the law given by the court
determines that the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. So it's all part of the same thing, the presumption of
innocence and the necessity to prove the case beyond a
reasonable doubt.
No person who is accused has any burden or duty of
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
trying to prove himself to be not guilty or innocent. In fact,
persons accused of crime have no burden or duty of calling any
witnesses or introducing any evidence or taking the witness
stand and answering any questions put to them by the lawyers or
offering any explanations. Persons who are accused can simply
remain silent during their trial, challenge the evidence
brought in against them by whatever government lawyers there
are, whether it's local, state, or national, and do so by
objections to the admissibility of evidence and by the
cross-examination of the witnesses.
And at the end of the trial, the court gives
instructions about the law and, more particularly, says these
are the crimes charged, this is what has to be proved for each
charge, these are the elements of each offense. And then ask
the jury to decide whether what they heard as evidence shows
that these points have been proved, these facts have been
proved. If not, of course, then the jury returns a verdict of
not guilty. And in those instructions, there are some things
about the evidence. And, you know, we can't give those in
advance because we don't know what the evidence will be in this
case, but always, the jury is instructed in cases when a
defendant does not testify is you can't hold that against him.
You can't draw any inference or assumption that he's trying to
hide something or is afraid to testify because there are many
reasons why innocent persons may not testify at their trial.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
You understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so, at the end of it all if, after talking it over, the
12 people serving on the jury have a reasonable doubt about
whether the evidence does prove the crime charged, then their
plain duty under the law is to give the defendant the benefit
of that doubt and find him not guilty. Understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, not only do you understand, do you also agree with
these principles?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And agree to follow them if you served on this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you understand that Terry Nichols sits with us this
afternoon presumed to be innocent of these crimes charged
against him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about your answers
to all these questions in the questionnaire. Before doing so,
I want to reassure you that we are concerned with your privacy
and that of all of the other people who have been called in for
service because we did ask questions, some of which are private
in nature and may be considered personal by you, and you may
wonder why we asked some of these things. And as I told you,
you shouldn't guess at that or assume any particular
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
significance to any of the questions. And we try to balance
off your privacy interests and the public interest in these
proceedings by the manner in which we do this.
You know, copies have been given of what you wrote to
the people who are here working with you and me on this
process, but to no one else. And they are not going to be made
public, and they are just used for this purpose. Also, we
don't identify you by name here. And we won't -- we will
attempt in the questioning to be careful not to identify you.
And as you know, we even go to some considerable lengths to get
you in and out of the courthouse without your being put on
television or newspaper photographers or whatever.
Now, you should recognize that we are in open court
and what is said here is public and that there are media
representatives here to report on this.
I want to review a few of the things that you've told
us about yourself, and then I'll have some additional
questions. And then when I'm done with questions, a lawyer for
each side will have an opportunity to ask you some more things,
so please bear with us a while. You know this is not a test.
There's no right or wrong answer to any of these questions.
They are just your answers. And we, of course, rely on the
factual information that you've given us about yourself.
When it comes to areas of attitudes, opinions, beliefs
and feelings, these are yours; and we just want you to tell us
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
about these points. And nobody's going to judge you on them,
and nobody is going to react to those in a way that, you know,
should concern you. You just tell us what you think. That's
what -- that's what we asked you to do.
Now, you are originally from Albany area, New York?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had a career in the Army?
A. That's correct.
Q. And retired as a colonel?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you -- let's see. You went to school in Virginia at a
college?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And you obtained your degree in nursing there, and then did
you go to the Army right after that?
A. Actually, I was in school while I was on active duty. My
basic education was a diploma in nursing and then went on
active duty. And while on active duty, I acquired a
baccalaureate degree and a master's degree while on active
duty.
Q. Okay. And as part of that, you devoted yourself to the
service?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you mention here on page 6 places where you have lived.
I suppose most of these are in the performance of your service?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Q. And that included a time in Germany?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were you stationed there?
A. 1985 to 1988.
Q. Was that at an Army hospital?
A. Yes, sir. Nuremberg.
Q. And then did you come to Colorado when you retired?
A. Actually, I had a tour at Fitzsimons Army Medical Center
and went to graduate school at the University of Colorado, so
we lived there at that time and then kept our home here and
then upon retirement moved back here in 1994.
Q. And your husband was also in the Army?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And retired as a colonel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he was in armor?
A. He was an armor officer, yes, sir.
Q. So you and he have lived here since the middle of 1994?
A. Yes, sir. July.
Q. Now, you have a business of your own, a consulting
service --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- as I understand it.
A. Uh-huh.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. And this is in nursing? I mean, consulting in nursing
care?
A. Well, a lot of different areas of nursing, but the umbrella
would be nursing.
Q. And does your husband work with you somewhat in that work?
A. He basically handles all of the financial end of the
business and actually helps me sometimes with an objective
opinion on some of the projects that I get involved with, so he
does that, primarily.
Q. And how long have you done this nursing consulting?
A. Basically, since I retired in 1994.
Q. Now, do you have anyone working with you besides your
husband?
A. No. Just the two of us.
Q. And you, I would assume, consult on particular projects or
contracts?
A. Yes, sir. It can be a variety of things. I -- I have done
some basic writing. I teach a course for the Uniformed Service
Universities in Bethesda six times a year, so I'm part of the
faculty there as well as just then doing basic consulting where
I'll go and give advisement on how to implement different parts
of nursing or hospital design and just basically put to work
all of the skills that I acquired while on active duty in the
Army.
Q. And you do the teaching on site back there?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. We teach -- I teach back in Bethesda four times a year and
then twice a year, when I take the course once to San Antonio
and once to San Diego.
Q. And when is the next time you're scheduled to teach that?
A. The next course will occur in San Diego in December.
Q. Of this year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which may conflict with this jury service, you understand.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course, you told us in responding to the original
questionnaire that you're concerned with the impact on your
business activities of extended service here.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it that you talked this over with your husband?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And perhaps with some of those clients that you work with,
like some -- you have some ongoing projects right now?
A. Actually, I had three different assignments that I turned
down based upon the uncertainty of, you know, what this
assignment would bring.
Q. You know, I don't want you to think that we didn't read
your answer or that we just said, "Pooh-pooh, we ignore that.
We don't care." Of course we care. But as you understand, I'm
sure, this is not something for volunteers; that we don't, you
know, advertise for volunteers to come in and just get people
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
who don't have anything better to do than to serve on a jury.
Obviously, everybody summoned in here, almost everybody has to
make some kind of adjustments in their work and of course, in
their life's routine, also.
And let me just review with you -- I think I mentioned
this to you before -- what's involved in jury service. This is
not a matter of what we call a sequestered jury overnight or
anything. We expect the time of trial -- the trial days to run
9 to 5 Monday through Thursday, 9 to 1 on Friday. And of
course, that's a significant amount of time. We also cannot
anticipate how long the trial may go or whether there will be
one or two trials, and the two trials is something we need to
talk about here with respect to, as I mentioned, the McVeigh
case, there were two trials, one dealing with punishment.
So recognizing, of course, some sacrifice involved,
are you prepared to do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And -- and if that includes not being able to do the
course in December, that's -- you're prepared to do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, we appreciate very much your willingness to serve and
your -- you've served before, recognizing in your military
service that there are times when you have to do something
you'd rather not do.
A. Yes, sir.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Now, I want to go through a few things that are here in
your questionnaire which you have in front of you. And I just
want to ask -- oh, you also intend to go on with your academic
work and get a Ph.D.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you doing some work on that now?
A. I have started basically doing some basic work on that.
Probably hopefully get more full-time next year.
Q. Is that in connection with the education side now?
A. It's going to be in education, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You mentioned on page 10 -- would you please refer
to that page -- that you at one time volunteered day care and
that's when your son was in school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at what level was that? Was that grade school?
Elementary school?
A. Yes, sir. Yes.
Q. Okay. And where were you living then?
A. Actually, we were here in Colorado.
Q. One -- on active duty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. That's when you were at Fitzsimons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And when you were in the Army, did you ever
serve on a court-martial board or have anything to do with any
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
court-martial proceedings?
A. I had no service on a court-martial. I had involvement
with a few of -- subordinates that were brought up on
court-martial offenses, but never served as part of the
court-martial.
Q. Were you a witness?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you file charges on some?
A. Actually, they went to court-martial, but my initial
involvement was just simply as their immediate supervisor; and
in the medical side of the house, usually, once a subordinate
becomes involved with some nonjudicial punishment, it's then
turned over to the company commander. So at that point, even
though I was their supervisor, then it went that chain of
command, so I -- my actual involvement was very miniscule
unless it involved some kind of performance duty under my
supervision.
Q. And apparently, that did occur at times because you talk
about, on 10, firing employees now. Are you talking about
military people?
A. Those were primarily civilian employees.
Q. Working with --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Like at Fitzsimons, there are a lot -- there were a lot of
civilians, and I take it that's true of all Army hospitals?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. You have, on page 20, told us that you have a nephew
in law school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where is he going to law school?
A. He's going to a law school up in New Hampshire.
Q. Do you know the name of it?
A. No, sir. I'm not -- I can't really remember the name of
it.
Q. Okay.
A. It's primarily a school that deals with not actual criminal
law, but more law involving patent law.
Q. That's an area of interest for him as far as you know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you talked with him about your status as potentially
being a juror?
A. No, sir.
Q. You also play golf with one or more lawyers?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you know what kind of law that person practices?
A. I believe she -- she's no longer actively practicing law,
but she was more involved with, I think, corporate law and --
Q. Was she in a law firm; do you know?
A. She worked for a law firm downtown here, but I really don't
know the name of the law firm.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Doing corporate-type work, as far as you know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you mentioned to her that you got a jury summons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, we would expect you to. I mean, that's a natural
subject of conversation. When was that that you mentioned that
to her?
A. Several weeks ago. When I was unavailable to do something
with the group, I just simply said that I wasn't available.
Q. And that was after you had done the Jefferson County
questionnaire or before?
A. I think it was before. It was actually before.
Q. Well, did she offer you any advice --
A. No.
Q. -- free of charge?
A. Basically, she didn't really have too many words of advice
for me. Just to basically answer the questions and be honest.
That was about the only thing.
Q. Did she -- did she express any reaction to the possibility
that you would serve in this case?
A. No.
Q. And we asked you about your overall view of the criminal
justice system, what you thought about it. And you responded
at page 22, and I'd like you to turn to that, please. And you
sort of gave it a passing grade; that it's protecting
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
adequately -- not protecting -- working adequately. And then
in your explanation, you mention some concern about sentencing
and also criminals having more rights than victims. Tell us,
if you would -- expand on that a little. Tell us what you're
basing that on, whether any particular cases that come to mind,
whether this is a general impression or what.
A. I think it's more a general impression. I do read the
newspapers and -- and watch TV. And it just seems at this
point of the juncture, so many times cases are extended out to
such a lengthy time. And so many times, it seems as though,
you know, it's -- it is so much more in favor of the criminal
as opposed to the victims. And from -- from my vantage point,
having never been actually involved with a trial before, it
just seems as though it's a very lengthy process where the
criminal is found guilty and then given such a lengthy process
for appeal. And even though that's all very constitutionally
correct, emotionally, it seems as though that -- that tends to
favor and -- and almost underwrite the -- one's ability to do
injustice to another human being.
Q. Are you thinking about any cases, again any particular
cases that you read or heard about?
A. Well, I -- you know, I think the last case in Colorado, the
death case was definitely one in which it appeared as though
that individual spent a terribly long time on appeal, just yet,
the family of the victim, although they ultimately saw this
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
individual put to death, it didn't seem as though it was in a
very short period of time, even after all the appeals that, you
know, they had to go through that time suffering very unduly.
I mean, that's from my vantage point.
Q. Do you have some notion that victims of a crime like that
or the family of the victims get some benefit from watching a
person executed for it?
A. I think, probably, it depends really on an individual
basis. I would think that there are those who do really feel
some closure, which is perhaps not the same as revenge. But I
think for -- for some victims' families, it is the closure
process for them.
Q. So --
A. And perhaps brings to -- to an end some of their suffering,
certainly, not anything that's permanent. I mean, they will
never replace the person that was lost through a crime.
Q. And you're thinking about this case in Colorado where,
what, two weeks ago a man named Gary Davis was put to death in
execution of a death sentence imposed some years ago?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Any other cases come to mind? I mean, I guess
that's the most recent one.
A. That's the most recent one.
Q. To what extent did you follow that case?
A. Actually, up until the time that it became evident that he
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
was going to be executed. We were not living here, so there
wasn't really any recall.
Q. You don't remember back to the time of the trial or
anything?
A. No.
Q. You're just going on what you've read and seen in the
weeks --
A. Exactly.
Q. -- before the execution?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you also said in here at page 30 that you agree
strongly that you must follow court instructions because they
protect everyone's rights. Do you see page 30? It's up at
129.
A. We're talking about 128, sir.
Q. 129 on 30. Yes.
A. Yes, sir. I agree with that.
Q. And of course, we're talking here about instructions not
only about things like don't -- be careful about what you read,
see, and hear and report at a certain time, and we're talking
about these things that I've already mentioned about the
instructions at trial. You know, the Court gives instructions
during the jury selection process, during the -- before the
trial begins, during the trial, and at the end of the trial.
There are a lot of instructions dealing with a lot of things,
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
but also, the principles of law that are applicable to the case
and that the jury must follow. And sometimes those can be
considered too technical or too much for the defense or not. I
mean, there are rules of evidence, for example, which a jury
can hear and consider, and those rules must be strictly
enforced by the court. And so there are some things that get
ruled out of the trial, evidence is ruled inadmissible. You
understand that process?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course, when that happens, the jury has to disregard
it. And one of the basic instructions about trials and
particularly those where there has been publicity about the
case is that what you've read, seen, and heard about the
defendant and about the evidence that may be introduced at
court at the trial about him has to be left outside the
courtroom. You can't bring that in with you, and you have to
not include it in your mind in considering this whole issue of
does the evidence prove the charge. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have told us here on page 37 that you did have --
you have formed some opinion about Mr. Nichols; that you think
he participated in the development of the explosives, something
like that. Page 37, Question 160. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As you wrote that, can you tell us now, thinking back to
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
when you wrote that, what you were thinking about that you had
seen, read, or heard?
A. Well, basically, it was news accounts and -- and basing or
forming an opinion based upon that -- that was really the
only --
Q. All right.
A. -- basis that I had to say that. But in answering the
question honestly --
Q. Well, sure. That's what we want. We want you to answer
honestly now. I'm not accusing you of prejudging. What I want
to -- what we want to know is, you know, just what that's based
on and whether you're capable of setting it aside.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because of course, as I've mentioned, we go according to
rules of evidence here; and there are no rules, really, that
affect what the people in the news industry say because they
pass on to the public what they get, what they hear. And, you
know, it's basic to our society is that they are free and open
to do that, but there's nobody testing the credibility or the
truth of what they report. So you have to consider things like
that just like you do the accusations in the case, nothing more
than that. And they don't amount to evidence. Do you
understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you prepared to do that?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Absolutely.
Q. Now, we also asked you some questions about opinions with
respect to punishment. And you know that there's a section of
this questionnaire where we dealt with that. And you may refer
to page -- well, first, 27 is where there's an introduction to
why we asked you these questions; and then the questions are
actually on 28 and 29, so please turn to those pages.
27 is just explaining that, you know, we don't assume
that there will be any punishment in this case. We have to
begin this trial, as every other trial, with a presumption of
innocence and assume there will be a not guilty verdict. But
also, in the event of a guilty verdict, there is a question
that the jury gets involved with with respect to punishment.
And for the crimes charged in this case, under statute, there
are possible punishments of life in prison with no opportunity
to get out, the person lives the rest of his natural life in
prison. The second one is the death penalty. And the third is
that it could be something less than those two, and that can be
something decided by a judge.
But because the jury plays a role under federal law in
this life-or-death decision, we wanted to know something about
your attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about the use of the
punishment of life in prison with no release and the use of
punishment of death in the criminal justice system. And -- on
the basis of if you could write the law, how would it be? How
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
would you write it? And I take it you understood that was the
context in which these questions were put to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And these are your answers. And I don't know if this is
something about which you've given much thought before you got
this questionnaire.
A. Well, certainly, I had some thoughts about it before I got
the questionnaire and have formulated some opinions based upon
my life experiences, yes, sir.
Q. And are your thoughts before consistent with what you said
here? I mean, are you just giving us what you believed for
some time here?
A. Pretty much so, yes, sir.
Q. And, you know, you're free to make any changes in this part
if you have any additional thoughts about this. And we would
understand that this is a -- you know, this is a very difficult
question.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And people may have a lot of uncertainty about this. And
recognize when you confront the possibility that you may be
deciding whether another human being lives or dies, that
certainly focuses your attention on it. So if you have any
different views here now, today, from what you wrote back over
a month ago, you're free to, you know, give us those.
A. I think it's pretty consistent now --
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay.
A. -- with then.
Q. What I would like to do is explain to you exactly what is
involved because we didn't -- we didn't give you any
information about the way the law actually is and how this
question gets decided, so I want to do that now if you'll bear
with me for a few minutes of explanation.
In cases not involving this kind of penalty, this kind
of punishment, judges make sentencing decisions; so a jury
comes in, hears the evidence, and decides guilty or not guilty.
And whichever way their verdict is, the jury's done its job and
goes home, the end of it for the jury. And then the judge
takes over the responsibility for deciding the sentence for
this person who has been found guilty by a jury. So if you
took a crime like, let's say, bank robbery -- and, you know, a
bank robbery could involve two, three persons, different roles,
coming in somebody with a gun perhaps, somebody grabs the
money, somebody is driving a getaway car. These are
possibilities. And take a case like that. Jury returns a
verdict of guilty; and whether it's in one trial or three
trials, but they had, let's say, three people, those -- the
persons all having been found guilty, it now goes to the judge
to decide what the sentence should be. And as a part of that,
we don't have automatic sentencing. We don't have a system
that says this is the crime, this is the time. There is
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
individual judgment to be considered, both individual as to the
judge making the sentence and also the individual being
sentenced. And before that decision can be made, there's a lot
more information collected, first of all with respect to the
crime, exactly what happened and what the consequences were,
whether there were victims who were affected by it, all of
these things. And we refer to those as the additional
circumstances about the crime.
And then there's all that can be learned about the
defendant, the individual being sentenced. And that of course,
is the whole life story of this person. And of course, you
have experience with taking histories of -- of people who
present with certain symptoms, and a part of medical care is to
get down all you can about the person, particularly with
respect to the medical history. Well, this goes beyond that.
This is all the history. Persons -- you know, the family in
which this person was born and raised and where they lived and
then everything about what has happened to him or to him (sic).
Things about his medical history can be relevant, also, his
employment history, military service, marriages, divorces,
children, work history, just about all that can be known about
a person. And that's important in making a sentencing
decision.
So then there's a hearing in front of this judge, and
the hearing goes into all of that. And then the judge hears
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
from lawyers on both sides and makes a decision that is
particular as to the person being sentenced. And it can be
different with respect to, you know, the three people in our
hypothetical. So one might get ten years in prison or
whatever, another may get less. One might get probation. One
could get much longer. But again, it's because of all of these
factors being taken into consideration. Understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, for certain kinds of crimes, under the federal system,
there are these punishments that we've been talking about and
that you were asked about. And of course, this matter of the
death sentence and whether there even ought to be a death
sentence available in the law is a -- an issue upon which
people have serious disagreement. I'm sure you're aware of
that.
A. Yes.
Q. There are people who say there never should be a death
penalty; and in fact, there are states in the United States
where there is no death penalty under the law. And then of
course, there are those who say, well, this is easy. What are
you talking about? If somebody kills somebody, that's what
should happen to them. Life for a life. And there's a lot in
between.
And of course, every time something happens, like the
recent matter in Colorado, all these views kind of come to the
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
surface and get discussed, as has happened. But what we're
dealing with now is federal law made by the Congress, these
statutes. And federal law says that basically, for murder, for
the intentional killing of other human beings, the sentences
may be life in prison with no release, death, or a lesser
sentence. And the lesser sentence may be done by a judge, but
not until the jury has decided life or death.
And what the Congress has said plainly is that
life-and-death decisions over individuals convicted of crime
should not be done by judges. For that, we want to hear from
the people, the jurors. And so 12 jurors who tried the case
who, if they find a defendant guilty on such a crime, have then
another job to do, and that's to hear all of the information
concerning the crime, the circumstances of it and the
defendant. The same kind of information that I mention is
involved in the individual sentencing done by judges. But this
goes forward just like the trial. The lawyers for the
government, the lawyers for the defense participate, witnesses
are called in, give testimony. The matter can last a
considerable amount of time because what is being presented to
the jury are these things again about the crime, the impact on
the victims and the like, and then everything that's known
about the defendant. Because before the jury can make a
decision about whether a human life should be ended, they ought
to know whose life it is and what's happened to that person.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
And so after all of this information is provided in
this second trial, then the judge can sum it up for the jury
and say, you know, let me just go over what you've heard and
let me also divide it into categories. Here are things that
you heard that you may consider to be aggravating factors or
circumstances. These are the things that you may consider in
deciding that death is the deserved punishment.
On the other hand, these are the things that you have
heard that you may consider to be mitigating factors. And that
mitigates against a death sentence and should suggest that
while the crime is such that death is an option, this person,
because of who he is and all of the circumstances you've heard
about him, does not deserve to be put to death. Do you follow
this explanation?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you have any questions about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, the question you must answer for us is, if you were
to be in that situation -- and we can't discuss it in terms of
this trial because here we are now before the trial starts, we
don't know what the evidence is going to be, we don't know that
there's going to be a guilty verdict. We presume there will
not be. And certainly, if there is a guilty verdict, we don't
know today what all of this information about Mr. Nichols or
about the crime would be. So we can't talk about it as it may
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
relate to him. So we have to talk about it in the abstract,
really.
And you have to answer the question then if you had to
decide on the punishment for a person you found to be guilty of
planned, premeditated murders, would you be open and consider
in arriving at what really comes down to a moral judgment about
another human being? You know, there's no formula about this.
There's no equation. You have to talk about it with the other
jurors, and then you have to make a rational, reasoned moral
judgment of life or death.
Now, do you believe that if you were called upon to do
that, you could do it and make a decision and include in your
decision all of these factors?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. I do.
THE COURT: Well, we have some questions from a lawyer
on each side, so bear with us yet a while longer, if you will,
and respond to their questions.
Mr. Orenstein.
MR. ORENSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. ORENSTEIN:
Q. Good afternoon, ma'am. How are you?
A. Fine, thank you.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Did you think you were back in upstate New York this
weekend?
As his Honor told you earlier, my name is Jamie
Orenstein. Together with my fellow prosecutors here at
Government counsel table, our job will be to present the
evidence in this trial against Mr. Nichols. I do have a few
more questions for you in addition to those his Honor asked, so
I hope you'll bear with me for a few minutes.
You mentioned in your questionnaire that you've been a
member of a professional society in your nursing profession.
A. Right.
Q. And you were its president at one point?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a national organization or a local section of it?
A. It's a -- it was a local chapter of a national
organization.
Q. Can you tell me what your -- what your responsibilities
were as the president of that organization?
A. Primarily, oversee the function of -- of the chapter and
keep in contact with the national office, headquarters,
implement programs, oversee the financial goodwill of the
chapter, and basically, just be administratively responsible
for -- for that particular organization.
Q. I take it there was no lobbying activity or any kind of --
A. None. Not at the local level.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. I'd like you to turn, if you would, to page 25 of your
questionnaire. Do you see Question 113? Oh, I'm sorry. I
thought you were there.
A. Yes.
Q. You see Question 113 there?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You know, you were discussing with his Honor a few minutes
ago the importance of following the Court's instructions. And
of course, one of the purposes of this process is to make sure
that a juror can be fair and open-minded in all respects. That
question that I asked you to look at talks about how you would
view law enforcement witnesses. I take it that's your own
personal view?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that another one of these things, where you know it's
your view but you'll set it aside if you come to court and sit
here as a juror?
A. Correct.
Q. Because you understand that, you know, everyone's an
individual and has to be judged individually?
A. Right.
Q. So you have no problem doing that?
A. No problem.
Q. Okay. I'd like to ask you a question, also, about one of
yours answers on page 30. There's a question at the bottom of
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
the page there, Question 132, about the incident at Waco a few
years ago.
A. Correct.
Q. You -- you said the -- that you feel I -- "I feel the
Government" and then you put in parentheses, "(Justice
Department) could have dealt with it in a better way."
First of all, just generally speaking, could you
expand on what you had in mind?
A. Well, personally, I think that any time a situation
deteriorates to people being killed and -- and losing life,
when perhaps other alternatives could have been used to deal
with a situation like that, that's primarily where my thinking
was going with that answer, that I do really think that there
was other ways, perhaps, they could have dealt with that
situation.
Q. Is there some reason that you specified the Justice
Department in particular?
A. Well, primarily, because I saw them as being the
responsible law enforcement body directing and implementing the
course in that particular incident.
Q. And I take it once again, this is something that wouldn't
affect your service here if you were to sit as a juror?
A. No.
Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions, if I may, about what
you've seen and read and heard about this case and if anything
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
in particular about Mr. Nichols.
First of all, you indicated that you've seen a fair
amount of coverage of this -- of the incident generally; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Has much or most of that focused on Mr. Nichols?
A. Actually, very little. I would say probably the most of
the coverage that I saw happened to deal with the actual
incident, itself. I was home at the time so was able to view
the -- the coverage about the incident from an hour post its
occurrence for most of that next week, most of the news
coverage. So actually, very little about Mr. Nichols himself.
Q. And based on whatever it is that you've seen and heard and
read about Mr. Nichols himself, is it -- has it reached a point
where you couldn't put anything that you've heard aside and say
no, I'm just going to wait to hear what -- what happens in the
courtroom?
A. No. I would have the ability to put aside anything that I
heard about him.
Q. So coming into this process, as a juror, rather than as
someone just sitting home and perhaps watching the news -- as a
juror, you wouldn't have any opinions about what the outcomes
of this case should be; is that correct?
A. I would have no opinions.
Q. I'd also like to speak with you for a moment about this
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
issue of punishment that his Honor discussed with you before.
And again, I guess our starting point is the Question 129 on
page 30. You wrote that you agree strongly with this idea of
following the court's instructions because they are the basis
of our system. I think what his Honor was -- was discussing
with you is that they may be the basis of the system, but the
jurors are really the heart of the system. And so we're
looking for jurors who will follow those instructions and
really be able to do that without -- without any great
difficulty. Are you such a juror who could follow those
instructions?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned that the question of punishment -- and you
realize, of course, that's something that we only get to if
there -- in any capital case if there's first a decision by a
jury that a defendant has committed a crime that carries the
possibility of the death sentence. You understood that
process; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You -- you were asked by his Honor whether you think it's a
very difficult question, and you seemed to be pretty emphatic
in saying yes, it is. Is that right?
A. Well, it is very difficult having been in a lot of
situations where life or death was evident. It becomes a very
difficult situation dealing with people's lives or being
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
instrumental in -- in determining the outcome of someone's life
or death.
Q. I take it that in your career as an Army nurse, there have
been occasions when you have been instrumental in --
A. Many.
Q. Those -- there are some people I imagine who would have
trouble dealing with that because there can be a strong
emotional content to that kind of situation. Is it the case
that you've had to sort of put the emotion aside and be
objective in dealing with those situations?
A. Actually, rely totally on being not emotional and dealing
with someone's life or death, it became evident that most of
the time, you had to put your emotions aside because it was
very difficult to intertwine emotion with your clinical
knowledge as to make sure that there was the appropriate
outcome. Especially with people who I dealt with in Vietnam
was a particular essence where that was the case.
Q. Do you think you'd be able to bring those talents that you
developed over the years in your nursing career to bear on your
service as a juror and -- because, inevitably, there's going to
be some testimony or some evidence that will have a strong
emotional content. Would you be able to still, even with such
evidence, view the questions before you objectively --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in making the -- the difficult decision about whether
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
someone should live or die? And you understand there's never
an automatic answer?
A. Correct.
Q. We're looking for jurors, obviously, who can listen to both
sides and be open to both the possibility of a life sentence or
death sentence no matter what the crime is. Whether it's a
single murder, multiple murders, whatever, jurors would have to
be open to giving either one of those. Would you be able to do
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Part of what makes the issue less difficult for some
people -- and again, I'm asking if you're one of these
people -- is that some people in a case of murder wouldn't want
to know anything about the defendant on trial. They just want
to know what the crime was, and that would be enough for them.
Do you think you would be able to make the moral decision about
whether someone should live or die without knowing that
person's background, what role he may have played in the
offense?
A. No. I -- I basically would want to have all the pieces of
the puzzle and all the information that I could possibly have
to make a very, you know, well-informed, rational decision.
MR. ORENSTEIN: Well, ma'am, I thank you very much for
answering my questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Woods.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
MR. WOODS: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I'm the last one. They have already covered most of the
questions. I've got a few, and then you'll be out of here.
Mike Tigar and I, Ron Woods, were appointed by the
United States district judge in Oklahoma City shortly after May
the 10th of '95, when these Government lawyers filed charges
against Mr. Nichols for being responsible for the April 19
bombing. How do you feel about Mr. Nichols' having
court-appointed, which means taxpayer-funded, lawyers to
represent him in this case?
A. Well, it -- it keeps -- actually, is in keeping with my
whole philosophy of how I see our system and belief in that
system, and part of that belief is that one should be given an
opportunity for fair representation wherever that may come
from. And these are the liberties and the things that we enjoy
in this country. And without that, we wouldn't have the system
that we do.
Q. Okay. Earlier, you had said that parent -- that it
appeared to you that the criminals had more rights than the
victims. How does this fit in with your feeling about
Mr. Nichols as accused by the Government as being a criminal --
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
but how does this fit in with one of his rights that is being
exercised here in front of you?
A. Really, there's no relationship between how I ultimately
view a convicted criminal and someone's rights to a trial by
jury and representation and processing by a jury. They are
really two separate issues in my mind and really unrelated.
Q. Okay. Okay. You checked off that you went out of your way
to read about this case, the publicity. You more than likely
have an opinion in your mind about Mr. Nichols, a picture in
your mind. What did you think when you saw Mr. Nichols for the
first time there at Jeffco Fairgrounds, the first time you saw
him in person?
A. Well, I was really surprised to see him there since that
wasn't, you know, information that was given to us. And from
that point on, you know, he's an individual. And basically,
other than that, I had no real emotional response to seeing him
there.
Q. All right. Did you have a picture in your mind of what he
looked like?
A. Well, I knew what he looked like because I have seen him on
T -- on television.
Q. What pictures did you see on television of Mr. Nichols?
A. Primarily in relationship to his confinement and I think
prior to his confinement here locally, you know. Prior to
that. But those were the only pictures that I have really ever
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
seen of him.
Q. When you say "confinement," what -- can you be a little
more explicit? What image are you mentioning that was on
television?
A. When he was going to -- he had been taken to the -- to the
jail and he was -- had a flak jacket on and handcuffed. That
was the only image that -- the most recent image that I can
recall of seeing him.
Q. Have you seen that image more than once?
A. Probably more than once.
Q. Okay. Did that form any presumption in your mind of guilt,
showing somebody confined and shackled and guarded that way?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. Not really.
Q. In your profession as a nurse for the 28 years you served
in the -- in the Army and -- were you -- did you enter the Army
right out of nursing school?
A. Actually, I -- I was a student nurse and was in at that
time a student program.
Q. Okay.
A. And then went from my basic program on active duty.
Q. Okay. In that profession, when you're questioning the
patient, is it important that that patient give you truthful,
accurate answers as to the medical -- medical condition rather
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
than telling you something you want to hear?
A. Absolutely. Truthful information is the best to have.
Q. Right. And you see the parallel here of what all the
personnel, the Judge and the prosecutor, are doing here in the
questioning of you?
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. And you related to the Court that the answers you put on
this questionnaire were answers truthfully given.
A. That's correct.
Q. And in fact, your lawyer friend who you play golf with
advised you to answer the questions truthfully?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I assume that's -- that's the process you're going
through with us today; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Let's go to page 33 in your questionnaire and
Question 144. "If you've heard or read anything about the
Oklahoma City bombing, please indicate where you heard or read
about it." And you checked off TV news, radio news, newspaper,
magazines, conversations, heard other people discussing the
case.
And then the next question was, "How would you
describe the amount of media coverage you've seen about the
Oklahoma City bombing?" And you checked very much, went out of
your way to read about it and watch news accounts of it. Is
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
that accurate?
A. I think the word "went out of your way" is kind of a -- a
phraseology that -- that kind of caught me when I checked this
off because it really didn't accurately describe what I did. I
mean, I -- I read about it. I've discussed it and those kinds
of things. But to say I went out of my way was a little
strong -- strongly worded to fit the "Very much," but
unfortunately, that was the only choice that I -- that really
fit what I did.
Q. Okay. Rather than "Quite a bit," "Read a few articles," or
"watched a few television specials"? That was the first one,
"Very much" was more accurate?
A. It was pretty accurate. As I say, it was the phraseology
behind it that didn't really match my -- my feelings at the
time.
Q. Okay.
A. No. 1, I was extremely interested in it from the standpoint
of, if nothing else, just the way they handled the emergency
medical --
Q. Right.
A. -- response and -- and that -- from that standpoint.
Q. Sure.
A. Layered on with all the other situations that developed.
But I certainly can't say that I put aside other activities of
my life or other things that I did to, you know, follow this
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
particular incident. That wasn't the case.
Q. Okay. You stated earlier in your questionnaire that you
watched CNN and you watch the nightly news programs. Are you
referring there to programs like "Dateline", "20/20," "48
Hours," "60 Minutes," all those -- there seems like there's one
on every night.
A. Right.
Q. Some news program special.
A. Well, primarily, I try to kind of balance my source of
news. I don't particularly follow the magazine-type programs
because over time, I've formed -- formed the opinion that they
are somewhat sensational in their information. So I try to get
a very -- a wide brush of information. So I have the
opportunity to watch C-Span and the other networks so that
there is a much more varied view to, you know, the information
that I'm getting.
Q. Right. And that's what you checked off, that you have
various sources, from magazines, newspapers, radio, and
television. And you stated in your questionnaire you feel the
news is 80 to 85 percent accurate?
A. Well, the mainstream media, you know, that tends to change
according to the story. Some things, for example, especially
things that I personally know about military, those kinds of
things, their accuracy goes down. So 80 to 85 percent, but
I --
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay.
A. -- I certainly, in looking at the different sources of
news, know that there's a certain amount of information that's
put in a context that works for them or is sensational. So I
take that with a grain of salt.
Q. Sure. Sure. When you checked off "conversations," who
have you had conversations with? Not names, but can you give
us groups, like your family? Does your son live here in the
area?
A. No. He's -- he lives back East.
Q. Okay. So it's just you and your husband --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- at home? And you're a member of a country club and are
quite active playing golf, I take it. You have a set golf
group that you play with pretty regularly?
A. Pretty much.
Q. Is that a foursome?
A. Actually, there's about eight of us, and we trade off, and
I get to play with other people.
Q. Okay.
A. And we have a -- sometimes the men let me play with them,
so --
Q. Okay.
A. Different groups.
Q. All right. And then I take it there's a neighborhood since
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
you're -- you live on the course?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And are you active in the club?
A. Pretty active. Right.
Q. Okay. Is -- are these the type of people that you had
conversations with, by type? I mean, are these the groups of
people that you had conversations with concerning the case?
A. It would be one group there. There were -- you know, other
groups. My professional organization.
Q. I was going to ask. Are you -- you're pretty active in
that?
A. Yes.
Q. You were elected president?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a large group that meets like, what, once a week or
once a month?
A. We meet once a month. And we have a large membership, but
active members, probably around 80 or 90.
Q. Okay. Is that the average turnout per month?
A. Probably goes down a little bit less than that. Probably
averages out to around 50 -- between 50 and 60 people.
Q. Okay. Have you all had a program since April of '95 or a
speech or discussion relating to what happened with the nursing
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
and the care that got to the scene immediately there in
Oklahoma City and the triage that was set up and things like
that? Has that ever been a discussion on your program?
A. We have not had a local program of that discussion; but at
our national meeting this past year, they did have several
people that were involved with the triaging.
Q. Okay. Some that were there came to speak to your group?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And I assume you're aware that there was even a lady
nurse that was killed by -- after the accident? Something that
fell on her head during the rescue efforts?
A. Right. I knew that.
Q. The people that came and spoke to you, did any of them
relate that they had been witnesses or were going to be
witnesses in the McVeigh trial?
A. None. In fact, it was -- it was strictly, you know,
talking about the medical triaging and the care, and it was
really no discussion other than that.
Q. Okay. From this information that you had from the date of
the bombing, April 19, '95, up until the day at Jeffco when the
Judge said, you know, please don't read any more about it
because in the event you get on a jury, we don't want you from
that point reading about it -- but the two years plus up until
that time, do you recall from what you've seen, read, or heard
how many people were killed in the bombing?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Well, the number 163 sits in my mind.
Q. Okay.
A. That's just recall.
Q. Do you recall whether or not there were children killed?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know the reason -- not do you know, but do you
recall from the press and the media what the reason was why
there were children killed in a federal building?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. Because there was a day care there.
Q. Okay. Do you remember how many children were killed?
A. Not specifically the number. I -- I vaguely remember 12 to
15. But again, that's just --
Q. Okay.
A. -- a recall.
Q. And again, as the Judge said, this isn't a test.
A. Right.
Q. We're not grading your papers. We're just trying to get
your recollections and your memories and your thoughts and
opinions on this matter.
Do you remember how the bomb was delivered to the
building?
A. Yes. In a truck. Put in a truck.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what the Government claimed the bomb
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
was made out of?
A. Well, portions of the bomb, you know -- there was an
element of fertilizer; and other than that, the nature of the
explosive, I really don't recall about that.
Q. Okay. Okay. Do you recall from what you've seen, read, or
heard how Mr. McVeigh was arrested?
A. How he was arrested?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. Yes.
Q. And what -- what's your recollection?
A. My recollection was that he was stopped in a car and that
they basically questioned the fact that the car wasn't licensed
and that led them to do more personnel (sic) checks and led
them to suspicious encounters about him, and that's about the
extent of what I recall.
Q. Okay. And do you recall from what you've seen, read, or
heard how Mr. Nichols came in contact with the law enforcement
authorities?
A. What I recall was that he had a -- a plant with a farm on
it and there was an association that there had been explosives
made on -- on his property. That was basically connected.
Q. Do you recall whether or not he was in Oklahoma City at the
time of the bombing from what you read in the media accounts?
A. What I recall that he -- I do not recall reading anything
that he was actually physically in Oklahoma City at the time.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. Do you recall reading anything about his connection
with the rental of the truck?
A. No recollection in connection.
Q. Okay. Okay. From what you've seen, read, and heard over
that two years plus, what is your understanding of what the
Government is accusing Mr. Nichols of in connection with this
bombing?
A. My understanding is that the connection was made that there
was a -- a conspiracy between Mr. Nichols and Mr. McVeigh to
prepare the material and that his connection was primarily
through conspiracy.
Q. Okay. Anything else other than the connection to the
material?
A. Not that I'm aware of other than there was a basic
friendship between the two of them.
Q. Okay.
A. That they had association with one another.
Q. Okay. Now, as to the -- Mr. Nichols on the farm, what --
what do you recall about that being connected with the bombing?
A. That that was where the materials were -- were made and put
together and that the connection was made that there was the
ability to -- for Mr. Nichols to make the -- the materials and
he knew how to put them together to make a -- a material for
creating an explosive.
Q. Okay. Okay. Now, the questionnaire went on after getting
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
into the source of the publicity and the information you had --
the questionnaire went on on page 37, if you'd go to that, on
Question 160 and 161. The question on 160 was, "Have you
formed any opinion about the defendant, Terry Nichols?"
And you checked, "Yes. I think Terry Nichols
participated in the development of the explosive based upon
what I've read and seen about the evidence."
And then Question 161 was, "Have you ever had a
different opinion about Mr. Nichols?"
And you checked, "No."
And as you informed the Court that your friend had
advised you to go in and answer the questions honestly and as
you informed the Court, you were answering the questions
honestly; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So would it be true then that you had the opinion that he
was guilty?
A. That he participated, yes. That was my opinion.
Q. Okay. And has that opinion changed today?
A. I would have to say, you know, at this point, you know, I
really haven't changed that opinion. There isn't any
information that I've read in the last --
Q. Right. We know that you followed the Judge's instruction.
A. Correct.
Q. You haven't read anything since that time?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Right.
Q. But have you changed this opinion that you wrote down?
A. Probably not. I probably hold that same opinion, because I
have no information to influence changing my opinion.
Q. Okay. If you had to vote on guilt or innocence of
Mr. Nichols right now, how would you vote right now as to guilt
or innocence?
A. I would have to vote for guilt.
Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you about Question 113,
and that's on page 25. And that was -- I'll wait until you get
there. Thanks. That was, "Would you tend to believe the
testimony of a state or federal law enforcement officer?"
And there are three blanks to check, and you checked
off, "More than most witnesses."
Can you tell us why you checked that one?
A. Well, I -- I think a lot of my answer is influenced by my
experiences and --
Q. Sure.
A. -- being in the service of the country and being involved
with federal-level personnel on many occasions. I guess that's
probably most of the influence to that answer.
Q. Okay. When you -- when you say you were involved with
federal personnel on many instances, are -- are you speaking of
federal law enforcement personnel?
A. On several occasions, I had dealings with Secret Service.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay.
A. And I -- they probably would be, I guess, probably the
biggest group on more than one occasion that I had dealings
with.
Q. What was the connection you were dealing with the Secret
Service, through the Army and the nursing and the medical
branch?
A. In my last assignment, I directed the peri-operative
service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Q. Okay.
A. And we took care of two sitting presidents while I was
there.
Q. Right.
A. So my involvement with Secret Service had to do with
preparing and directing the care of those two presidents and
basically had very close connections with providing security.
Q. Okay. That makes sense. Any connection with the FBI
through your profession?
A. Let me see. I don't think I've ever had any dealings with
the FBI.
Q. Okay. As to the Secret Service -- and back to the question
of, "Would you tend to believe the testimony of a state or
federal law enforcement officer?" -- you've had friendships and
close working relationships with Secret Service officers. Is
there something about their profession or their training that
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
you think gives them more credibility than other witnesses?
A. Well, I -- I think there's a level of credibility, again
from my experiences, that I tend to place upon those
individuals and, again, placed upon the individuals that I
dealt with and knowing the -- the ethics code that those people
basically operate under that would give me that tendency. That
does not mean to say that I would not, you know, look at that
as an individual thing.
Q. Sure.
A. That person as an individual and as their -- in a court of
law, their testimony as being perhaps any more credible than
another person. But there is a certain level of ethics that I
would anticipate that they would have --
Q. Okay.
A. -- just preliminarily.
Q. And that's through your own personal observations and your
working relationships?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. Now, did you have any dealings with any federal law
enforcement people outside of the Walter Reed situation? Like
you were in Nuremberg for a while.
A. Not on a personal contact with any federal agency. From
time to time, I've had to deal with the CIA -- or CID, rather.
But, you know, that was a different association, so it was
really the basic security requirements of being in an overseas
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
assignment, those kinds of things.
Q. Right. Okay. Were you ever interviewed by CID on any
investigative matter within the Army?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you had mentioned earlier about experiences in
Vietnam, and I didn't notice that you put down Vietnam on the
place that you had lived. Did you serve in Vietnam?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. You just got all the places you served, but that one
was left off?
A. I guess probably at the time for some reason I -- I didn't
consider living there that --
Q. Okay.
A. That was a -- you know, a -- although I spent a year of my
life there, I guess I didn't really consider that as residence.
Q. You never took up residence there; right?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You didn't vote there?
A. Just by absentee ballot. That was the only way.
Q. That was more in jest.
You list on your questionnaire that you are very
active as a Roman Catholic?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Are you aware of any views that the Church has on
the death penalty?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Okay. And would it be fair to say that your views differ?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Okay. And can you tell us why?
A. Well, I think primarily, first of all, philosophically,
there are many things about the doctrine that, you know, I had
to look at with an analytical mind. I think my life
experiences tend to lead me in a direction of being able to
favor capital punishment as opposed to not.
Q. You had -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but you had
mentioned that earlier. Can you share with us what you're
talking about in your life's experiences that make you favor
the death penalty?
A. Well, I think from several points of view, one, being in
the medical profession, seeing what life and death and the
consequences of, you know, that decision brings. And probably
more importantly, what I experienced in the Army on active duty
and seeing what happens to people as a result of situations
where there are explosives and people maimed and those kinds of
things as a result of war.
Q. Okay.
A. I think those life experiences probably tend me to think
that there is a need for a system in which people do have to
pay an ultimate price for what they do.
Q. Okay. Okay. And I take it this is something you had
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
thought about before you filled out the questionnaire?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an idea in mind that those questions would
probably be asked when you got to the fairgrounds?
A. I really didn't. I -- you know, the questionnaire was very
extensive. Some of the questions were -- I went along the
guidelines that Judge Matsch had given and that just answer the
questions and don't read into them, and that's what I tried to
do.
Q. Right.
A. Basically.
Q. You were aware that back in June, Mr. McVeigh had been
convicted and had received the death penalty?
A. Yes. I'm aware of that.
Q. And that the death penalty was certainly an issue in his
trial?
A. Correct.
Q. And I take it you had discussed that verdict with either
friends, neighbors, golfing partners or somebody?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever hear anybody disagree with that verdict?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. So I take it then it probably didn't surprise you
when you were at Jeffco and there was a question about your
feelings on the death penalty?
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
A. Right. That --
Q. Okay.
A. -- didn't come as a surprise.
Q. Okay. And these are views that you've held for a long time
that are deeply held, I take it?
A. Formulated over the years and -- and really thought
through. I mean -- I try in my life to examine different
things as they come about. I mean, not that I change my
opinion on things as the wind blows, but that as I experience a
life experience that that may influence how I see things
differently the next time around in my life, but base --
collectively taking all of the experiences that I have and then
someone asking me a question about how I view something in the
world, I have thought it through and given an opinion.
Q. Okay. During the -- the publicity that led up to the day
and maybe the day after of the Gary Davis execution, did you
read the editorials in the newspaper -- both the local
newspapers would have guest editorials writing about pro death
penalty and against the death penalty. And there were a number
of articles like that. Did you read those?
A. Probably very few of them. Quite frankly, by about the --
you know, three days before, it was total saturation. I --
Q. Right.
A. -- mean, I -- to a point of ad nauseam. It was overdone, I
think. But yes, I had read a few just to see where the opinion
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
was going.
Q. Okay. Anything in there solidifying your view or change
your view of those articles that you read?
A. Didn't change my view. Pretty much held the same view that
I had, you know, prior to that incident occurring.
Q. Sure. Okay. Now, I want to just briefly go over on page
28. The Judge has covered most of it. Down at the bottom on C
and D, the questions were, you know, if you were writing the
law, what kind of crimes would you make life imprisonment the
appropriate penalty and then what kind of crimes would you make
the death penalty. And you put murder in the death penalty and
not in life imprisonment. Can you tell me why you didn't put
it in death -- excuse me -- why you didn't put it in life
imprisonment without release?
A. You mean for murder?
Q. Yes.
A. Well -- and again, I think probably by the time I got to
page 28, I tried to condense my answers as best I could.
Q. Just one-word answers. Okay.
A. But, you know, I -- I think there were mitigating
circumstances, you know, within murder as it was described.
But I will say that I think that I think it has to be strongly
considered when murder occurs, so I do see a delineation
between some crimes that warrant, you know, a lesser penalty.
But I think murder is one of those that, you know, should be
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
looked at very closely and the death penalty considered.
Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you heard the judge's explanation about
what the jury will do in a punishment hearing. It may seem
strange that we're having all this conversation about the
punishment hearing and sort of skipping over the guilt or
innocence. I want to assure you that Mr. Tigar and Mr. Nichols
and myself are not conceding that we'll ever get to a
punishment hearing. The Government's got a theory that
Mr. Nichols was responsible for the bombing. We don't agree
with that theory.
The government will call a number of witnesses to
testify, and they'll have exhibits. We're going to
cross-examine those witnesses very thoroughly. And as the
Judge said, we're under no obligation to present evidence.
It's their burden. We are going to present evidence. We're
going to present a number of witnesses that will contradict
their theory. So it will be up to the jury after hearing all
the evidence from both sides to look at that evidence and make
a determination: Has the government proven Mr. Nichols guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of deliberate, premeditated murder of
all these individuals they claim? So I want to be clear that
you understand this discussion about penalty as only in the
event that there's a conviction, and we're not conceding that
there is a conviction.
A. I understand.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Do you follow that? All right. And you heard the Judge's
explanation about the aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances that would be offered into evidence. In a
hypothetical case, because we can't talk about this case -- but
in a hypothetical case such as a bomb placed on an airplane and
a number of people killed, do you feel that in a case like
that, after hearing both the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, that the death penalty would be the appropriate
verdict, rather than life imprisonment simply because of the
number of people killed?
A. Well, you know, number of people is -- is part of the
equation.
Q. Sure.
A. But if one person is killed -- and it's very difficult for
me to sort through that just because more people are killed
should make the penalty more intense. But again, it's very
difficult to say, not knowing all the information, you know,
how that would be seen.
But to answer your question directly, I think that
certainly has a very grievous implication that that would be
appropriate.
Q. Okay. Now, concerning one of your answers about the -- the
closure for the victims, you recall the images on television
the day of the bombing and a day or two after of these very sad
scenes of the rescue efforts and the dead bodies and the dead
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
children. If you were on the jury, it's likely there's going
to be a number of witnesses that come in here with very
emotional, sad, heart-wrenching testimony about the deaths of
their loved ones and their co-workers, and there are going to
be videos and there are going to be photographs that are going
to be so powerful and so emotional, and a lot of people will be
crying.
My question to you is -- and the prosecutor covered
part of it, but my question is: If you were on the jury back
at the guilt-or-innocence stage, can you look at that evidence
for what it is -- and it's not contested. Nobody is disputing
the fact that there was a bomb and a number of people were
killed and horribly maimed. Can you set that emotion aside --
not set it aside, but can you separate it from looking at the
Government's evidence objectively of what -- what have they
proved that Terry Nichols did that was responsible for this?
You understand my question about how emotion is going to flood
over --
A. Right.
Q. -- from the jury, and it's going to influence their
thinking? Can you separate it out and look at their evidence
objectively?
A. I have had to not necessarily look at evidence, but
separate my emotions, my reactional thinking many, many times,
more times than I really care to remember; but without -- with
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
that in my mind, I can do that.
Q. Okay. Okay. Now you mentioned about -- you know, the
victims in the Gary Davis case had to suffer for a number of
years before they got to see the execution of Mr. Davis and
that the execution brought closure to them. Has that been your
experience through, well, just your life's experience, your
observation that victims do obtain closure through executions?
A. Well, I -- that -- you know, that's -- in relationship to
executions, I -- I really can't say.
Q. You don't have any hands-on experience?
A. I don't have any hands-on experience. I can just tell you
many times, I have seen people, family members have closure
with certain experiences that had to do with their loved one,
whether it be, you know, viewing them or going to a place or
whatever. So the phenomenon of closure is something that's not
foreign to me in relationship to an execution.
Q. Okay.
A. I couldn't even begin to tell you how that must be.
Q. Okay. In a hypothetical case and given the Judge's
explanation of the aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances, you understand that there would be family
members of the deceased coming in and asking for closure in the
case?
MR. MACKEY: Objection, judge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Is -- is your understanding from what the Court has
explained to you about the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances -- was your feeling about closure something that
you would look at when you're looking at the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances?
MR. MACKEY: Objection, Judge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
JUROR: Well, in order to, you know, give Mr. Nichols
the benefit of -- of my fairness and rational thinking, it
would again be separated from the emotions that those people
were exhibiting and also then not knowing what their closure
process might be. So making that a piece of -- of that phase
of the trial for me would not really be necessarily the case.
MR. WOODS: Okay. Okay.
May I have one moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Just one further question: When there were people that
came from Oklahoma City, the people that were involved in the
matter, did Dr. Jordan or Dr. Blakeney -- were they one of
the -- one of the individuals that talked to your group
nationally about the triage setup and how they handled the
medical emergencies?
A. No. These were primarily nursing personnel that came.
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. Were they employees of the Oklahoma Medical
Examiner's office, or were they volunteers, or do you recall?
A. I think one individual was on staff at one of the
hospitals, but they -- as I recall, not associated with, you
know, the -- the Oklahoma City government in any way.
MR. WOODS: Okay. All right. Thank you so much for
taking the time to answer our questions. We appreciate it.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. If I can just follow up on a couple of things because, you
know, you get asked questions now -- three of us have asked you
questions, and we've sort of come from all angles. And I hope
you don't think that you're being tried here. You're not on
trial. But I'm a little confused about your -- some of your
answers.
So one of the things that you said in response to
Mr. Woods was that you've read these things associating
Mr. Nichols with this bombing and that you formed this opinion
that he's guilty and that it would be hard for you -- that if
you had to vote now, you'd vote him guilty.
A. That was the question based upon the information that up
until this point that I have, sir.
Q. All right.
A. It's not based upon, you know, just -- just an opinion.
Q. Now, when we were talking, I told you you had to set
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
opinions like that aside.
A. Right.
Q. And leave them outside the courtroom and not consider them
here. And so I didn't know when you answered that question
whether you were also considering that instruction.
A. Well, I -- I probably -- I certainly was not. I mean, I
was answering his question directly.
Q. Okay.
A. But no, as far as being able to set that opinion aside
based upon being a juror, that would definitely be the case.
Q. Yeah. And -- and that's what all these questions, as I
say, come at you, and there can be confusion; but I think we're
all asking these questions in terms of your service as a juror
and what you believe now you would be able to do. And of
course, we started all of this out with the presumption of
innocence; that Mr. Nichols sits here presumed to be innocent,
because there is no evidence against him now. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now -- and whatever anyone has seen, read, and heard must
be cast aside and ignored. And what you have to tell me is
whether you're able to do that.
A. I'm able to do that, sir, yes. But, you know, asking my
opinion as to how I feel about it at this moment, not giving
that charge, or not giving that responsibility, but given that
responsibility, precisely as you have given the instructions, I
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
would be able to do.
Q. All right. And then, too, when both Mr. Orenstein and
Mr. Woods touched on this matter of the credibility, judging
the credibility of people depending upon who they are and I
didn't give you any instruction about that -- and it was
perfectly appropriate for them to ask these questions of you.
But what the law is is this, and then you tell me your ability
to do it; and that is that all persons who are called to the
witness stand and testify are subject to the same consideration
by the jury with respect to whether what they say is what
happened, whether their perceptions are accurate, whether they
are truthful people. It doesn't make any difference under the
law who they are, what their training is or what their
background is. They are human beings. And the law says:
Jurors, judge them all by the same standards: What is their
testimony when you compare it with the testimony of others? Is
the testimony inherently inconsistent? Did the person have an
adequate opportunity to see, hear, or whatever the person's
testifying about as indicated? And look at the demeanor and
manner of the person, the manner in which he or she answered
questions, and so forth. And all persons are judged by these
same criteria. Are you ready to do that, too, without regard
to their being FBI agents or law enforcement people?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So your experience with respect to these Secret Service
Juror No. 531 - Voir Dire
agents, of course, relates to the individuals you worked with.
And certainly, after a career of nursing, you know there are a
lot of differences among people.
A. Absolutely.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we do appreciate your time
with us. We can't tell you this afternoon whether you're going
to serve on this jury. We hope to be able to tell you in a few
days. We have some more people going through this same process
before we can make a decision. So please bear with us yet a
while longer.
If there is anything that changes, you know, you get
called out of town or some emergency arises, please give us a
call immediately. And we'll be getting back to you shortly.
And in the meantime, please be careful about what you
hear, see, and read on television, radio, whatever and
discussion with others so that you could come in here and
decide fairly on the evidence and under the law.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: You're excused.
(Juror out at 3:17 p.m.)
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, may I just point out -- and
I'd like to make a slight objection, but -- so it doesn't
happen in the future. The Court left the impression with the
juror, in my opinion, that I was somehow asking improper
questions of her.
THE COURT: Well, I didn't mean to.
MR. WOODS: I know you didn't. And I just wanted to
speak to it for the record that in the event it happens again,
it was not a trick question. It was not --
THE COURT: No, I didn't --
MR. WOODS: -- an improper question.
THE COURT: -- mean to suggest that you were
misleading her or anything else. All my purpose was -- and
because I thought she didn't understand the difference
between -- and so she said -- the difference between her
opinions as a person and her responsibilities as a juror.
MR. WOODS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's start the next one.
387.
Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Please raise your right hand and take the
oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 387 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated in that chair by the
microphone. It swivels around so you can adjust it. And you
don't have to adjust it to the microphone, because the
microphone will pick you up. And the only reason for the
microphone is to help us hear you.
JUROR: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: You're not being broadcast somewhere, you
understand.
JUROR: All right.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you know that you're responding to a jury summons that
you received back in July, notifying you of -- through a chance
selection system that you're summoned in for possible jury
service in the trial of the United States against Terry Lynn
Nichols?
A. Yes, sir, I do know that.
Q. You responded to a short questionnaire that we sent you
with that summons; and then after that, you were notified to go
out to the fairgrounds of Jefferson County on September the
17th, which you did. And I appeared there with you and other
jurors; and also, other people were with us and are with us
again today. And I want to reintroduce them as I did then so
you know who's here with us.
Here at this first table are the attorneys for the
Government, beginning with Mr. Lawrence Mackey at this end of
the table and Ms. Beth Wilkinson. You met them before. They
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
are now joined by additional lawyers you didn't meet before,
Mr. Patrick Ryan, Mr. James Orenstein.
You also met Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols, who was there.
And then after introducing these people, I gave you
some explanation about the background of the case, what's
involved in jury service, and then asked you to complete a very
long questionnaire. And that, you did. You answered 166
questions. And you remember doing that?
A. I remember answering a very long questionnaire. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. And now you're being called to answer some more
questions. So please bear with us.
A. All right.
Q. With respect to this written questionnaire, the written
questions and your answers, I have given copies to the people
you've just met here. But they and I are using what you've
told us only for this purpose and won't use it for any other
purpose or give it to anybody else. And also, we know that we
asked you things that are personal and private in nature. And
we do try to protect your privacy and also balance it off
against the public interest in this proceeding. And I hope you
understand. And as a part of that, we're not using your name
here. And also, we arranged for you to come and go to the
courthouse in ways that they can't take news pictures of you
and all of that. But we are now in open court. This is a
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
public proceeding, and what is said here is public. You
understand that?
A. I do understand.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to, first of all, just review with you
briefly what I told you before. And these are things that you
probably knew before I told you anyway. And that is that all
of this arises out of an explosion that took place in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, on April the 19th, 1995. On that day, a
federal office building was destroyed by an explosion. People
in it were killed and injured. Thereafter, charges were filed
in Oklahoma City in the Federal Court there in an indictment,
which is simply a statement of accusations. And the lawyers
for the Government accused a man named Timothy James McVeigh,
along with Terry Nichols -- and then, as the indictment refers
to, "and other persons not named" -- with joining in a
conspiracy or a criminal agreement to bomb that building and to
kill and injure the people in it.
The charges in that indictment include not only such a
conspiracy or plan to do so, but actually carrying it out. And
there are 11 charges in all, eight of them being first-degree
murder, premeditated murder charges, with respect to the deaths
of eight law enforcement officers who died in the explosion.
You knew those things, I'm sure.
A. I did not recall that there were eight; but I knew it was
very, very serious charges that were made.
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
Q. All right. Okay. And then as I told you, there were not-
guilty pleas entered in Oklahoma City by the defendants. The
case got moved over here to Denver for trial because of a
concern about asking the people in Oklahoma City to sit on a
jury when this event happened in their community.
And so when it came over to Denver for trial, I then
ordered separate trials; that it would just be like two
separate cases, one dealing with the evidence concerning
Mr. McVeigh, the other whatever evidence there may -- may be
with respect to Mr. Nichols. Separate juries.
And we already did have a trial with respect to
Timothy McVeigh. A jury was selected through a process similar
to this. Those persons then came in and heard the evidence at
trial concerning Mr. McVeigh, and they returned a verdict of
guilty. Then that jury was asked to do more. They were asked
to hear a second phase or penalty stage and make a
recommendation, and the jury recommended a death sentence.
Now, that's that case and it's over.
Now we're ready to start Mr. Nichols' case, and we
start all over. Nothing that happened in the McVeigh case can
be considered in connection with this case. Otherwise, there
would have been no purpose for separate trial order. You
understand?
A. I do understand that.
Q. Okay. And so now, we're selecting people to serve on the
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
jury and hear the evidence as it may relate to Mr. Nichols.
And of course, what a jury does, I explained a bit, too. And
you've never been on a jury, have you?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. So I -- and most of the people have not, and that's why I
went through an explanation of what the criminal justice system
is all about in terms of the jury: that under the Constitution
of the United States and therefore applicable throughout this
country in all trials, no matter what the charges are or who
the defendant is or even what the court is or who the
prosecutors are, we have the common principle that each person
accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent. That
presumption of innocence carries throughout the trial and
entitles that person to an acquittal, a verdict of not guilty,
unless everybody serving on the jury, considering only the
evidence at trial and following the instructions of the court,
determines that the evidence proves the charges beyond a
reasonable doubt.
No person who is accused has any burden or duty of
proving himself not guilty or proving anything at trial.
There's no obligation to an accused person to call any
witnesses or introduce any evidence or to testify. No person
accused is required to answer questions from the lawyers or the
court or to explain anything in his trial. He can simply
remain silent and challenge the government's evidence, because
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
it is the government's duty through its lawyers to come in with
the exhibits and the witnesses; and the defense then can simply
object to the admission of certain evidence, cross-examine
witnesses, and challenge the case all the way.
And then at the end of the trial, the court gives
instructions in detail with the jury listening, and the court
explains all that has to be proved, what are the essential
elements of each crime that's charged, and says these things
must be proved and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
And in a case in which a defendant does not testify,
one of the instructions is you cannot consider that. You can't
draw any inferences or assumptions from it. There are many
reasons why a person accused who is innocent of a crime does
not testify. So what I tell juries then is you can't even talk
about that. Not a factor.
And then the jury is asked, "well, does this evidence
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or doesn't it? And if
there is a reasonable doubt, then the jury must give the
defendant the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty.
You've heard of most of these things or all of them
before, have you?
A. I have, sir.
Q. And do you agree with these principles?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you agree to follow them in this case if you were to
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
serve?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, you know, in plain terms, here sits Terry Nichols
in this courtroom this afternoon presumed to be innocent of
these charges made against him. You agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, you did answer a lot of questions, so we
know some things about you. We're not going to go through all
of this again. There are a few things that I want to review
with you and in a few cases ask you for some more information,
then explain a few more things. Then when I'm done with
questioning you, a lawyer for each side will have an
opportunity to ask you some things. So please bear with us yet
a while.
A. All right.
Q. You told us that you're from St. Paul, Minnesota?
A. Born there, yes.
Q. Yeah. And then you, with your family, moved over to
Michigan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you went to high school in Lansing?
A. I did.
Q. Then you went to college in Ann Arbor at the University of
Michigan?
A. I did.
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
Q. Got a nursing degree there?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Came to Colorado?
A. I did. Well, I stopped in Missouri with my ex-husband.
Q. Oh, yes. All right. And you're divorced now?
A. I am.
Q. And what were you doing when you were in Missouri?
A. I was a public health nurse in a rural community.
Q. And what was he -- what type of work did he do?
A. He was in law school at the time.
Q. And he then graduated law school and became a civil lawyer,
as you've told us.
A. Yes.
Q. Civil cases. Were you still married then?
A. Yes.
Q. And where was he practicing?
A. Upon his graduation, we moved to Colorado, and he practiced
here in Denver.
Q. Okay. Was he with a firm here, a law firm?
A. I don't know exactly what the name of the arrangement is,
but he had office space in a firm and -- but earned his own --
Q. Shared with other lawyers overhead and staff?
A. Right. And took the overflow from other lawyers who were
too busy.
Q. Is he practicing here now?
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
A. No. He's in Seattle now.
Q. And practicing law there?
A. It is my understanding he's a workers' compensation
attorney up there.
Q. Okay. And you were divorced about when?
A. We were divorced in 1975.
Q. Okay.
A. No. '76. He left in '75.
Q. Okay. And we're not going to ask you about the details
there. But my understanding from what you said is that his
work was all in civil trials.
A. That's true, yes.
Q. And you had -- then went on to get a master's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At University of Colorado at Denver?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were working at the same time, were you?
A. Yes. I was.
Q. Okay. And now you're working on a doctorate in public
health? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are working toward that degree also from the
University of Michigan?
A. Yes. I'm a commuter student.
Q. Okay. Now, have you -- where are you on that? Have you
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
completed course work?
A. Yes. I have completed course work. I have passed the
comprehensive exams, and I am working on the dissertation.
Q. So have you been back and forth between here and Ann Arbor
to do that?
A. Yes, sir. A lot.
Q. Okay. And do you know what your dissertation is going to
be? Have you selected a topic and had it approved?
A. I -- well, I'm in the approval process of that. My
dissertation -- the background is that I'm working with a
health maintenance organization that's based in Grand Junction.
And they are implementing something called a clinical
guideline, which is sort of a standard procedure for certain
types of cases. And my dissertation will measure whether or
not that dissertation -- whether or not that clinical procedure
improves patient outcomes.
Q. Okay. And this is in the school of public health there,
which is not nursing as such but administration; correct?
A. It's technically a -- a doctorate in health policy through
the school of public health.
Q. Okay. But the school of public health deals with health
administration, the social issues as what -- as compared to
technical medicine? Is that right?
A. Well, part of the school of public health deals with a lot
of epidemiological issues, which are much more technical in
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
nature, environmental kinds of health. And then -- but the
program that I'm in really is more focused on the -- on the
personal health system that we have in the United States and
what's happening to it and whether we can do things to improve
it and make it more cost-effective without reducing the level
of care.
Q. Okay. Now, you are working full-time, as I understand it,
in -- as a lobbyist?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you've been doing that for various health organizations
and other organizations for the past some 17 years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Working with the Colorado legislature?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you also lobbied with the Congress?
A. Very, very little.
Q. Most of your work is at the state house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State capitol. And you've told us that in that work, you,
of course, know a lot of people who are in the legislature and
lawyers and most everybody who has business there. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also know about apparently a number of
organizations. And on page 18, you've told us all of these
organizations that you have some acquaintance with, most of
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
whom also have representatives from time to time up at the
General Assembly.
A. They do indeed.
Q. And is that where you know them from?
A. Let me go down the list here and -- yes.
Q. You made a note here beside Americans for Democratic
Action, "I'm a child of the 60's"?
A. Yes, sir. That's --
Q. Actually, you were also a student of the 60's, I guess.
That's when you were on campus?
A. Yes. I was at the University of Michigan in the 60's.
Q. Does that have significance with respect to your political
views?
A. No, sir. It only has respect with how old I am.
Q. Oh, okay. Well, why did you write, "I'm a child of the
60's" behind "Americans for Democratic Action"?
A. Well, it's really the only place that I know of them -- I
don't know that there is an active group in Colorado. I've
never run into anybody in Colorado.
Q. Okay. You're relating back to the time you were on campus?
A. Yes. And they were very visible on campus.
Q. How about the American agriculture movement? How have you
encountered that group?
A. There was a -- a string of 18-wheel trucks that ringed the
capitol one day. And I don't even recall exactly what the
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
issue was, but it was in general that farmers were not in a
good place and wanted to -- the legislature to do something. I
don't work on agricultural issues, and so I -- my main concern
was threading my way through the trucks to get to my work.
Q. And the patriot movement? How did you hear about them?
A. Well, there's -- there are some individuals that are in the
Colorado capitol that are quite visible in the patriot movement
and active in it.
Q. And is that one of the people you named here as a senator?
I think you named somebody here. Yeah. On page 30 at 131.
A. Page 30.
Q. And maybe this -- I don't know.
A. Oh, yes. Yes. He's the one.
Q. Is that the person you're thinking of?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you associate him with that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. You also have worked with, I take it, and know some
of the people in the Colorado District Attorney's Council.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Including the executive director. And you mentioned at
some point something you did with the Department of Corrections
for Colorado. I can't remember where that was, but --
A. Several years ago -- well, I actually have two connections
with the Department of Corrections. Several years ago -- and I
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
don't even recall if I put this in the questionnaire -- I was
working for the Department of Social Services at the time, and
we were trying to establish a linkage between what had happened
to people in foster care and then how many of them ended up in
the prison system. And I ended up working with people in the
prison system, gathering information about that that I then
took back to the Department of Social Services and analyzed.
And I also -- I represent the Colorado Nurses Association.
They are one of my lobbying clients. And the chairman of our
legislative committee in that association works for the
Department of Corrections in the -- I'm blanking. I have a
brain cramp. In the diagnostic center. And so I hear her
discuss --
Q. Okay.
A. -- various issues in the diagnostic center.
Q. Have you ever worked with the Department of Corrections
directly?
A. No, sir.
Q. You mention speaking of friends and acquaintances that
someone who's in graduate school with you lives in Oklahoma
City?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I don't -- is this a man or woman?
A. She's female.
Q. Okay. And she was in school with you here?
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
A. We were all in the -- in the program at Michigan in Ann
Arbor.
Q. Oh, all right. And you keep in correspondence or E-mail
or --
A. We are all connected by E-mail regularly.
Q. Now, was she living in Oklahoma City in April of 1995?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. And you mention that "Not hurt." Has she discussed this
with you by E-mail or directly, any of her experiences or her
perceptions or whatever?
A. Well, at the time that it happened, our legislature was in
session, and I heard about it while I was at the capitol. And
by the time I got home that night and onto the E-mail system,
she had already sent a note to all of us saying, "There's been
an explosion. I'm okay. I was not involved with it." And
several of us -- there was a -- a few days of discussion with
many of us in our class saying, "Is there anything we can do?
Do you need anything? You know, are you -- are you okay
emotionally?" and that sort of thing.
Q. Sure.
A. And she wrote back and said, "Yes" --
Q. What -- what was she doing there at that time; do you know?
A. She is employed by the Oklahoma Department of -- the
equivalent of Social Services. I don't know what they call it
in Oklahoma. And was working on their welfare reform efforts
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
at the time. And we just didn't know how close the state
office buildings were to that federal building and so we didn't
know what her situation was.
Q. I see. And do you continue to correspond with her through
E-mail or whatever?
A. I continue to correspond with her by E-mail. I do not --
we have -- the only other discussion we have had about this
issue was when the -- the trials were transferred from Oklahoma
City to Denver and she said, you know, what -- basically she
said, "What do you know about this judge?" And I said --
Q. I don't know if I want to pursue this. Well, did she share
her opinions about that with you?
A. No. No. She just -- she just wanted to sort of
acknowledge that we now had this additional link, and so we --
it was a very brief conversation.
Q. Have you had any communication with her since you got your
jury summons?
A. No. And she does not know that I am involved in this at
all.
Q. Now, you know, if you were to serve on this jury and have
to make a decision about this case, do you feel that this
relationship with this friend from graduate school would affect
you?
A. Well, I think that having that friendship has brought home
very vividly the -- the seriousness of the event that happened
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
there and the way that it -- it shattered many lives. I -- I
have never communicated with her about this particular
individual. I -- to be honest with you, we were buried in
biostatistics at the time, and I do not know many of the
details of the case. And so I think that my main concern would
be to do this in a fair way rather than -- I don't feel that
I -- my friendship with her is any obligation.
Q. Well, that's what I was about to touch on. Do you feel
some -- that you must answer to her for your verdict here if
you were to serve on the case?
A. No.
Q. And that if you return a verdict of not guilty, that would
be something that would affect your relationship or you'd have
to explain it to her or something?
A. She might ask for the reasoning behind it, but I don't get
the impression from her that she would chastise me for whatever
I did here.
Q. Okay. And you said in your responses here to these many
questions on page 30 that you recognize the importance -- let's
turn to page 30 at 129 -- of agreeing to follow the Court's
instructions to protect the rights of the accused and the
process and maintain fairness.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course, that refers to not only instructions about
avoiding publicity and all that, but everything connected with
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
the case because the Court gives instructions during jury
selection, before the trial begins, during the trial, and at
the end of the trial, you understand.
A. I do understand.
Q. And these instructions include the basic things that we've
already reviewed and also can include detailed matters that
come up in the course of the trial, whether particular evidence
does or doesn't come in, and what -- how a jury must hear and
consider some things. You understood that's what this question
meant.
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Okay. And we also asked you some questions here regarding
the criminal justice system. I'm looking at page 22. And your
opinion overall of the effectiveness of the system, you say
"Adequately. Sometimes there are -- they are understaffed, but
I think they try their best." Who is the "they"?
A. Basically, almost -- virtually everybody that's involved
with the system.
Q. All right. I need to ask you some questions regarding your
attitude about and opinions about punishment.
A. Okay.
Q. And we asked you some of this on the questionnaire, you may
remember. On page 28 are the particular questions, but 27 is
the preliminary with respect to it in which you're -- it is
explained that even though Mr. Nichols is presumed to be
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
innocent, we have to ask you about your ability to serve in the
issue of punishment if that should happen. And we have to do
this because we only, you know, go through jury selection once.
And the same jury that is involved in determining whether the
evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is also
involved in punishment if that happens, if there's a
conviction. So as explained, there was no suggestion here as
to what the outcome of the case might be. And what we asked of
you was if you were in the General Assembly, what would you do
about the death penalty and what would you do about punishment
for life imprisonment as possible punishments for differing
types of crime. And is that the way you understood these
questions?
A. I believe so. I --
Q. Okay. And you answered. And I must ask of you whether --
if I asked you these same questions today, would you give us
the same answers?
A. Gee, I hope so. I don't remember exactly what I said,
but --
Q. Well, please look and see. I don't mean to catch you at a
disadvantage.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is this -- I don't know. Were you ever lobbying up
in the state capitol building when the death penalty was
debated up there? Do you remember?
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
A. I believe so.
Q. Well, you know there's a lot of disagreement about whether
there ought to be a death penalty; and in some states, there is
none. And in any one state, it may have changed from time to
time. And there are people who have very strong opinions on
this subject, some believing there should never be a death
penalty, some believing that there always should be a death
penalty for murder of any kind and then a whole lot in between.
And I think you've told us your view from -- from the
standpoint of making the law. And I think you've expressed it
here in a way that I don't need to question further.
I must now talk to you for a few minutes about the way
the law actually is and what is involved in the process in
Federal Court. Because despite these variations among the
states, we're in Federal Court, we're operating under statutes
passed by the Congress, and the law here is quite clear. And
the punishment of life in prison and death are available in
cases of murder, you know, premeditated, planned killing of
other people. And the law says that for cases like that,
there's the possible punishment of life in prison without any
chance of ever getting out. The person spends the rest of his
natural life in prison, another is death, and a third is
something less than either of those two and decided by a judge.
Now, in cases that do not involve capital punishment,
sentences are decided by judges, and so in that type of case, a
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
jury decides guilty or not guilty based on the sufficiency of
the evidence. Either way, the jury's job is done. They don't
have any role to play in punishment. A judge decides the
sentence. And before making a decision as to the sentence, the
judge hears a lot more than what was presented at the trial.
Indeed, there is another separate hearing on the question of
sentencing. The issue is not decided right on the basis of the
verdict. And before that sentencing decision is made, there's
a lot of information collected both with respect to the crime,
circumstances of the crime, effect on the victims and the like.
And then there's also information gathered about the defendant
himself. All about him, as a matter of fact. The whole life
story, born and raised, education, family structure, marriages,
divorces, employment, children, military service, something
about what good he's done and something about what bad he's
done if there is, any prior record, and also role in the
offense, what -- what participation did this particular person
have. And of course, that recognizes that there may be crimes
involving two or more persons committing the same crime in the
same event, but they may have very different roles that they
played, levels of participation. All of those things are
collected and presented to the judge at a hearing, and both
sides argue, and the judge decides a sentence for each person
individual as to that person. And if there's a crime with more
persons, the sentences may be different among these people
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
because they are so dependent upon these individual
circumstances and characteristics of this person. Understand?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Now, under federal law, when the issue comes down to life
or death because the crime involves an intentional killing, the
Congress said judges don't make that decision, juries do. And
that should be decided, this life-or-death question by the 12
people who heard the case, the same jury. So in the event of a
verdict of guilty in a case like that, the jury has much more
to do. They must come in and hear all of the same kinds of
information that I've just referred to that judges consider in
making individualized sentencing decisions. And so there is a
second or separate trial at which witnesses are called in,
evidence is taken, follows the same sequence and process as the
court -- as is involved in the court of the trial of the
evidence. So both sides are involved.
There's -- witnesses are called, as I say, and
exhibits are offered. And the evidence does include more about
the crime than was presented at the trial and more about the
defendant, much more about the defendant, indeed, most
everything that can be learned about that person. And then at
the end of it, the court instructs the jury, summarizing what
has been presented and also, dividing it up into two
classifications: On the one hand, the things that are referred
to as aggravating circumstances, aggravating factors, those
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
things that may suggest to the jury that death is the deserved
punishment for this person and this crime; on the other hand,
mitigating circumstances or mitigating factors, things that
suggest that while death is an available punishment for the
crime, this person does not deserve to be put to death. And we
call those mitigating circumstances, as I say, mitigating
against the death penalty.
And then the court may suggest to the jury some
questions that the jurors may use in analyzing this
information, sorting it out, discussing it as the jurors, the
12 jurors will discuss it. But then in the end, you know,
there's no formula, no equation. You can't say to the jury
this is exactly how you decide it, add and subtract. The jury
has to make a judgment representing the conscience of the
community, and the judgment is a reasoned moral decision based
on all that has been presented. Each juror must then decide
individually whether this person should live or die.
Understand?
A. That's a very awesome responsibility. Yes. I understand.
Q. Okay. And what we must ask of you is your ability to
fulfill that responsibility and make a decision based on all
that you have heard, considering not only the circumstances of
the crime and the things you hear about the crime but also all
of the things that are presented about the defendant as a
unique and individual human being. Can you do that?
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
A. I believe so. I clearly have never been in a situation
where I had to do that. I have no history to speak to, but --
Q. And we can't tell you what those circumstances are going to
be. We can't tell you what the evidence is going to be. We
can't tell you what information would be presented or even if
there would be such a punishment trial because as we sit here
this afternoon, the assumption is there won't be. The
assumption is that there won't be enough evidence to convict
the defendant. Understand?
A. I do.
Q. So obviously, we have to ask a tough question; and that is,
you know, are you one of those who would be open, not at either
of these extremes with respect to views of the death penalty,
but open to considering death, life in prison without release,
or a lesser punishment and not make a decision till you've
heard it all?
A. My training as a nurse clearly makes me think that one
favors life when you can. But I also understand that there are
occasions when the seriousness, the gravity of it, dictates
that a punishment that is called for is called for.
Q. And are you -- when you say "called for," are you including
in the "called for" all of the information that would be
presented, not just the crime, but the person whose life is in
the hands of the jury?
A. Yes. I -- I think that would be important to consider.
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we have yet some additional
questions with lawyers from each side. I'm going to take a
break before we start.
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: All right. So if you'll step out, we'll
have you back in 20 minutes and complete this process.
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Okay. 4:15.
(Recess at 3:55 p.m.)
(Reconvened at 4:14 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
All right. If you'll resume the seat, please, we'll
call for Ms. Wilkinson.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Good afternoon, ma'am.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. As the Judge told you, my name is Beth Wilkinson, and I'm
one of the prosecutors who will be presenting the evidence in
this case against Mr. Nichols. I just have a few questions
that I want to ask you. Most of them are following up on
things that you told the Judge; but one thing I'd like to ask
you about is something that you responded to on page 34, if you
Juror No. 387 - Voir Dire
could turn to that.
I think -- is that where we gave you a long list of
names?
A. Yes.
Q. Without saying out loud the name there that you say you
recognize, can you tell me the last time that you spoke to that
person?
A. It was well before 1988 in my memory.
Q. And did you know this person on a professional level, a
personal level, or both?
A. Professional primarily.
Q. And generally, what was that person doing at the time that
you knew her?
A. She was involved with -- as my -- you can tell I'm getting
old -- my memory says that she was involved with city
government and was active in some role in city government, and
I do not recall what it was.
Q. And how did you come