The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Transcripts
Terry Nichols
Tuesday, October 28, 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 51)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 1:32 p.m., on the 28th 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 1:32 p.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
399. Is that next?
MR. TIGAR: 399.
THE COURT: 399.
MR. TIGAR: I'm sorry, your Honor. I didn't hear.
THE COURT: I'm a little confused about the next one,
but I think that's right.
399. Okay.
Good afternoon. Would you please raise your right
hand and take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 399 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Would you please be seated in the chair by
the microphone. And you don't need to worry about the
microphone --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- in terms of leaning into it or
whatever. It'll pick you up where you are, and we're only
using it to help us hear you, you understand. It's not
something being broadcast.
JUROR: Okay.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you know that as the oath refers to the defendant now
on trial, we're talking about selecting a jury for the trial of
the case of the United States against Terry Lynn Nichols. You
received a summons back in July, notifying you that you have
been called in through a random selection process. You
returned a short-form questionnaire to us giving us some
information about you, then got a notice to appear at the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds' auditorium building on September
the 17th, and you did that. And I was there and introduced
myself and explained the background of the case and also
introduced the people participating in the case, and I want to
do that again so you know who's here with us this afternoon.
Beginning with the attorneys for the Government who
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
are at this first table, you met previously Mr. Mackey,
Lawrence Mackey, and Beth Wilkinson. And now they are joined
by Mr. Patrick Ryan and Mr. Geoffrey Mearns, additional
lawyers. They were not there, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mearns, when we
gathered before.
But you did meet Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald
Woods, attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Terry Nichols, of
course, being the defendant, was present.
And then I explained about -- something about the
background of the case and then asked you to complete a very
long questionnaire, and you did that. And we have made copies,
as I told you we would make copies, of what you wrote, provided
it to these people who are participating in this, but not to
anybody else. And of course, we're only using what you told us
for purposes of this process and won't distribute it anywhere
else. So we know that there's a privacy interest in some of
these things.
We've asked you a lot of things about your personal
life, and I hope you understand the reason for doing that and
the need for doing that; but we try to balance your privacy and
the public interest in the proceeding, and that's why we're not
using your name here. And in the course of the questioning --
and there will be some more questions yet -- we'll try to avoid
things that might identify you. And it's also for this reason
of your privacy that we arranged this way for you to come and
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
go so you can't be put on television and your identity
revealed. And that's the only reason for that, you understand.
Now, you should know that we are in open court. This
is public now and so what is said here may be reported, and
there are people here who will probably be doing that. Okay.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I want to just go back and repeat some of the things
already said and which I'm pretty confident you already know,
but, you know, in court proceedings, we do a lot of things that
are almost obvious but we do them for the record and establish
sort of a foundation for what we're going to do. And what we
are going to do is I'm going to ask you a few more questions,
some of which will be based on answers that you gave us. We're
not going to go through everything here. And some of these
things, we'll just be asking you to give us a little more
information about some of the things you've already told us.
And then I'm going to also talk with you some about the law.
And before we begin, you should understand, as I said
when these questionnaires were passed out, you should not
assume anything with respect to the significance of any
particular question asked of you. And also, there's no right
or wrong answer. I mean, we've asked you factual things, and
we rely on what you've told us about that; but in areas where
we are asking you about opinions, beliefs, attitudes, there's
no right or wrong answer. There's just your answer, and you
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
don't have to be defensive about anything you tell us or
worried about how we're going to react to it.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, to review then the background, this case arises from
an explosion that took place in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on
April the 19th of 1995. On that day, a federal office building
was destroyed, people in it -- some of the people in it were
killed and some injured. Thereafter, charges were filed by
lawyers for the Government in the U.S. District Court in
Oklahoma City in the form of an indictment, a statement of
accusation; and the charges that were filed -- there are 11 in
number -- but they all concern this same thing; that the
Government has accused a man named Timothy James McVeigh, along
with Terry Lynn Nichols -- and then the indictment refers to
"other persons not named" -- with joining into a conspiracy, a
criminal agreement or plan, to bomb the building and to kill
and injure people in it.
Then the charges include that, in addition to a
conspiracy or forming an agreement to do that, they did. And
then the allegations include eight charges or counts of
first-degree murder, planned, premeditated murder of eight
people working for law enforcement agencies of the national
government who died in the explosion.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
To these charges, the defendants entered their pleas
of not guilty, thereby creating the issues for trial.
The case was moved then for trial from Oklahoma to
here in Denver for the reason that there was a concern about
asking people in Oklahoma where this happened to sit on a jury.
And then after the trial was moved here, I entered an order for
separate trials, and that was based on the belief and the
finding that it would be unfair to both defendants for them to
be on -- at trial at the same time before the same jury,
recognizing that there may well be substantial differences in
the evidence as it pertains to each of them.
And so as a result of that ruling, there has been a
trial held with the defendant -- Timothy James McVeigh as the
defendant and his lawyers and Government counsel. And a jury
selected like what we're doing here heard that trial, heard
that evidence, and returned a verdict of guilty as to
Mr. McVeigh. Then that jury was required to also hear a second
trial on the question of punishment and came back with a
recommendation for a sentence to death as to Timothy McVeigh.
These things, you probably were aware of before I ever told
you.
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then I went on to explain something about jury
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
service, the principles of law that apply in jury trials and so
forth because most of the people there had never been in a --
in a trial. Now, you had served on a jury at one time in the
Denver municipal court?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was about how long ago?
A. Boy, it was -- it was a long time ago. I can't even
remember specifically when. It was probably -- let's see. I
was probably 22, maybe, something like that. So probably --
Q. Okay.
A. -- a good 12 to 13 years ago.
Q. And I'm -- you have your questionnaire there.
A. Yes.
Q. I don't mean to take you at a disadvantage. You're
certainly free to look at what you wrote.
A. Sure.
Q. And it's on page 26 that you told us about this previous
jury trial.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you recall now how many persons were on the jury?
A. I believe it was a six-person jury.
Q. Okay. And this was for -- I guess you do give us the date,
1981 there.
A. Oh, okay.
Q. Yeah. This was a domestic disturbance as you described the
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
case. Can you just tell us briefly what it -- what you
remember the evidence being?
A. I believe it was a dispute between a boyfriend and
girlfriend or it was a husband and wife in which he had pushed
or punched her during the fight or whatever, it was -- that was
going on, and then he left the residence or whatever. The
police picked him up later, and he was then charged with that.
Q. But do you remember what the jury did?
A. Yes. We found him guilty.
Q. And were you the person selected as the foreperson?
A. No. I wasn't.
Q. Okay. Now -- and you told us that, I see. Do you remember
what -- were there lawyers on both sides?
A. I believe there were -- for the defense was a public
defender. But yes, there were.
Q. All right. Okay. And do you remember whether the
defendant testified -- the person accused, whether he
testified?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. All right. And, what, essentially denied that he intended
to hurt her or something like that?
A. He said that he might have pushed or attempted to stop her
from leaving or, you know, had not intended to do what he was
charged with, so . . .
Q. So I take it, essentially, the jury didn't believe his
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
testimony?
A. There was quite a bit of evidence towards the contrary.
Similar to -- I believe there was pictures or some kind of
bruising or something similar to that so . . .
Q. Yeah. Well, we're not cross-examining you on that verdict
or the outcome. We just want to get a general idea of what the
experience was for you.
A. Yeah. There was quite a bit of evidence that was towards
the contrary to what he was saying and supported her case, if I
remember correctly.
Q. The jury talked about it for a while and reached a result.
Do you have a recollection how long that trial was?
A. It was a -- I think it took probably the better part of a
week. Three to four days, probably.
Q. And the jury deliberated -- do you remember about how long?
A. An afternoon. I believe we deliberated four or five hours.
Q. Pretty thorough discussion, as you recall?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Well, again, you're not here to answer for that verdict;
and of course, as you recognize, jurors don't have to answer
for their verdict and how they deliberate about a case, and
what each other -- what is said there is a matter that stays in
confidence with the jury. That's part of the system. And I
just want to review a couple of fundamentals here, things that
you probably remember hearing at that trial as well, but --
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
because I assume the court gave some instructions to the jury.
And, you know, there are certain instructions that apply across
the board to all cases because -- in the United States because
they are required by the Constitution of the United States and
are matters of fundamental fairness, beginning with the right
to jury trial, to have a case decided by a jury. And in -- in
a municipal court situation, that can be a jury of six. Here,
we're talking about a jury of 12. And of course, the process
we're engaged in is to find jurors who can perform the service
that is required under the law of listening to the evidence and
deciding on the evidence and following the law.
And basic to the process, too, in addition to the
jury's participation, is the presumption of innocence and the
burden of proof so that each person who is accused in the
United States in any of our courts is presumed to be innocent
of whatever charge has been brought against him, and that
person then is entitled to that presumption of innocence
carrying throughout the trial and entitled to a verdict of
acquittal or not guilty unless the jury listening and
considering the evidence can -- believes that the crime has
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Understood?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And in the case that you mentioned, the reason that I asked
you if the defendant testified is that the law is that no
person who is accused is required to testify or to offer any
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
evidence. Certainly, he doesn't have to prove himself not
guilty. It is the government, whatever government it is,
local, state, federal, bringing the charge -- those lawyers
have the burden of proving it. And that means bringing in the
witnesses and the exhibits and whatever is relied on to prove
the offense charged.
A defendant not only does not have to introduce any
evidence, but, of course, a defendant need not answer any
questions and need not explain anything. The defendant can
simply remain silent throughout the trial and simply challenge
the government's proof by way of cross-examining the witnesses,
objecting to testimony and exhibits and the like. You're aware
of these points?
A. Yes.
Q. And in addition to being aware of them, do you agree with
them?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And so you heard also, I'm sure, that the proof that is
required for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And therefore, if at the end of a trial, when the court gives
the jury instructions on exactly what has to be proved for the
offense -- we refer to these as elements of the offense. If
after considering what they heard and saw as evidence and
discussing it, the jurors have a reasonable doubt about whether
the case is proved, the duty of the jury is to return a verdict
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
of not guilty. Understood?
A. Yes.
Q. And as a part of that, too, we caution the jury in a case
in which a defendant does not testify that they may not
consider that fact. They can't assume a person's hiding
something or that if he's innocent, why doesn't he tell us
that. You cannot consider or even discuss the fact that a
defendant doesn't testify if that be the case. Understood?
A. I do.
Q. Now, are you ready to follow these points and these
principles if you serve on this jury?
A. Yes, I could do that.
Q. So you understand that Mr. Nichols sits with us this
afternoon presumed to be innocent of these charges and that he,
as any other defendant, is entitled to the benefit of any
reasonable doubt if there be any remain after the evidence is
considered?
A. Right.
Q. Now, we asked you some things about your background. As I
understand it, you were born and raised right here.
A. Uh-huh. That's correct.
Q. And have lived continuously in this area.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. And you work for the firm that you identify on page 9. You
have your questionnaire there, again; and if you'll turn to
that.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, we're not talking about the name of that firm right
now. But you've worked there, steady employment for, what, 14
years or more?
A. Yeah. That's correct.
Q. And then you show the other jobs that you've had before
that, also on page 9.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, as I understand it from your description of your job
duties, it is, as you say, supportive of marketing efforts for
the product made by this company.
A. Right. Sales and marketing support.
Q. Do you travel in that work?
A. No. No. We handle -- the Denver metro area is our
restricted area.
Q. All right. But do you go out from the office where you
work --
A. Yeah. Within the Denver metro area, I do.
Q. Yeah. And you do some promotions within the establishments
that sell the product?
A. Right. That's included special events in the summertime,
different promotional things.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. All right. But it also includes in-store displays and
things like that, does it?
A. Yeah. My part of it is mainly the support of -- there's
two main facets of the company as far as salespeople, and my
part of it is support of both sides of that.
Q. Okay.
A. So . . .
Q. So now, if there's a special event like a baseball game or
something where there's a promotion, you are involved in that?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. In setting it up and --
A. Yeah. Different advertising elements that we have that we
use at different areas or whatever is appropriate for whatever
type of event it is.
Q. Okay. And have you done other work for the same company
before you got this job?
A. Yeah. I did.
Q. Like production-line work?
A. More the -- ours is a distribution element, and so ours is
mainly different elements of sales.
Q. I see.
A. And I've worked in different areas in that.
Q. So it's all been sales and marketing?
A. Right.
Q. Here in the Denver office, which is different from the
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
places where the product is made.
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Now, you also -- on page 11, we asked you about
types of employment in the family, and you marked security
guard.
A. Right.
Q. Why? Who is that referring to?
A. What would happen is as a part-time job back in the earlier
years in the other jobs, sometimes I worked two jobs. In the
years that I worked at May D&F and certain other, you know,
part-time lesser-paying jobs, I had a second job doing that.
Q. Yeah. And was it like a security guard for a building
or --
A. No. It was concert-related.
Q. Pardon?
A. Concert-related.
Q. Okay.
A. Mainly in the field of working for the local concert
promoter, just doing different responsibilities during
concerts.
Q. Like up at Red Rocks?
A. Yeah. Are you familiar with the T-shirts? The people that
wear the T-shirts, not necessarily the police, but they wear
the T-shirts that say "security" on the back. Something like
that. That's what I did.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. Then we asked you about your awareness of a number of
different organizations. And page 18 is this reference at
Question 84. And you've marked a number of them and then said,
"I have heard of these."
A. Yes.
Q. I take it what you're telling us is you've heard of them,
you don't know beyond that? Well, I guess it varies with
respect to some of them, does it?
A. Yeah. I mean, I would just -- the reason I wrote that was
just that I don't necessarily or haven't subscribed to
literature or, you know --
Q. Okay.
A. -- or active members or participants in any of them, but I
have heard of different -- the different organizations.
Q. Are there any of them where it is true that you are a
member or receive publications or something from any of them or
have been a -- contributed to them?
A. I have contributed to the Fraternal Order of Police through
mailings and stuff like that --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- I have done through that. That, I think, is the only
one that has any type of either contribution or any, you know,
real exchange of literature or anything like that.
Q. Do you remember the context in which you heard of the
American agriculture movement?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. Boy, I don't. It just sounded familiar. I don't.
Q. Or the New World Order?
A. I have heard of that in -- boy, I don't remember -- it's
just the name that sounded familiar.
Q. Sure. That's what we asked you, if you had any --
A. I really don't recall.
Q. How about this last one, the Posse Comitatus?
A. No. I've heard of that one, too, possibly in relation to
the McVeigh trial or something possibly like that. But just in
the covering of the different elements of the -- of the trial
and stuff, probably.
Q. Well, do you remember anything connected with the charges
against Mr. McVeigh that you associate that with?
A. I don't, really. Nothing specifically.
Q. So you're speculating that may be where you heard about it?
A. Possibly. I mean, just talking about the brunt of news
coverage during the McVeigh trial and stuff, just different
organizations and groups sounded familiar, but nothing really
tied into it that I remember specifically.
Q. Okay. Now, you also told us on page 20 that you have a
friend who is a sheriff's deputy in a particular place in
Colorado.
A. Yes.
Q. How close are you to that person?
A. I grew up with him and -- I grew up with him when we were
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
much younger. Just basically kids. I just see him
occasionally now. His mother still lives next door to me, and
he comes to visit occasionally, so . . .
Q. And your mother lives with you now?
A. Right.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you live in the home where you grew up?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And is -- is your mother well? Does she need your care
or --
A. She -- she does well on her own. She's 75, but she does
very well for that age. There's no real specific care that I
give to her.
Q. All right. We then asked you about some other aspects of
your own experience and your attitudes about the criminal
justice system. I want to turn to page 24 for a moment at No.
108.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is this something that happened four years ago, almost four
years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was in Denver?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is one where you were stopped. This is what you
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
did, you entered a plea of guilty and took the consequences, is
that it?
A. Yeah. That's correct.
Q. All right. And then you said on page 22 where we asked you
the very broad question, "Is the criminal justice system" --
well, how do you think it's working, and you gave it a medium
grade here of adequately and then explain your position, which,
as I understand it, is you say it's as good as the people in
it.
A. Yes.
Q. And you see differences. Sometimes it works better than
others depending on the people?
A. Just in the -- the work ethic or the -- the efforts put out
by the people within it.
Q. Including the jury?
A. That's correct. That's part of what I meant, too, is the
people that take the job seriously, put their best effort
forward to do it, an understanding of the law, the people that
interpret it correctly and understand it.
Q. Now, do you -- as you think about -- thought about this and
marked this the way you did, did you have in mind any
particular trials or things that you -- circumstances you read
about where you thought it did not work out the way it should?
A. I didn't really have anything specific to that. You do
hear some people talk sometimes that they don't think they had
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
a good lawyer or they don't think they got a fair shake in
court or something like that. Just general talk among people
you either work with or whatever. No specific stories to rely
on.
Q. And some cases get highly publicized and, of course, are
things that are covered on news, television and --
A. Different viewpoints that people -- basically different
people's opinions, probably. Not necessarily specifically
saying that that -- the person or their lawyer wasn't good or
didn't do a good job. You hear different people's opinions,
you know, and that's basically where that came from.
Nothing -- no specific story.
Q. So what you seem to be saying, in my understanding of it,
is that the system relies heavily on the people involved,
lawyers, jurors, judges, the investigators, everybody involved?
A. Right. Yeah. That's what I believe, people that do, you
know, take the job seriously and understand what they're doing.
Q. And then you did -- on page 30, when we asked of you about
your view of the importance of following instructions, you
agreed strongly that it is important. And you explain this and
you said, "This is a new experience." What did you mean? The
jury service?
A. Of being involved in just the overall aspects of all the
things that go on at this level of trial and just in general,
because I couldn't really -- you know, I remember my jury
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
service, but it has been quite a long time ago.
Q. Okay.
A. And so that's why I do agree from that experience that you
have to follow the court's instructions; and also since it has
been so long since I was able to serve or to do it that you
need the guidance and just basically the instructions to be
able to follow and do things correctly, the parameters of law
or whatever.
Q. You work with other people in the job you do?
A. Yes.
Q. Kind of a team approach to a given event?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And when you got the jury summons, did you mention to these
other people you work with that you've been summoned on this
case?
A. To the selected ones that I either worked with closely or
the ones that I had to tell, supervisors, management, people
like that.
Q. Well, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have told them.
A. Right.
Q. Because that's different from discussing the case and all
that.
A. Right.
Q. What kind of a reaction did you get? What are some of the
things that the people you work with told you or said to you?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. Their reaction was basically just surprised, astounded,
looked at me like I won the lottery, basically. Just the point
of view that it's such a large-reaching, you know, group of
people and how did I end up being one of the ones.
Q. You thought about that yourself?
A. Yeah. That was kind of my reaction, also.
Q. And of course, when you came out to Jefferson County, I
offered some explanation. It's a chance --
A. Right.
Q. -- system and we use a database and take names out.
A. The one jury service that I did perform, that was my one
and sole, you know, jury selection prior to that.
Q. Yeah.
A. And it's been that many years since. So it was just a
surprise, it had been so long.
Q. Okay. Now, we've reviewed the things that are involved in
jury service and of course, in connection with this case; and
I've mentioned that anything that you may have read, seen, or
heard outside the evidence here relating to Mr. Nichols or
relating to anything concerning this whole matter has to be set
aside, has to stay out of the courtroom.
A. Right.
Q. You have to decide on the basis of what you hear and see as
the evidence. You agree with that?
A. (Juror nods head.)
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. And do you believe you can do that?
A. I believe so.
Q. Now, we had to include in this questionnaire some questions
about your opinions and beliefs concerning punishment, and
particularly the punishments of life in prison with no
opportunity to get out, no parole, and the punishment of death.
And you responded to that, and the questions, the particular
questions are on page 28. And there is a -- on 27, there was
an explanation about why we were asking you. Do you remember
this part of the questionnaire?
A. Not specifically without looking at it.
Q. Well, we want you to look at it. Go ahead.
Now, you remember this?
A. Yes.
Q. As I say, in the preceding page 27, there's the explanation
that one should certainly not read into these questions any
inference that there's anybody's expectation that there would
be a guilty verdict in the case. And of course, the law
presumes to the contrary; that there would be a not guilty
verdict in the case.
But because of what the law is and what the jury's
role is in sentencing in a case involving capital punishment in
the Federal Court, we wanted to know something about your views
without hearing the instructions on the law, just what are your
views coming in, so to speak, recognizing as we do and as I'm
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
sure you do, that there are a wide variety of opinions on this
subject of the death penalty and there are a lot of people who
feel very strongly at extremes and then there's a lot in
between the extremes being people who say if you kill somebody,
you should die regardless and those who say there should not be
a death penalty, that's not for courts to decide, and then a
lot in between. You're aware of that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that the issue is often debated publicly.
A. Right.
Q. And that there are differences among the states. There are
states that do not have the death penalty because the
representatives of the people in those states are opposed to
it, and then there are states that have the death penalty but
there are differences in the way in which it's decided. Now,
here, we're under federal law, and federal law does provide
that punishments of this type are decided by a jury. So that's
why we needed to know something about your view. And is this a
matter that you've thought about somewhat since you wrote your
answers?
A. I haven't thought about it deeply. I mean, I just -- since
I wrote the answers and stuff, it has crossed my mind, but --
but not really having --
Q. Well, you just read now what you wrote; right? Would you
give me the same answers now if I asked you the same questions?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to -- and, you know, what I interpret
from what you say, it depends a lot about -- on a lot of
things; is that right?
A. Yeah. Not cut and dried, you know, black and white, but
different factors, circumstances, things that are involved in
it.
Q. Well, I want to review with you what the law is now so that
you have a clear understanding of what would be involved if you
served on the jury and if the jury reached this question. And
that is that the -- well, take the municipal court case you
were on. You -- you -- the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Do you know what happened after that?
A. No. We weren't privy to the sentencing part of it.
Q. Okay. And normally, that's the case. The jury has no role
to play in sentencing. And it's true in Federal Court, too, so
that if the crime is such that it doesn't involve this issue,
then after a jury verdict of guilty, it's up to the judge to
decide upon a punishment. And before a judge can make such a
decision, there has to be another hearing and a lot of
information gathered, both with respect to the circumstances of
the crime and its consequences and its effects on people in the
community and the like, then also, a lot of information about
the defendant as an individual human being because the judge
wants to know who he's sentencing, and therefore, pretty much
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
the life history of that person comes into play. Now, it may
not have for the municipal court violation; but, you know, if
we were talking about a bank robbery or something like this and
a jury had returned a guilty verdict, then the judge would have
to know all about the people found guilty.
And there can be cases, of course, where more than one
person is found guilty of the same crime as two or three
persons joining in on a bank robbery, and there can be
differences in their conduct, their role in the offense. But
then in addition to that, there are going to be differences
among them as to who they are, what their life story has been.
We're talking about things all the way from what family they
were born into, what were the circumstances under which they
were raised, what has their education been, what is their
employment history, has there been military service, how about
marriages, divorces, children, you know, everything that goes
into making up a -- one person's life. And all of us have
differences. And the law says look at the individual, not just
the crime. And it's not a matter of this is the crime, this is
the time. This is the crime, this is the person, what's the
just sentence. And the judge tries to do that, hears from
lawyers for both sides, and says for this crime, this person
deserves this punishment. And as I said, if there are two or
more persons, it may be different.
Now, under federal law, where the -- depending on the
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
crime, certain kinds of crimes do involve this question of
possibility of a sentence to life without ever being
released -- you -- all of your days are spent in prison -- and
a sentence to death, or there can be a lesser sentence. The
life-and-death part of that sentence is not decided by a judge
because the Congress has said that kind of a decision should be
made by the jury, the same jury that heard the trial and -- and
decided on the guilty verdict. But the law also says that
before the jury can arrive at that decision with respect to a
particular person, the individual being sentenced, then the
jury has to hear a lot more in pretty much the same manner that
I've talked about the individualized sentencing done by judges.
So there is a whole second trial or hearing at which
information about the crime and its circumstances is put on and
also about the defendant. And that's done just like the trial
itself in that witnesses are called, exhibits are offered, goes
through the very same type of process. At the end of it, the
judge re -- instructs the jury by summing up or summarizing
what has been heard and then also dividing it into two separate
categories, saying on the one hand, these are things that you
could consider, you, the jury, as aggravating factors, things
that may suggest to you that death is the deserved punishment,
ordinarily things about the crime and its circumstances; and at
the same time, these are the things that you've heard that you
could consider as mitigating factors and should consider. And
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
this can include things about the crime, relative roles in the
offense, but also, much about the defendant. All of these
things, again, are individual to the defendant, his life, his
characteristics; because what the law is saying is before you
decide to take a person's life, you need to know all you can
know about the life you're taking. Understand?
A. I agree.
Q. And then the court may in these instructions include some
questions that may assist the jury in sifting through and
analyzing and discussing that, but there's no formula for it,
there's no, you know -- it's not subject to calculation or
computation. It comes down to a very subjective judgment. And
the jury, the 12 people on the jury, of course, must discuss
it, exchange their views and ideas. But in the end, each juror
has to make a decision as to whether the particular defendant
whose life is in their hands should live or die. And of
course, before making that decision, the jury -- each juror
must consider all that has been submitted.
Now, do you think you can do that?
A. Yes, I believe so. That's what my answers -- basically
where I was going with my answers, too. It was just basically
the -- taking the facts of the case and the circumstances and
things like that into account rather than just a black and
white yes/no-type answer.
Q. Yeah. And you know there have been various efforts to
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
describe what kind of a decision is this, and perhaps the best
one is to refer to it as a reasoned, rational moral judgment
after considering all of the facts and circumstances, including
everything that has been submitted about the person on trial.
Do you agree with that?
A. I agree.
Q. And you could make that decision?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: We have questions from lawyers now. They
have a fair opportunity to ask you some, too.
So, Mr. Mearns, do you have some questions?
MR. MEARNS: I do. Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. MEARNS:
Q. Good afternoon, sir.
A. How are you?
Q. As the Judge told you a little earlier, my name is Geoff
Mearns, and I'm one of the lawyers for the Government that will
be presenting our evidence in this case. You've covered most
of the information in the questionnaire and a little bit more
this afternoon, so I just have very few questions for you if
that's okay.
You told us, I think, on the questionnaire that you
initially heard about the explosion in Oklahoma City on the
radio. Did I read the questionnaire right?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe that's correct. I don't recall exactly.
Q. Okay. I -- did you continue to follow the coverage of the
explosion after that initial --
A. I didn't aggressively seek it, but there was so much of it
that it was everywhere, but -- you know, as far as every news
report you would listen to. I didn't aggressively look into
it, but there was quite a bit of it, yes.
Q. Did you follow any of the coverage on television?
A. Of -- just local newscasts that I would watch or just
whenever you would run into it, yes.
Q. Was there any -- you've told us that you didn't seek it
out, but was there any aspect of the reporting about that event
that you followed with any greater interest than other aspects
of that story?
A. No. Not really. Just the overall case, itself, what was
going on, how extensive damage was. Just the general reports
of different items that went on.
Q. Okay. If you would, if you'd turn to page 34 on the
questionnaire. On that page, Question 148 lists -- gives a
long list of people.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you've put checkmarks next to the names of some of
those people, as -- as I understand your response, to people
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
that you've heard of.
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And one of the people that you've listed there is
Timothy McVeigh.
A. Right.
Q. Do you recall where you were when you heard about the
verdict in Mr. McVeigh's trial?
A. Yes, I do, actually. I was out of town visiting relatives
in another state. Just caught it on the news at their house.
Q. Was that a trial -- or was the coverage of that trial
something that you followed closely or was this --
A. Same -- similar pattern. I enjoy current events and -- and
enjoy watching the news and things like that, so I usually do
catch a regular newscast once a day or something like that.
And it was within that.
Q. Do you recall having a reaction one way or another when you
heard that -- that news?
A. Not specifically. I don't know. Not really. Not that I
can think of.
Q. One of the other names that you've checked there is Terry
Nichols; and by that, I assume you mean the defendant in this
trial.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you told us later -- there are several more
questions specifically about Mr. Nichols later in the
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
questionnaire. Am I correct in understanding -- I think you
wrote in one response that you don't know nothing much about
him at all?
A. Right.
Q. Do you have any opinion one way or another, then, about
coming into this trial?
A. As far as guilt or innocence?
Q. That's right.
A. No. Not really.
Q. So then I take it that you'll have no problem following the
Court's instructions that whatever you've heard, you have to
leave behind before you can serve?
A. That's correct. I understood that.
Q. You also checked there that you've heard about James
Nichols.
A. Right.
Q. Could you share with us what you may recall about what
you've heard about James Nichols.
A. Probably through television reports, through the news. I
believe that he's Terry's brother. That's about it. Just that
I heard his name in the media.
Q. And then you also checked Michael and Lori -- well, yes,
Michael and Lori Fortier?
A. Right.
Q. Can you recall for us what you may have heard or read about
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
the Fortiers?
A. Through news reports, their attendance at the -- at the
last trial, their names being mentioned as witnesses or for one
side or the other, they were there.
Q. So you don't recall anything about the reporting of the
substance of their testimony?
A. Not really. Not specifically what they were about.
Q. Okay. And finally, I -- I had planned to ask you a couple
of questions about punishment, the issues that were covered on
the questionnaire and -- and what the Court has gone over with
you, but you anticipated my question in one of your responses
in which I think you said that your view of what the law should
be is essentially what you understand the law to be as the
Judge just explained it to you.
A. Right.
Q. And that is that you understand that you have to keep an
open mind about punishment in the case?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And are you willing to consider all of the evidence,
all of the evidence about the crime and all of the -- of I
think what you referred to as the mitigating factors before you
decided what the appropriate punishment is?
A. That's correct.
MR. MEARNS: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Woods.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
MR. WOODS: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Good afternoon.
A. Hi.
Q. I'm the last one. The Judge and the Government lawyer have
already covered just about everything. We have to go last, so
most things have been covered.
My name is Ron Woods. Along with Mike Tigar, we were
appointed by the district judge in Oklahoma City shortly after
May the 10th of '95. May the 10th was the date that these
lawyers filed charges against Terry Nichols, accusing him of
being responsible for the bombing that occurred in (sic) April
the 19th, '95.
How do you feel about him having court-appointed
lawyers to help him out here in court against all these
lawyers?
A. Whatever makes it fair.
Q. Okay. You mentioned in the trial that you participated in
as a juror that you thought the lawyer was a public defender.
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. What -- did he identify himself as a public defender or did
you get that impression, draw that conclusion, or what
happened?
A. I believe there was some mention of that in the -- in the
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
trial process at some point in time.
Q. Okay. Did the defendant suffer by having a court-appointed
lawyer?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Okay. Do we start off at a disadvantage with you because
Mr. Nichols couldn't afford to hire his own lawyers?
A. No. Not at all.
Q. When you went to Jeffco Fairgrounds last month on the 17th,
what did you think when you saw Terry Nichols in person for the
first time?
A. Surprised that -- that he was there. Looked like who I'd
recognized on television at different reports and stuff, but
that was basically about it.
Q. Okay. What had you seen on television? What images do you
recall of having seen Terry Nichols?
A. Well, basically, the only thing I've ever seen is the -- in
the orange outfit, whenever that was taken, wherever that film
was taken, in handcuffs, I believe either walking to or from
court or going somewhere.
Q. Could you tell what shackles he had on?
A. No. Not really. Wrists, I know. Handcuffs.
Q. Okay. What did you think when you saw that?
A. Looked like a prisoner.
Q. Okay. How many times have you seen that over and over on
television?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. That's pretty much the only picture of Terry that I've seen
in any case or just whenever -- you -- that's the one you see.
Q. Okay.
A. So . . .
Q. Okay. Now, before I leave that subject on the list of the
names that you said you recognized that the Government lawyer
was going over with you, you checked off Mike Tigar.
A. Right.
Q. What do you recall reading, seeing, hearing about Mike
Tigar?
A. A reference to -- I think it was in the newspaper
somewhere, actually, where they were naming who his lawyers
were going to be and a reference to Tigar and Woods together.
Q. Okay.
A. Kind of tying in the golfer, basically.
Q. Okay.
A. And that's why I remembered it.
Q. Okay. No lasting impressions there about Mr. Tigar, I take
it; right?
A. I haven't seen him golf, so I don't know.
Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned in your questionnaire that you
enjoy reading -- not that you enjoy reading, but that you have
read books by John Grisham and Scott Turow.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And they are both lawyers, as you are aware of.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. Do you recall which books you've read of theirs?
A. My job is very busy, and I don't get as much time to read
as I would like. So I remember, I think, the John Grisham of A=20
Time to Kill. I think I referenced that. Scott Turow, I read
a book by him, but I honestly can't tell you what it was.
Q. Okay. Okay. From those books, did you get any impression
about the criminal justice system?
A. Not really. Not one way or another, no.
Q. Okay. What about any impression of prosecutors?
A. Just lawyers doing their job.
Q. Okay. And then lastly, defense lawyers? Any impressions
about those?
A. No. In fact, on A Time to Kill, I don't think I even
actually finished that book. So no, no real bias one way or
the other as far as how they -- lawyers do their job for the
defendant -- or for their client the best they can.
Q. Okay. And you realize that they are representing their
client, which is the government?
A. Right.
Q. And we're appointed to represent Mr. Nichols?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned to the Government lawyer that you
enjoy current events and you try to follow the news.
A. Uh-huh.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. In your work -- and we're not going to name the company --
do you have like regular hours from like 8 to 5 or do you
have -- of course, with the special events, I assume that you
work after hours?
A. Right.
Q. Do you work a lot of nights?
A. I work a lot of hours overall. I mean, it does vary. It
can usually start early in the morning and work till, you know,
the afternoon or either midafternoon until the normal time to
get off work. There's a lot of weekend work. Very flexible
hours and usually a lot of hours.
Q. Okay. Are there any news programs that you watch like "60
Minutes," "48 Hours," "Dateline," all those?
A. I usually try to -- I don't religiously watch each one
every week, but if there's one on and I'm available, yeah, I
tend to watch those.
Q. Okay. Do you recall seeing any shows that they put on
about the Oklahoma City bombing or the McVeigh or the -- the
McVeigh trial or the upcoming Nichols trial?
A. I haven't seen anything about the Nichols trial at all,
upcoming at all. Obviously stayed away from all that. During
the course of the -- the McVeigh trial and stuff, there were
some -- segments they would do or something like that that I
probably did watch those.
Q. Okay.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. No real one stands out, but I probably did see something
like that.
Q. Okay. Okay. Now, on page 33, if you'd look at your
questionnaire. Question 144 asks the sources that you may have
heard about the Oklahoma City bombing case, the media sources,
and you checked TV news, radio news, newspaper and
conversations.
A. Right.
Q. Have you discussed the case at work with your co-workers?
A. Not a great deal at all previous to the summons for jury
service.
Q. I'm not talking about any time after you got your
instructions from the Court.
A. No.
Q. We realize you followed the instructions. I'm talking
about up until that date. It's been going on -- since
two-and-a-half years now.
A. Yeah. No. No real specific conversations, not really a
big topic of conversation at work.
Q. Okay. Who did you have conversations with then or why did
you check that blank?
A. More than likely, it's just overhearing people talk about
it or, you know, somebody will say they came in with a verdict.
You know, when there were big developments in the case or
something like that, you'd overhear people speaking of it or
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
possibly say did you hear or a new development, but basic
passing conversations.
Q. Okay. Okay. Well, from all the sources that you've been
exposed to over the last two-and-a-half years, do you recall
from what you've seen, read, or heard how many people were
killed in the bombing?
A. I believe that the number is 160-something.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe.
Q. Do you recall whether or not there were children that were
killed?
A. Yes. I did hear about that.
Q. And the reason why there were children killed in a federal
building?
A. Let me think about that. I don't -- oh, because there was
a -- some kind of facility in there that they were at or
attending or something.
Q. Okay. Do you remember how many children were killed?
A. No. I can't tell you that.
Q. Okay. Now, assume that you saw the images on television
the day of the bombing and the day afterwards of the rescue
efforts and the medical care that was being rendered to the
victims on the scene and then the dead bodies that were being
taken out of there. Is it correct that you saw those at the
time?
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Think you'll ever forget those images?
A. I don't have any real specific images, you know, like
blueprinted on my mind or something; so I mean, obviously, it
was a big event that went on. And from that point of view, I
probably would not forget the event or what went on with it,
but I don't think -- I don't have any real lasting, you know,
individuals or anything that I have blueprinted.
Q. The reason I ask the question, if you were chosen to be on
the jury, it's likely that the Government will call a number of
witnesses to the witness stand to relive that and there will be
videos and there will be movies and film and -- and photographs
and some very emotional testimony and exhibits. It'll be very
sad, heart-wrenching. And there will be a number of people
crying within the courtroom. It'll be very, very emotional.
And my question to you is if you were on the jury, can you look
at that testimony for what it is; that is, the evidence of the
crime, which nobody disputes? It's undisputed about what
happened in Oklahoma City on April the 19th --
A. Right.
Q. -- and the number of people killed, the identity of who was
killed and their cause of death. But that will be very
emotional. And our question to you is can you separate that
and then look at the Government's evidence of what they claim
shows Terry Nichols was responsible for it and look at that
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
objectively and say, well, did they prove to us beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was responsible for that. And you
see, the question is because the emotion will just be
overflowing everybody during that time.
A. Right.
Q. Can you separate it out and look at their evidence
objectively?
A. I believe I could do that.
Q. Okay. Now, continuing on the publicity aspect, do you
recall how the bomb was delivered to the building?
A. Yes. It was in a truck.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe they say it was in a truck.
Q. Okay. And again, as the Judge said, this isn't a test.
We're not grading your papers. We're just trying to see what
you recall and what your opinions are.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recall what the Government claims the bomb was made
of?
A. Something to do with farming stuff, farm materials of some
sort.
Q. Okay.
A. Farming.
Q. And I noticed you put on your questionnaire that your
mother grew up on a farm.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
A. Right.
Q. Did you ever go back and visit the farm or work on a farm
during summers or anything?
A. No. We did drive by the area that they used to --
Q. Okay.
A. -- have the land and stuff, but no, never --
Q. You never worked on a farm at all then?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Do you recall from what you've seen, read, or heard
over the last two-and-a-half years how Mr. McVeigh was arrested
by the law enforcement authorities?
A. I think he was picked up somewhere. Some -- I don't know.
He was arrested somehow, either driving -- I believe driving or
something.
Q. Okay.
A. Something similar. Either -- a traffic stop maybe --
Q. Okay.
A. -- is what I remember -- recall.
Q. All right. From what you've seen, read, and heard, do you
recall how Mr. Nichols initiated contact with the law
enforcement authorities?
A. That, I don't know.
Q. All right. Do you recall whether or not he was in Oklahoma
City at the time of the bombing?
A. I don't know. I don't think so. I don't know. I don't
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
really know.
Q. Do you have any impression in your mind about where he was
on the day of the bombing?
A. I don't really know, actually.
Q. Okay.
A. Part of the thing is that during the McVeigh trial is the
focus was on, you know, doing that trial. And at that point, I
had forgotten that there was another trial even to come or
another person involved. There was no mention that I even
had -- had caught onto of anyone else involved.
Q. Okay. From the publicity from that trial and plus all the
publicity for two years before that trial back to April '95,
what do you recall it is that the Government claims that
Mr. Nichols did to be involved in this?
A. I don't know. Somehow, he helped -- he was accused or is
accused of helping or -- somehow helping. I'm not really sure
exactly how.
Q. Okay. And you're just not familiar with what they are
claiming?
A. No. Not really. Helped in some manner. I don't know
exactly if it involved a truck or whatever. I don't know.
Q. Do you have any image in your mind about him being
associated with the rental of the truck or driving the truck or
anything?
A. Boy, I don't recall that. I don't recall that.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. Okay. You know, there's been a lot of talk here
from the Judge and from the Government lawyer about the penalty
stage of the trial.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I wanted to concentrate just a minute to bring you back to
why we're here in the first place. It may seem a little odd
that we're already talking about the penalty phase and there
hasn't been a verdict of guilty yet. Mr. Tigar and Mr. Nichols
and I are not conceding that we're ever going to get to a
penalty phase. The Government's got a theory here about
Mr. Nichols' being responsible for this bombing. We don't
agree with that theory. The Government's got to put on
evidence through the witness stand and through exhibits to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Nichols is responsible
for this bombing.
When they put on their witnesses, we're going to
cross-examine them very thoroughly; and when they rest, when
they stop putting on witnesses, even though the Judge told you
that we have no burden to come forward with anything because
it's their burden of proof, we are going to call a number of
witnesses who will also contradict the Government's theory.
So at the end of all the evidence and the summation by
the lawyers, then it will be the jury's decision to look at the
evidence, presuming Mr. Nichols innocent as he sets (sic) here,
look at the evidence and say has the Government proven to us
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Nichols is guilty of
premeditated, deliberate murder of all those individuals. So
do you feel that if you were on the jury, that you could
participate in a process such as that?
A. I believe I could.
Q. Okay. And do you understand that we certainly are not
anticipating and we don't concede that we'll get to a
punishment stage?
A. I understand that.
Q. Okay. It's a little awkward here that you come into court
and the first thing we start talking about is the punishment,
but you understand we couldn't bring you back after the verdict
and then ask you your views about the penalty stage, and that's
why it has to be done now.
A. I understand.
Q. Okay. And from my understanding from your answers to the
Court, you are totally open to following the law the way the
federal law is on the punishment hearing. You can listen to
their evidence, their aggravating evidence where they will seek
the death penalty, and you can listen to our evidence in the
event we get to a penalty stage, which we don't anticipate;
that you can listen to the mitigating evidence, weigh that, and
then base a decision either way based on what you think the
evidence shows?
A. Right.
Juror No. 399 - Voir Dire
Q. Life in prison without release, as the Judge said -- that
is, real life, you don't get out, it's not in one day and out
the other, it's you die there -- or the death penalty. And
you're open to both of those; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, if you're chosen on the jury, can you look
Terry Nichols in the eye and tell him you'll give him a fair
trial?
A. Yes. I could do that.
MR. WOODS: Okay. Thank you so much for your time.
We appreciate it.
THE COURT: We all do, and we're not able to tell you
right now whether you will be serving on the jury. We have
some more people to go through this same process, so what I
want you to do is leave here now with the assumption that you
will be on the jury and that you will be obligated then to do
the things that we've been talking about, to decide fairly on
the law and the evidence.
And to assist in that, of course, I must again repeat
the caution do not discuss the case with anybody. Be very
careful -- excuse me -- about all things that you read, see,
and hear to avoid anything that could influence you and affect
your judgment in the case if called upon to serve. If there's
anything that comes up that is an emergency or something that
would affect your ability to serve with us, give us a call
immediately. We'll be in touch with you soon and give you some
additional information at that time.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You're excused for now, and thank you
again.
JUROR: Thanks.
THE COURT: 392.
Good afternoon. Would you just raise your right hand
and take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 392 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated in that chair there right
by the microphone. And we don't want you to be concerned about
the microphone. That's just there to amplify your voice and
help us hear you; and of course, it's not being broadcast
somewhere, you understand.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And you don't have to lean into it or
anything. It'll pick you up from where you're seated.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And, you know, of course, that when the oath refers to the
trial, the trial we're talking about is United States against
Terry Lynn Nichols. You received a summons advising that
you're among those who, through a chance selection process,
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
received a summons for possible service in this case.
A. Yes.
Q. You returned a questionnaire that we sent with the summons.
Then you got a second notice to come out to the Jefferson
County Fairgrounds last September the 17th. You did that, and
you met with me there and other people who are here now; and I
want to reintroduce them so you know who's present with us this
afternoon.
You recall meeting the lawyers for the Government who
were there, Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson, who are
here at this first table. They are joined now by Mr. Patrick
Ryan and Mr. Geoffrey Mearns, additional lawyers for the
Government.
You recall meeting Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald
Woods, attorneys for Terry Nichols, all of whom were also
present at that time.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then after the introductions, I reviewed with you and
the others the background of the case, explaining that this
case arises out of an event in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on
April the 19th of 1995. On that day, a federal office building
was destroyed by an explosion. People in the building were
killed and injured. There was then a -- later an indictment,
an accusation filed in the Federal Court in Oklahoma City by
attorneys for the Government. And in that indictment, a man
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
named Timothy James McVeigh, along with Terry Nichols, were
accused of conspiring with other persons -- and the indictment
says "not named in the indictment" -- conspiring or entering
into a criminal agreement to bomb that building and to kill and
injure people in it; that in addition to that charge, the
indictment also accuses the defendants of not just planning it,
but carrying it out. And among the charges are eight counts of
first-degree murder, premeditated murder of law enforcement
agents who died in the explosion.
To these charges, the defendants entered pleas of not
guilty, thereby creating the issues for trial. The case was
then transferred from Oklahoma here to Colorado to this court.
And the reason for that is because of a concern about having
people in Oklahoma sit as jurors in the case.
So when the case was moved here, I entered an order
for separate trials on the finding that fundamental fairness
requires that the evidence as it relates or may relate to
Timothy McVeigh be considered separately from that that may
relate to Terry Nichols to avoid confusion between the
defendants and to provide both of them with a fair opportunity
for the evidence to be evaluated by separate juries.
And there has been a trial with respect to the charges
and the evidence concerning Timothy McVeigh. A jury heard that
case earlier this year right here in this court and returned a
verdict of guilty. And then as the law requires, the jury went
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
on to hear more information concerning punishment and returned
a recommendation for the death sentence for Timothy McVeigh.
That case is over.
Now, we're getting ready to try the evidence, whatever
it may be, as it relates to Terry Nichols. Nothing that anyone
has seen, read, or heard about the McVeigh case can now be
considered with respect to Mr. Nichols. We start with a clean
slate. No evidence is before the Court. And of course, to
illustrate that, I presided at the trial with the case as it
related to Timothy McVeigh. I heard all of that evidence. I
must set it aside now and not consider it in any way in any of
the rulings that I make in connection with this case because we
start over. You understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And certainly, the outcomes, the jury's decisions in that
case can have no influence on this case. If it were to be
otherwise, clearly, that would violate the whole reason for the
separate trials. You understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And then I also discussed with the persons, including you,
who appeared some of the fundamental principles of the criminal
justice system, things that are commanded by the Constitution
and are therefore required in all criminal trials in the United
States. No matter what court it's in or, you know, who the
prosecution is, what level of government, local, federal,
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
state, or what the crime charged is, it's the same because this
is basic to our constitutional system, and that is that all
persons accused are presumed to be innocent of whatever they're
accused of and that such a presumption carries throughout the
trial and entitles them to an acquittal, a verdict of not
guilty unless 12 fair-minded people sitting on the jury,
hearing the evidence that's presented, limiting their
consideration to what is the evidence actually in the case and
following instructions from the court on the law decide that
the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
And what it means then is that after hearing all of
the evidence, if the jury has a reasonable doubt remaining as
to whether that evidence proves the charge, they must give to
the ben -- the benefit of that doubt to the defendant and find
him not guilty. And I'm sure you've heard of these points
before.
A. Sure.
Q. And one additional thing that I mentioned, because it is
also fundamental and applicable to all cases, is that a
defendant who is accused has no burden or duty of proving
anything at his trial, certainly doesn't have a burden of
proving himself not guilty; but beyond that, he doesn't have to
offer any witnesses, and certainly, he doesn't have to answer
any questions from the lawyers or explain anything to the jury.
An accused person can simply remain silent and challenge the
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Government's case against him by objections to the
admissibility of evidence, by the cross-examination of
witnesses and so forth.
At the end of the trial, the court gives detailed
instructions with respect to the law, including what exactly
has to be proved for the crimes charged, what are the elements
of the offense, the facts that must be proved. And in those
instructions, the court also always includes, in a case in
which a defendant does not testify, a caution that that fact
may not be considered in the case by the jury. They may not
draw any inferences or raise any suggestion that the defendant
is hiding something or that if he's innocent, why doesn't he
testify. There are many reasons why an innocent person may not
testify at trial.
And then, as I say, in the end, the jury is asked,
Have these things that must be proved been proved to your
satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt? If yes, the verdict is
guilty. If no, the verdict is not guilty. Understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you agree with these principles?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Are you prepared to follow them in this case if you were to
be selected on this jury?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. So as you see Terry Nichols sitting here this afternoon,
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
you presume him to be innocent of these charges?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Now, after all of that -- and I repeat it not
because I thought you didn't listen or didn't understand, but
simply so we've got a foundation for what we're going to do
here -- we asked you to complete a questionnaire, 166
questions, and you did it. And you and others turned it in to
me. I made copies, gave them to these people who are in front
of you with the understanding that we all have that none of the
information that you've given us here will be used for any
purpose other than this that we're now engaged in and none of
these things would be made public and that your name would not
be used here, but -- because we understand a privacy interest
that you may have. Some of these things are quite personal to
you.
And also, you know, we go to arrangements to bring you
in and out of the courthouse so you can't appear on television
or press photographers see who you are and so forth. And
that's the only reason for these arrangements, you understand.
Also, you should understand that now, we are in open court; and
in trying to balance privacy and public interest in the
proceeding, now the public interest predominates so that what
is said and done here in open court is public. I hope you
understand that.
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. And we'll be careful -- I'm going to ask you some questions
based on some of the answers that you gave us. Certainly,
we're not going to repeat everything. And also, I will cover
some other things with you by way of instructions and then some
questions. Now, please understand this is not a test. Your
background is in teaching, I know, so this is not like a test.
There are no right or wrong answers. Of course, we rely on the
factual information that you provide us. But in those areas
where we're asking you for opinions, attitudes, beliefs,
feelings, all we're looking for is what you honestly believe,
feel, and have opinions about. And you should not worry about
our reaction to any of them, because the whole purpose of this
activity here is to find out what you think about so many of
these points. So don't be hesitant about telling us what you
think.
Now, just a few things about your background. As I
understand it, you were born and raised in Ohio?
A. That's true.
Q. And went to high school there and then went to Michigan
State University for, what, one year?
A. No. I -- I first attended a school in Flint, Michigan,
General Motors Institute.
Q. Oh, yes. Yes, you told us that.
A. And then I worked as an engineer for a while, and then I
went back to Michigan State when I decided I wanted to teach
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
and coach.
Q. Yes.
A. And got a second --
Q. And you were going to follow a different career from
engineering?
A. That's right. That's correct.
Q. And then decided to teach. And then did you get a degree
from Michigan State?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you did teach at several different school
districts in Michigan?
A. That's correct.
Q. And as I understand it, then -- well, let's see. You went
to the University of Missouri for a master's?
A. Yes. I have a master's from the University of Missouri.
Q. In education?
A. No. In chemistry.
Q. And were you teaching chemistry?
A. Yes. I taught chemistry in the public schools, and I also
was a football coach.
Q. All right. And you came out to Colorado, then, what, about
'77 or so?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you continued your teaching and coaching career
here at a school district in Colorado?
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. Right.
Q. And you also became an athletic director?
A. Yeah. I -- I was the district athletic director in
Brighton High School -- or Brighton school district for about a
year and a half when I first came here, and then I left there
and went to Longmont where I left that position because I
wanted to get back in the classroom. So I became a teacher
back in --
Q. And then also resumed coaching?
A. Yes.
Q. Football?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you coach other sports?
A. I coached track.
Q. And then you retired several years ago.
A. Yes.
Q. And now you volunteer in a number of ways.
A. Yes, I try to.
Q. Your wife is also from -- from Ohio?
A. Yes. We're high school --
Q. Did you know each other there?
A. Yeah. We were high school classmates and actually dated in
high school.
Q. Okay. And she's also a teacher -- has been a teacher?
A. Yes. She's a teacher.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. And is retired. She taught at the elementary level?
A. Yes. Yes, she did. And I have one daughter that's now a
teacher.
Q. A teacher now.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. With respect to your volunteer activities, tell us a little
about what you're doing there. I -- one is -- I'm on page 9.
You have your --
A. Yes, I do.
Q. -- questionnaire. And you know, I want to be careful about
some of these things, too, because we're not -- we're trying
not to identify you by your answers here, as well. But one of
these activities is a church matter. And what do you do there?
A. I am the financial secretary of our church, which is --
it's a high-sounding job, but all I really do is --
Q. Count the collections?
A. -- enter contributions of givers into the computer weekly.
And it's sort of interesting because I -- all the years I
taught, I tried to stay as complete -- as computer illiterate
as I could. And the minute I retired, I was asked to do two
volunteer jobs, both of which I had to use a computer. This is
one of them.
The other thing I do is there's an organization in
Boulder County called the OUR Center, which is -- the OUR
stands for Outreach United Resources; and what it is, it's an
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
organization supported by churches but also by public funds and
private donations to help needy people in the community with
food, clothing, housing, child care. And both my wife and I
went there to volunteer, and I got talked into being a -- an
intake counselor. So I -- one day a week, I spend there
talking to people that need help, and then I can direct them in
some cases to get food and that kind of thing.
Q. I see. So you interview them with respect to their needs?
A. Interview them. That's correct. And I have to enter
information. And the other one, the Hudson -- the school job I
do, my -- I mentioned my oldest daughter is an elementary
teacher, so I go over one day a week. She teaches first grade.
And even though I taught for 33 years, I never taught at an
elementary level. And so for the last three years, I've been
going over and helping her. And that's sort of fun, the little
first-graders there.
Q. Do you read to them and things like that?
A. Whatever she tells me to do. I'm sort of a gofer. But
yeah, she usually -- Because I'm a science teacher and math
teacher, she usually has a lesson for me to teach. It's really
a lot of fun. I enjoy it.
Q. Your wife does some of that, as well, I take it?
A. Yes, she does. She taught in another school; and in the
last couple years she taught, she team taught with another
young lady that got to be real close and sort of like a
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
mother-daughter relationship, so my wife goes over there the
same day that I do and she helps this lady where she can. She
has a young baby, too, my daughter. I have one grandson. And
so we figure all the time we can help them, the more time we
can spend with our grandchildren.
Q. Now, there was a time when you were in the Army?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What, two years?
A. Yes. I was drafted and was in for two years.
Q. So were you in infantry? What branch of the Army?
A. In the Army. United States infantry.
Q. Yes, but I mean in the infantry?
A. Yes, sir. Yes.
Q. Okay. And now, your son has gone into the Air Force, went
to the Academy?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And is he now -- and he's in active duty in the Air Force
now?
A. He's currently in reserve status. He's flying
commercially, but he's also flying Air Force Reserve.
Q. Did he graduate from the Academy?
A. Yes. He graduated from the Academy in '87.
Q. And then spent some time on active duty as a result of
that?
A. Yes, sir.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. As a pilot?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned that you taught chemistry.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And I take it several different courses in chemistry, like
principles or basic or whatever?
A. The curriculum and the course that I taught was primarily
what we call college preparatory chemistry, which was a pretty
rigorous treatment of chemistry for high school for those kids
that were going on to college. Now, at different times, I did
teach mathematics and usually when I did that, I would
volunteer to teach to teach the lower grade of mathematics.
Q. Yeah.
A. Just because it was different.
Q. And the work in chemistry included laboratory work?
A. Yes.
Q. Qualitative, quantitative analysis and --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that sort of thing. What kind of a -- equipment did you
have in the labs in which you taught these courses? I mean, in
terms of the machinery.
A. Most of the equipment that -- the philosophy of the
curriculum that I used for many years and I -- I grew to agree
with it. The equipment we used was rather simple. I think
it's -- it's very easy for a student to get carried away with
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
black boxes and not learn scientific principles, and you have
to use a certain amount of instrumentation. But we tried to
limit it as much as we could with simple instruments, so not an
awful lot of equipment but -- other than sometimes, students
worked on projects. And we did have things like infrared
spectrometers available, but most of the students didn't use it
in normal course work. It was -- anyone who knows any
chemistry would look at it and say it was rather crude; but in
the long run, it served its purpose because the students who
came out of it did well in college.
Q. Like teaching kids math without starting with a calculator?
A. Yeah. I would recommend it.
Q. Yeah. And in -- you yourself, though, have the skills
because I take it you took chemistry courses in --
A. Yes.
Q. -- college. And in fact, at the graduate -- post-graduate
level. You have a familiarity with laboratory equipment.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And computer-aided laboratory equipment?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you kept up with that since retirement?
A. Not really. I read journals occasionally, but not really.
And as I said, computer -- when I worked on my master's degree,
we were still -- our computer work was still punch cards and
that kind of stuff. I remember carrying around a shoe box full
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
of cards.
Q. Well, you may be wondering why I'm asking you questions
like this, but the reason is that there could be testimony in
this case from chemists --
A. Yes.
Q. -- regarding the analysis of samples and so forth and the
expression of opinions about it. And there can, of course, be
contradictory testimony like that and differences of opinion.
And you with your own special knowledge and skills there would
be different in your background from what you might expect
other jurors to know. And one of the things that we ask of
jurors in situations like that is that they don't become their
own expert and that they do, indeed, listen to the testimony
and then, when it is expert testimony in an area that a person
has some expertise and background in, they don't start
instructing the other jurors about it. You understand what I'm
talking about?
A. Yes, sir, I do. I know that. That could certainly be a
problem. And to be -- to be very honest with you, when I
received the request to appear, this is not a job that I want.
However, I look at -- look at it sort of like the situation
that I had when I was drafted in the service. It's -- someone
has to do it; and I guess if I were to be selected, I would do
it. But I really don't want to.
Q. Yeah.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. But I certainly wouldn't -- I don't think would be a
problem listening to evidence from chemists and trying to
influence the jury or something.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean, I don't think that would be a problem. That's just
not my personality, I don't think.
Q. You would exercise some self-discipline in that regard?
A. Pardon me?
Q. You would exercise some self-discipline in that regard to
avoid --
A. I would certainly try to, yes, sir.
Q. -- that.
And you know, your analogy about the draft here is
pretty much apt, because we do not put out a call for
volunteers to come in and hear this case. And of course, what
the law says is that the court should arrange for a jury
selection plan based on an effort to get a cross section of the
community, people from different walks of life and different
experiences and backgrounds and, of course, busy people,
because we don't want all -- you know, we don't want just one
kind of person sitting on a jury, because the jury exercises
the judgment of the community. And therefore, jury service is
kind of a compelled citizen's response to the obligations of
citizenship. And I take it that's what you've just said.
That's the approach you're taking. You'd rather not be here,
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
but if called upon, you will serve. Yes?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, you mentioned in here -- and this is one of those
areas that's somewhat private and sensitive -- that you're a
religious person; correct?
A. Yes, I'm a Christian.
Q. And you do daily Bible readings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you do that through some -- something provided by
your church suggesting that you read different passages on
different days or something, or is this a matter of your own
selection?
A. Well, several years ago, I started a program that was a
daily thing that was structured that way; but since that time,
I pretty much do it on my own choice. I try to read at least a
chapter or so every day and try to finish a book before I
choose something else; but it's pretty much now on what I --
Q. Your own selections?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also mentioned that you have, among your friends, a
number who are lawyers.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do any of them practice in the criminal law, either as
prosecutors or defense lawyers, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, no, sir. I don't think they do.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. Have you discussed with any of your lawyer friends the fact
that you got a jury summons?
A. No.
Q. And that you're being called in here?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to address -- have you address for us a
couple of specific things on the questionnaire, beginning at
page 31. If you'll turn -- and I'm sorry to bounce back and
forth here, but --
A. That's fine.
Q. On page 31, we asked you at the top of the page with
Question 133, statements by public officials. And you
responded there by talking about the president and what you say
the "secretary of justice." It may be the Attorney General
that you meant there. Did you?
A. Yes. I guess that's right.
Q. All right. Well, don't be embarrassed about that. And
then you mentioned that you agree -- I guess you agree with the
statement that it was a terrible tragedy.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. And then "pray that those responsible will be
punished."
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us what you meant by that or mean by that.
A. Well, first of all, I think that my religious belief --
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
I'm -- I know I'm convinced that whomever is responsible will
have to answer to a higher court than that.
Q. Right.
A. But I think in our society, we need to protect those that
are here and those that are innocent; and I think it's a
responsibility of our democratic society. That's why we have a
court system, a judicial system to do this. So if -- if the
person or persons who are responsible can be proven that they
are responsible for it, then I think they should be punished.
I think that it was a terrible tragedy, as has been
said many times. And I think a lot of -- to me, it was not
just a tragedy. It was sort of a cowardly act. There were a
lot of innocent people that were -- that were killed and
injured that had nothing to do with -- to my knowledge, nothing
to do with any -- anything in the case. I mean, if someone is
angry or people were angry at the government, I guess you
could -- you could make a case for the government officers that
were in the building; but there were a lot of other people, I
guess, that were there that had nothing to do with it.
Q. Yeah.
A. That's just a tragedy to me.
Q. All right. Well, you know, you've said several things
there; and we need to have you sort of sort them out for us,
because what may happen, as you say, in a higher court than
this or any other judgment area is not for us to be concerned
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
about here.
A. That's right.
Q. This is --
A. I understand.
Q. -- a human activity. We're talking about a human system
and a system that has cardinal principles that we've already
talked about. And because it's a human system, it is also
always subject to human frailty. And all of the principles
that are involved in our structure of the law seek to protect
against the influence of the human frailties of anger, of
emotional response; and we try as best we can in the criminal
justice system to use rationality, reason, and demonstrated
facts.
In a sense, you know, it's like the scientific method
in a way, in that you seek empirically to prove something. And
of course, so in court, there is an effort to prove something
through witnesses and exhibits. And if not proved, then, of
course, the system comes out with a result of not guilty, even
though there is the natural human tendency to say somebody
ought to be found guilty for it because it's a terrible
tragedy.
Are you able to make these distinctions that I'm
suggesting?
A. Yes, sir. I am. I think earlier, when you talked about
the -- I think one of the strongest -- I'm going to say for
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
lack of another word -- tradition that we have in this country
is the statement that one is innocent until proven guilty. And
I think that's -- that's very critical. I think I have
never -- I have never served as a juror in any other case and
I've never been in a court as -- as a defendant. But I know if
I were ever to be, I would certainly hope that anyone, the
judge or anyone else that would be hearing my case, whatever it
might be, would certainly give me that -- that right, because I
deserve that right under the Constitution. I think it's --
it's critical.
Q. And we had to ask you about punishments, too, in this
questionnaire; and you know that on pages 28 and 29, you told
us something about your views there. And the reason, of
course, that we had you address that question is because of the
possibilities.
We started here, of course, with the presumption of
innocence; that there is no guilt here and that there will
never be a guilty verdict in the case. But because of the
possibility of a guilty verdict, we have to also ask people
their attitudes, beliefs, and so forth, with respect to their
ability to participate in a punishment decision. And there was
rather a long explanation on page 27 before these questions on
28, reminding you and all others answering the questionnaire
that the fact that we're talking about punishment and asking
your opinions about two types of punishment should not be
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
considered as any kind of suggestion that we -- we have
expectation of that decision. You recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And then you did give us answers here about your view of
essentially what the law ought to be if you made it with
respect to when the punishment of imprisonment for life with no
possibility of release may be imposed and when the punishment
of death may be imposed. And of course, we asked about
opinions on this, because all of us here, you included,
recognize this is a subject on which there is considerable
disagreement and that from time to time, the law is changed.
And in some states, there is no death punishment, no death
penalty, because the legislatures in those states, reflecting
the will of the people in those states, have decided there
should be no such punishment. And then in -- in states where
there is the death penalty, there are different ways to decide
it.
We are, of course, now in Federal Court under federal
law; and the federal law does provide for a punishment of life
in prison which is, again, really life in prison -- there's no
parole, no early release; that's where you die when your time
comes -- and the penalty of death.
But before talking with you about what the law
actually is, we, as I said, wanted to know from you what you
think it ought to be with respect to these extreme punishments.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
And that's what you've told us; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this is an area in which sometimes the persons
answering the questions can have second thoughts about it or
think about it some more and as a result may have different
answers from the ones first recorded in -- in responding to the
questions. So I guess my first question for you in this area
is have you changed your opinions in any respect from what you
wrote here?
A. No. I don't think so.
Q. All right.
A. I think I -- in all honesty, the questionnaire was lengthy,
and so I guess maybe you get a little tired or something of
writing. So other than to elaborate a little more than what
I've said, I don't think there's any big change in my beliefs
from what I've written there.
Q. Right. And one of the things that you've said here is that
under B -- and it's repeated, really, under E on the next
page -- that the death penalty should only be used if "there's
a person admits --" I take it you mean a confession?
A. Yes.
Q. "-- or at least two credible eyewitnesses saw." Now, it's
interesting; that used to be the law in Colorado many years
ago, as a matter of fact. Were you aware of that?
A. No, sir, I wasn't.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. There was a time in Colorado under state law when that
exactly was the law. And it's been changed since in the
Colorado legislature, and Colorado has changed it. And of
course, the change is as a result of public opinion changing.
But I want to review with you what the law is. And
now we're talking about federal law, which is, of course,
separate from what the states do, because now we're talking
about the law as made by the Congress and to some extent as
interpreted by the Supreme Court. But the Congress has
provided that for certain kinds of crimes, this type of
punishment may be considered and used.
And to make it simple, without going into any other
details, the law provides that when a person has been convicted
of a crime involving the intentional killing of other people,
then that person may be subject to the death penalty and to the
alternative of life in prison without release and actually to a
question -- a punishment of something lesser than that, some
number of years. And in cases not involving capital punishment
in the Federal Court system, when a person has been found
guilty of a crime, it's up to a judge to impose a sentence.
You're probably aware of that.
So what a jury does is come in in those cases and hear
the evidence and then make a decision as to whether the
defendant has been proved guilty or not by the evidence.
Whatever that decision is, the jury's done with its duties upon
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
a return of the verdict. And it goes over to the judge to make
a decision about what to do about it, what should the sentence
be.
And in such a situation, before a judge can make a
sentence for the individual being sentenced who has been found
guilty, the judge has to consider much more than just that
which was received in evidence at the trial. Because now
you're making a judgment about an individual human being. And
we do not have a system where this crime automatically results
in this sentence. So the sentence has to be based on not just
the crime but who the defendant is.
And so a judge making a sentence, for example, for a
bank robbery or a burglary of a post office or a fraud or
some -- something involving federal jurisdiction will hear more
about the crime and its circumstances and its consequences and
also more about the defendant; indeed, all that can be
discovered about the defendant: that person's life story, where
he was born and raised, what the family circumstances were,
what his own marital history has been, marriages, divorces,
children, employment history, educational development, military
service, really all that has happened to that person in his
life, because all of these things get factored in. You have to
know who is this person. And then a judge hears all of that
and listens to the arguments from the prosecution and the
defense and then says: For this crime, this particular person
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
deserves this particular punishment.
And in cases where more than one has been -- more than
one person is involved, the sentences may be different among
them because of the differences in their life histories; and
also, they may have played different roles in the offense, one
being more active than another. And what I have been
suggesting here that people think about is like a bank robbery,
where somebody goes in with a gun, somebody goes in and picks
up the money, somebody else has got the car running. You know,
they are all guilty of bank robbery, but they did different
things. And a judge considers all that and then decides the
punishment.
Now, for these crimes that involve the issue of life
and death, the Congress has said judges don't make that
decision. That's one for the jury, because we want the people
to respond to that as the conscience of the community, as it is
sometimes expressed. So the jury, having found a person guilty
of such a crime, then must do more than return a verdict. They
must hear more. They must hear in a second-stage trial that
proceeds just like the trial itself, in that lawyers for both
sides bring in the witnesses and the exhibits upon which they
rely; but at that trial, that second-stage hearing, again, the
jury is presented with more about the crime and the
circumstances than that which they heard in the evidence at the
trial and also, all that is known about the defendant. These
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
various things that I've discussed that a judge wants to know,
so should a jury hear that and give consideration to it.
Now, at the end of that second stage or second trial,
if you will, the court gives instructions to the jury
summarizing and outlining what has been presented in the
information and also dividing it into the categories that are
applicable here; on the one hand, what are called in the law
aggravating circumstances or aggravating factors, things about
the case that suggest that death is the deserved punishment,
and also will outline those things on the other side that
should be considered in mitigation and that the jury's free to
consider as factors that suggest that the crime may deserve
death as a punishment but not the defendant. And so that for
this particular defendant, considering all that you've been
given about him -- does not deserve to die for this crime.
Understand?
A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. Now, the law isn't as you suggested here, that before the
death penalty can be imposed, there have to be eyewitnesses or
a confession. The issue of whether the defendant is guilty has
already been decided, and it's been decided in the guilt phase
of the trial. And it simply meets the standard that the jury
is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty
of the intentional killing of other people and now, consider
these factors and decide what is the just punishment.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
And the court, you know, in summarizing all of this
and saying these are the factors that you may consider in
aggravation, these are the factors that you may consider in
mitigation, and may suggest some questions that the jury may
use to analyze what they've heard. But there's no formula
here. It comes down to a very subjective decision, and the
jury then must talk it over. There are 12 people to
participate. And finally, each juror, though, has the
responsibility for making an individual judgment, which best
may be described as a reasoned, rational moral judgment about
whether another human being should live or die. Understand?
A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. Are you prepared -- can you make such a judgment?
A. I think so. The way you've explained it, I think the key
to me making the decision would be in the first phase where the
jury would decide that the person was guilty without a
reasonable doubt -- without a reasonable doubt.
Q. Yes.
A. It would seem to me that if you can make that decision,
then the other one would seem to fall in place, I guess I'd
say.
Q. Now, that decision, you know -- you've heard about
circumstantial evidence and direct evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's something that is not unfamiliar.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay. Well, a -- a decision about a case can be made on
circumstantial evidence. You understand?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. But of course, it has to be of such persuasive power and
weight that it meets the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
A. Yes. And I think that's -- that would be the place it
would be difficult for me. For circumstantial evidence, per=20
se, it would -- it would be difficult for me on that alone, I
think. And I think that's sort of what I was referring to in
my answer.
Q. You would rather have a confession?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Or you would rather have eyewitnesses who say, I saw him
shoot the other person, or whatever.
A. That's correct.
Q. The law doesn't require it, though.
A. I understand.
Q. And, you know, difficult as it may be, that's the job of
the jury under the law as it is. And the doubt that is a
reasonable doubt is not beyond all possible doubt. What we say
in defining "reasonable doubt" in these detailed instructions
at the end of the trial is the kind of a doubt that would make
a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of
his or her own affairs in making your own decisions. So you
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
have to be convinced in your own mind before you make an
important decision in your own life, and that's really the
standard that is applicable to determining whether the evidence
satisfies the burden. Understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, is that -- you know, what we need you to tell us is
whether you can serve on a jury and make such decisions.
A. I think I could, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, we have some questions from
the lawyers in the case.
Ms. Wilkinson, do you have some questions?
MS. WILKINSON: I do. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Good afternoon, sir.
A. Hi.
Q. As the Judge told you, my name is Beth Wilkinson. I'm one
of the prosecutors who will be presenting the evidence in this
case against Mr. Nichols.
And you told us a lot in your questionnaire, and you
told his Honor a lot; but I have a few more questions, if you
wouldn't mind following up on --
A. That's all right.
Q. You told us about your education, but you didn't say
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
whether you played football while you were in college.
A. No, I didn't, because I -- I had an opportunity to play,
but I went to a school that didn't have football and at the
time I thought that was wise; and then later, when I decided I
wanted to coach, I sort of wished that I had, but I didn't.
Q. You said you also coached track as a teacher; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you coach any other sports?
A. No. Not -- not interscholastic. I operated some
intramural programs and things like that, primarily basketball
but never at an interscholastic level.
Q. Now, over your many years of teaching, did you focus
primarily on chemistry?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you said you taught a pre-college course.
A. Yeah.
Q. A rather tough course for kids who wanted to go on to
school. Was that to juniors and seniors, or did you teach --
A. Primarily juniors. I would have a few seniors,
occasionally, a sophomore; but most of the time our curriculum
in the schools where I was, sophomores didn't have the
prerequisites so they would normally take it as juniors.
Q. And from what I understand, you went back later on to get
your master's in chemistry to teach; is that right?
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. When you took your master's, did you become familiar with
different techniques like spectrometry that you've already
mentioned and chromatography, like gas or electron
chromatography?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with an analysis called SEM, which does an
elemental analysis and, you know, looks for elements and does
it by judging the atomic weight?
A. Yes. Somewhat.
Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of a machine or an analysis
called FTIR?
A. SCIR.
Q. FTIR. Fourier transformed infrared?
A. Oh, yes. Yes. Okay. I've heard of it.
Q. Okay. And as part of your study, were these techniques
considered acceptable chemical analyses that you -- you used,
or at least you became familiar with?
A. Yes. I -- I think so. I -- I spent one summer at Cal
Berkeley about, oh, ten years ago; and that's what it was on,
chemical instrumentation. So even though it wasn't extremely
detailed, we tried to touch on some of those kinds of ins --
the methods, laboratory methods. So I guess my answer to your
question would be yes, within -- within certain parameters,
certainly, they are accurate.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. So would it be fair to say you're familiar with these
techniques? You may not know all the details?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with a concept called orthogonal
techniques, where you look at -- to discover whether chemical
analysis is accurate, use different scientific techniques to
determine a result? Have you ever heard that term before?
A. Yes, I have. I'm trying to -- trying to put it in
perspective; but yes, the term is -- I've heard the term. I
don't know where.
Q. For example, if you used --
A. Hair is gray.
Q. If you use an analysis where you want to determine whether
some substance was on this podium, and you might use
chromatography as one technique -- right -- and you might use
something that's based on a different scientific principle to
make sure you --
A. Yeah. Okay. Right. If you arrive at the same result.
Q. Right. The reason I ask you that is because you told his
Honor that one of the difficulties you might have as a juror
would be what proved something beyond a reasonable doubt. Is
that right? The guilt? And that's what you've expressed in
your questionnaire. You expressed it more as your views on the
death penalty, but it sounds to me as you're really talking
about what's actually proved in court; is that right?
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. Yes. I think that's honest; and I think to be honest, it
would -- it would seem to me like that would be difficult for
anybody. And it's sort of an individual thing; but beyond a
reasonable doubt, to me, means that one has -- has seen or
heard enough that they are truly convicted -- or convinced
that -- that it's the truth, whatever it may be.
Q. Okay.
A. And I think probably, that's why you asked that question
about the orthogonal thing. I think the more -- the more
different methods, the more different information that would
point to the same conclusion, the less one would have
reasonable doubt.
Q. Right. I asked you that because you mentioned this
reluctance to accept circumstantial evidence.
A. Yeah.
Q. And I guess what I'm trying to get at is what if you heard
different types of evidence about the same fact; that you might
consider one circumstance or two, even, but if you heard three
different types of evidence that's not direct, but all
different. Would that make you more confident in determining a
result?
A. Yes. I think it would. I think that logically would make
it more --
Q. And do you do that in chemistry?
A. Absolutely.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. I mean, do you -- I take it, from my limited knowledge of
chemistry, that nothing there is proved 100 percent beyond any
possible doubt. Is that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have to -- I mean, people think sometimes
scientists just do a little formula and they come up with a
result. And I understand that's not exactly how it works; is
that right?
A. That's exactly right.
Q. There is some judgment involved?
A. And -- and -- and all of the sciences are constantly
changing as more information comes up, so we have to throw some
things out and add. So yes, that's true.
Q. Well, do you think you could use those skills that you've
developed over many years in chemistry as well as skills that
you've probably used probably in coaching where you have to
determine whether certain --
THE COURT: There's going to be an objection to this,
and I'm sustaining it.
MR. TIGAR: I'm objecting to the analogy, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: Sure, your Honor. That's fine.
MR. TIGAR: The law on that should come from the
Court.
THE COURT: We have these disagreements from time to
time with lawyers, and I make rulings about that. So please
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
ignore the fact that we had a little disagreement in the
phraseology of the question.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. All I'm really trying to ask you is could you come in and
make a judgment in a case where you're called to be a juror and
consider all kinds of evidence and come to a decision?
A. I would certainly try to, and I would try to be honest in
that.
Q. Is there anything else that you're reluctant about other
than what you've already told us in your questionnaire? Types
of evidence you wouldn't want to consider or would be difficult
for you?
A. No. I don't think so.
Q. Let me then ask you one or two questions about the penalty
phase and one background question, if you would. You've said
that you're a religious man. And I take it those are views
that you've held for some time.
A. Well, yes and no. I've professed to be a Christian for a
long time, most of my married life; but in many cases, I was
sort of a pseudo-Christian. I would say I'm sort of a baby.
Maybe the last ten years or so, I really become -- I solidified
my beliefs much stronger.
Q. Now, I've heard of this organization, the Promise Keepers
which was founded by this famous football coach here in
Colorado. Are you affiliated at all with that group?
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, I do. I've been to several of their conventions. I
didn't go to the latest one in Washington, but yes.
Q. And do they have any views, do you know, about the death
penalty and whether it's appropriate as a -- a part of our
judicial system?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Have you heard any discussion about that?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard any discussion in your church about your
church's view, either in sermons by your pastor or maybe in
Bible study class about views on the death penalty?
A. No.
Q. Do I take it, then, you don't have any moral or religious
opposition in theory to the death penalty?
A. No. The statement that I made about the witnesses and the
two or more witnesses or -- is somewhat biblical. But no.
Other than that. That's just what I have interpreted from my
own reading.
Q. Okay. When -- when you said that, that for the death
penalty, you would want to have two eyewitnesses, I guess I
wondered what you meant. Two eyewitnesses to what?
A. Well, I guess to the crime or whatever you were trying
to -- to -- in the case of the death penalty, it would -- you
know, that's -- that was sort of what I was saying. That would
eliminate, I guess -- it would eliminate the chance for
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
reasonable doubt; but of course, I said credible witnesses. I
know that that can happen, too. You can have witnesses that
maybe aren't credible, so --
Q. Now, you said in your questionnaire that you would only
think that the death penalty is appropriate in premeditated
murder; is that right?
A. Yes. I think so.
Q. And from that, I take it you mean planned murder, where
someone didn't just wake up, they got angry one day, and got
into a dispute?
A. Yeah. See, I -- again, I'm -- I know I'm talking to an
attorney and your definitions may be different than mine; but
yes, that's exactly what I would mean. To take someone's life,
planning to do that, not necessarily in a -- a fit of anger at
that time or something. But something would have to be planned
or thought about ahead of time, rather than in anger action, or
something of that nature.
Q. Well, my definitions, as you understand, don't matter.
A. No.
Q. We're really interested in finding out what you think, of
course so -- and again, the reason I ask you that is if you
think the death penalty is only appropriate to be considered --
again, we're not saying ultimately what the result should be --
in a premeditated crime; therefore, it's going to go on for
longer than a moment; is that right? You'd agree someone would
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
have to plan it out, take certain steps?
A. I would think so, yes.
Q. Then where would you want the eyewitness to be, I guess is
what I'm asking.
A. Boy. I guess I would go back to my original statement that
the eyewitness to the actual event -- I guess I'm assuming that
the person who is being accused has said they are innocent.
And if they are indeed innocent or if we subscribe, as we do in
this country, to the fact that they are innocent until we prove
them guilty, then it would -- it would seem to me like I would
want to -- to have some kind of strong evidence that someone
saw the crime or -- or saw the person do something that was
related definitely to the crime.
Q. Okay. So it sounds to me now that you've come to believe
that you could follow his Honor's instructions, which are that
you can't have certain requirements, there aren't certain
requirements under federal law of absolutely what you have to
prove; you just -- the government has to prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt? You could accept that law?
A. I do.
Q. And you could follow his instructions as to that?
A. I certainly would try, yes.
Q. And could you accept that obviously in any case that goes
to trial, the defendant is presumed innocent and is contesting
all the charges, so there's not going to be an issue of a
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
confession? Do you understand that?
A. I understand that.
Q. And you can accept that you'd still have to make a
decision, even though you wouldn't have any evidence on that
issue?
A. Oh, yes. Yes. That's -- that's why the court is convened.
I mean -- so Mr. Nichols is certainly entitled to that. I
think that's his right.
Q. Okay. Well, I have one final question for you. It's one
thing for us to sit here and talk about the death penalty as an
option after you've con -- or when we sit here and think about
it in a theoretical sense; but what if you were called to jury
service in a case and you had decided with your fellow jurors
that there was -- the Government had proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant had committed a murder: Could you go
back and deliberate with your fellow jurors and if you
determine that it was appropriate that the death penalty were
the proper punishment, could you come out to a courtroom and
announce that death sentence?
A. Yeah. I think so. I think I harken back to what I said
earlier: My country called me to spend some time serving it;
and fortunately, it wasn't during wartime, although it was
close. And I certainly wouldn't want to have taken someone's
life then, but I might have had to. And I don't think that's
too unlike this situation. It seems to me like the people who
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
are going to set (sic) in this spot, whomever they are, are
going to have an awful tough decision. But I -- in all
honesty, I think that I can answer your question positively and
say I would try very hard to do that. But again, with the --
with the restrictions I made earlier that I would have to be
convinced.
Q. And that's what the law demands before you can make any
decision; that you would have to be convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt.
A. Right.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you very much for answering my
questions, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good afternoon, sir.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. My name is Michael Tigar. Ron Woods and I were appointed
by the United States district judge down in Oklahoma City
shortly after May the 10th, 1995, when these Government lawyers
filed charges against Terry Nichols.
I just want to follow up with a few questions. Most
of them have been asked, as I'm sure you're aware.
If you would turn, please, to page 30 of your
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
questionnaire, sir.
A. Page 30?
Q. Yes, sir. Please.
A. Okay.
Q. Question 132, you were asked an opinion about the incident
at Waco, Texas, and you say, "I think it is just a tragedy that
all involved wished had never happened."
Could you expand on that, what your thinking was, sir?
A. Well, and I'll have to be honest with you, I'm rather
ignorant about what happened. But it seems to me like in the
heat of -- of the situation and the length of the duration of
the situation, it -- people made mistakes; and as a result,
lives were lost on both sides, if that's a correct term. And I
think that one can't -- you can't say what David Koresh or
those would like to have had happen because you don't know, but
it would seem to me that they would not -- if they had had
their druthers, they wish it hadn't have happened the way it
did. And I'm sure the officers that were involved and so forth
would have wished that it could have been resolved without the
death and the problems and the -- and certainly, it's created a
lot of turmoil or some disconsent (sic) or whatever within our
country, I think. People looked at that and have been
disappointed, possibly, in the results. And I guess I'm in --
sort of in the same boat. I -- it seemed like a terrible thing
to happen, and I wish it hadn't.
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
Q. Well, it -- do you think it was a case in which emotion
overcame the rational faculties or powers, reasoning powers of
the people that were involved?
A. Well, "emotion" is an awful big term. It covers a lot.
Q. Indeed.
A. But I think probably. I think there was an expediency
thing, too. I think it had gone on so long that there was
pressure from a lot of sides to get this thing resolved. And
so, yeah, emotionally, I think maybe they got wrapped up and
made a mistake or made some decisions they would rather have
not made if they could make them again.
Q. Interesting. Well, putting that in -- in the context of
this case, if you're selected as a juror here, you're going to
see a lot of evidence of highly emotional events, the deaths of
children. Some of those images you probably have already seen
on the television.
A. It's pretty hard not to.
Q. And I don't think anybody that's ever seen them will forget
them.
A. That's true.
Q. Thinking about that, that, of course, will be evidence.
There will be people who will testify. There will be images in
evidence of what happened, things that nobody disputes. And so
in thinking as a juror about, gee, did the Government prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry Nichols was involved in
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
this in the -- in the way they allege, would you be able to
separate out those two issues, to see that highly emotional
evidence for what it is and not be overwhelmed in the other
part by emotion or expediency?
A. Well, sir, I would like to think I could. I think --
Q. I don't mean to accuse you. You understand why I'm asking
the question?
A. No. I understand. I think that would be paramount,
whether -- whether I'm selected or not. And as I said, I'm not
advertising for the job.
Q. Right.
A. But the people who are here need to be able to do that. In
fact, it troubles me somewhat that that kind of thing is shown
other than evidence that a crime had occurred. But that
certainly has nothing to do with who or whomever did it.
Q. Right.
A. And it certainly needs to be separated.
Q. Okay.
A. Emotionally, you -- you would need to be able to do that, I
think, to answer the question fairly as to whether Mr. Nichols
would be guilty or not.
Q. And there was a -- a number -- you had an exchange with the
Judge about this question of standards of proof and then with
the prosecutor and with me objecting and all that sort of
thing. It comes down to this: I think everybody's -- is
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
interested -- the Judge at the end of the case and indeed as he
has at the beginning will define what kinds of evidence can be
considered by the jury. And indeed all through the trial. If
there's an objection, the Judge may say disregard and at the
end will define "reasonable doubt." Some of these rules, you
know, once upon a time in the interests of making things fair,
there were very rigid rules. The two-witness rule or that
thing in Exodus, "If a thief be found breaking in and be
smitten that he die, no blood should be shed for him," or the
old Colorado rule or whatever.
And the bottom-line question is, like everybody else
in the process, can you accept what the Judge says about the
standard to be applied and what evidence is to be considered?
A. I guess so. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to turn to this question of -- of
punishment and talk just a little bit about it. And if you
want to open your questionnaire to page 28, fine. But I
think -- I don't want to read out your answers again. We, of
course, don't concede that we'll ever get there. Indeed, it's
presumed that we won't. And the Government has a theory --
yes, they do. They will present evidence. We will
cross-examine those witnesses when our turn comes. Even though
it's not our obligation to do it, we'll present witnesses. The
jury will decide. And therefore, we certainly don't say we're
going to get to a punishment phase, but if we do, then we
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
couldn't call everybody back out here again and have this
conversation, because we'd be in it. This is the only one and
only chance, and we do it hypothetically. You said as -- and I
made a note that if you had decided someone was guilty of
premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the other one
would fall into place or words to that effect. Could you tell
me what you meant by that, sir?
A. Well, it -- the Judge was talking about the two phases of
the trial.
Q. Right.
A. And when I said the other would fall into place, I guess I
was talking about the punishment phase.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And by that, I mean that if -- if -- if the person were
convicted -- or the jury convicted that the person was guilty
of the premeditated murder, then if the death penalty were
suggested or was a possibility, then I guess I could -- I could
vote for that.
Q. Well, and that's when I asked that it -- if someone is
being convicted in Federal Court of premeditated murder, the
death penalty is a possibility.
A. Yes.
Q. And indeed, that's the only time it is.
A. Right.
Q. We assume before any juror gets to consider the possibility
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
of a death penalty that a defendant has been convicted of
premeditated murder, and I want to go beyond that because the
second part of it is that in Federal Court and under our
constitution, it -- even if you committed many, many
premeditated murders, you do not automatically receive the
death penalty. Did you understand that from what the Judge
said?
A. I guess I did. The other -- the other alternative would
be, what, life imprisonment?
Q. Life imprisonment, that's right.
A. Yes. I understand that.
Q. Okay. And this is that second part. Again, you know,
the -- the Old Testament said if there were certain offenses
you committed, you would be killed by stoning, hanging or
whatever. That was the rule. Well, we're -- we're in Federal
Court now. And the centuries of the world piled very high
since then, and the rules are that there's this second phase
and that a jury is asked to consider not only the crime that a
person has been shown to have committed but a bunch of other
things, these things called mitigating factors; you could call
them positive factors.
For instance, if there's two people involved in doing
the very same crime, they might get different sentences. Two
different juries looking at that could say, well, one would get
one and one would get another; and the others are there could
Juror No. 392 - Voir Dire
be a death penalty, life without possibility of parole, or even
some lesser sentence. Two different people who are involved in
the same crime could be shown to have different family
backgrounds. They come into court influenced by different
things. We're not talking about mental illness, insanity --
that would be a separate thing -- but just, you know, maybe
they had done a lot of good in their life, maybe this was
exceptional, aberrational, maybe they had helped a lot of other
people, all those positive things. And you as a teacher
have -- you know, a kid does something bad -- not talking about
killing somebody, but a kid does something bad. You look into
the whole person; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. When he has a teacher. So what I'm asking you is are you
open -- even if you have convicted somebody of killing many
people, would you be open to listen, to open your mind and
heart to evidence about that individual and realistically
consider a life sentence for that person as being enough
punishment for them in this lifetime?
A. Absolutely.
MR. TIGAR: Okay. Thank you very much for talking to
us, sir.
THE COURT: We're all appreciative of your answering
all of these questions; not just what has been done here in the
courtroom, but back to the questionnaire and so forth. I can't
answer your question now, though, as to whether you're going to
serve on this jury. And we know that --
JUROR: I was afraid of that.
THE COURT: Yeah. I know that's a question in your
mind, but we have more to do in this jury selection process.
And I can't give you an estimate about when we will be able to
tell you or when the trial will start. So bear with us yet a
while.
And going from here now -- you're excused now, of
course, for the day, but do so with the understanding and
expectation that you will be on the jury and will have the
responsibilities that we've talked about.
And in that regard, of course, I must again caution
you to avoid discussion of the case with all others, continue
to avoid things in radio, television, newspapers and the like
so that you can come in and decide as the law requires on the
law and the evidence.
If anything happens, any emergencies or whatever that
would affect your availability, let us know immediately, will
you?
JUROR: I will.
THE COURT: And we'll be getting back to you. Thank
you very much. You're now excused.
JUROR: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: We'll take 20 minutes.
(Recess at 3:47 p.m.)
(Reconvened at 4:07 p.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
65.
Good afternoon. Would you raise your right hand, take
the oath from the clerk, please.
(Juror No. 65 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated there in the chair by the
microphone. And understand the microphone is there only to
help us hear you, so you don't have to lean into it, or you're
not being broadcast.
JUROR: Okay.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Also, we've kept you waiting all day long; and we're sorry
to keep you waiting, but I'm sure you can appreciate that it's
difficult to estimate the amount of time that's involved. It
varies according to each person and what they have to say in
here.
Now, you know that from the -- that the oath that you
just took refers to -- that the trial referred to there is the
trial of United States against Terry Lynn Nichols. You got a
summons a while back in July, advising that you, through a
chance selection process, had been summoned as a juror in this
Juror No. 65 - Voir Dire
case. And we asked you for a little information about you, and
you gave it to us in a short questionnaire. And then you
received a notice to come out to the Jefferson County
Fairgrounds, and you did on September 17, with others. I was
there, explained the background of the case and some principles
applicable to the case, and then asked you to fill out a much
longer questionnaire, which you did. And we appreciate that.
And I have taken the answers to that and made them
available to the people who we're going to reintroduce to you
in a minute here, for the limited purpose of participating in
this process without making any of it public, and we won't make
any of it public.
And of course, we asked you questions personal in
nature, and you gave us personal information in your answers;
and we respect your privacy, and we try to balance privacy
interests of jurors with the public interest in the
proceedings. And it is in -- pursuant to that that we do not
use your name, try to avoid identifying things in this
questioning process, also arrange for you to go and come to the
courthouse in a way that you can't be put on television or in
the newspapers, your picture, and so forth.
Understand, too, that now we are in open court and the
things that are said here are public. Understand?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, I want you to know -- and I'm going to reintroduce the
Juror No. 65 - Voir Dire
people you've already met out at Jefferson County who are here
again with us.
Here at this first table, you previously were
introduced to Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson,
attorneys for the Government. With them now are Mr. Patrick
Ryan and Mr. Geoffrey Mearns. They're additional attorneys for
the Government. They were not there with us at Jefferson
County.
But you did meet Mr. Michael Tigar, Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols, and of course, Mr. Nichols, the
defendant in the case.
And there are a few other people here in eyesight of
you, and they're just here to assist in this process.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. And we are going to ask you some more questions in
spite of the fact that you answered 166 of them; but some of
the things we'll simply be asking you to explain or expand on
some of the things that you've already written here and a few
additional ones.
And we want you to know, of course, as I hope you
understand, this is not a test. There is no right or wrong
answer to anything. We asked you for some factual information.
You gave us that. And then we asked you a lot of things about
opinions, attitudes, beliefs and the like; and of course, those
are your opinions, attitudes and beliefs. And you're not on
Juror No. 65 - Voir Dire
trial for them. We're not going to challenge you on them. We
simply want to know about them, because these are things that
could conceivably affect your service on the jury.
And of course, you know, you should not, as I told you
I think when this questionnaire was handed to you -- you should
not assume anything or ascribe any particular significance to
any question. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And I did explain the background of the case, and I'm going
to do it again, not because I think you don't remember it but
because we need to establish a sort of foundation for this
process, beginning with repeating what I told you before: that
this case is here as a result of an explosion that destroyed a
federal office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19
of 1995, resulting in the loss of life and injuries to persons
who were in the building; that after that, there were charges
filed, an indictment, which is a statement of accusations,
filed in the United States District Court in Oklahoma City,
accusing -- and by lawyers for the Government -- accusing a man
named Timothy James McVeigh, along with Terry Lynn Nichols --
and then the indictment refers to "other p