Stephen Jones
Timothy McVeigh's lead defense attorney, Stephen Jones, has a long history of working for unpopular clients. In fact, he was fired from his first law firm job more than 25 years ago because he agreed to represent a student antiwar protester in Oklahoma, arrested for carrying a Viet Cong flag.

From that time on, Jones has worked for himself, handling a mix of criminal and civil cases but never straying far from the courtroom. The defense attorney is also a political buff; he counts former President Richard Nixon as one of his heroes. Jones has tried running for office on the Republican ticket. His last race was for U.S. Senate in 1990, when he won a mere 17 percent of the statewide vote.

Jones was appointed to represent McVeigh by a federal judge in Oklahoma. He is paid $125 an hour out of taxpayer funds because McVeigh cannot afford counsel. Jones says he agreed to take the McVeigh case -- after other lawyers turned it down -- because he believes attorneys have a duty to accept court appointed cases -- no matter who the client.

A trial lawyer from Enid, Okla., Jones is a tenacious courtroom fighter, according to both opponents and fellow defense attorneys. During several pretrial hearings in the bombing case, Jones has shown he is not afraid to stand up to the government legal team. He has argued bitterly with the prosecution about his access to classified information, which he contends is vital for his investigation on whether the bombing was committed or masterminded by foreign terrorists.

Jones is best known for his formidable cross-examination skills. The defense lawyer has promised to showcase that talent when the government's star witnesses, Michael and Lori Fortier, take the stand. McVeigh was the best man at the Fortiers' wedding, and he served in the Army with Michael. The Fortiers, who admitted to knowing about the bombing plot, have agreed to testify in exchange for lesser sentences. But they have a history drug use and of lying to federal officials, which Jones will likely try to use to cast doubt on their story.

Michael Tigar
Michael Tigar, appointed by the court to represent accused Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, combines the two worlds of scholar and trial lawyer.

A professor at University of Texas' law school, Tigar spent much of his working life in Washington, D.C., where he learned criminal law at one of the city's most influential private law firms.

Whenever his teaching schedule permits, Tigar steps into the courtroom to handle high-profile cases. He recently won an honorable retirement for a woman in the Air Force accused of violating the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military. Tigar also helped exonerate accused nazi John Demjanjuk. During the 1960s, Tigar was a well-known student radical. His political activities cost him a Supreme Court clerkship in 1966, when Justice William Brennan Jr. withdrew a job offer after several conservatives drew attention to Tigar's politics.

In his representation of Nichols, Tigar has focused much of his efforts on discrediting the FBI. Shortly after the bombing, Nichols went to the local police station in his Kansas town because he had heard his name on CNN. At the station, Nichols was interrogated, without a lawyer present, by FBI agents for over nine hours. Then he was arrested. Nichols' statements -- most of which are under court seal -- will make up the bulk of the government's case against him.

Last summer Tigar argued unsuccessfully to suppress those statements, which include an admission by Nichols that he knew how to make a fertilizer bomb and that he picked up Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City several days before the bombing took place.

While Tigar did not win a ruling to suppress the evidence, the attorney did secure a separate trial for Nichols. His case will be tried after McVeigh's, probably in the fall of 1997.

Joseph Hartzler
Lead government lawyer Joseph Hartzler volunteered to work on the bombing prosecution shortly after hearing news of the crime on his car radio.

Top officials in the Justice department say they chose Hartzler because of his abilities to manage complicated cases and investigations. Hartzler also has experience prosecuting bomb cases: In 1985 he won convictions against several Puerto Rican terrorists accused of trying to blow up a building in Chicago.

Although Hartzler worked for a number of years in the Chicago United States Attorney's office, he left the big city several years ago and relocated to the quieter U.S. attorney's office in Springfield, Ill., in order to spend more time with his family.

Hartzler, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a motorized scooter to get around the courtroom, is known for his ability to present strong cases built on circumstantial evidence. This talent will be vital in the bombing case, especially because no witness has come forth who can put lead defendant Timothy McVeigh at the scene of the crime. Both Hartzler's friends and courtroom adversaries say he also is able to establish a strong rapport with jurors, who tend to see him as fair and even-handed.

The Judge
Richard Matsch, chief U.S. district judge for the District of Colorado, will keep very tight control over the Oklahoma City bombing trial.

Matsch is famed for his strict rules: Lawyers may not put their briefcases on the table in front of them, overcoats must be hung up outside the courtroom, spectators cannot read newspapers, and no pagers or cellular telephones are allowed in court, even if they are turned off.

In this trial Matsch will, in essence, be presiding over two courtrooms, one in Denver and one in Oklahoma City where victims can watch the proceedings via closed-circuit television. Although the Oklahoma City viewers will watch in an auditorium, Matsch plans to enforce the same decorum he requires in his courtroom. Not only has he hired a former judge to watch over the crowd, but Matsch has asked to have his own television camera beaming pictures of the audience back to Denver.

Matsch, who has been a city attorney, a private practitioner, and a bankruptcy judge, was appointed to the district court bench by President Richard Nixon in 1974.

Lawyers who practice regularly in front of Matsch also acknowledge that he has a temper, especially when attorneys seem unprepared. But lawyers are quick to praise his intellect and commitment to ensuring the proceedings are fair.

Indeed, Matsch has done much to make certain accused bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols fair trials. Last year, Matsch decided that the two should not be tried together -- a ruling both defendants sought, but was bitterly opposed by the government.

Some of the judge's decisions, however, have angered the victims' families. After Matsch ruled in June 1995 that victims could not watch the trial if they wanted to testify at a possible sentencing phase, the victims obtained legal counsel to explore options for fighting the decision.

Courts have long held that witnesses can be excluded from the courtroom before they testify -- a rule designed to prevent a person's testimony from being influenced or tainted by other witnesses. However, that practice was routinely applied to the guilt-or-innocence phase of the trial. It has been unclear whether the rule could be applied to witnesses who testify during a sentencing phase of a trial, where the defendant has already been found guilty.

Judge Matsch decided that victim witnesses who wanted to testify during a sentencing hearing -- if there is one -- could be affected by watching the trial, thus their testimony would be tainted. Matsch reasoned, in part, that the possibility of a death sentence made it all the more important to take this precaution.

But victims argued that their testimony could not be changed by watching the trial -- because they were only speaking about how the crime affected their lives. The victims also noted that watching a trial, and finding out whatever truth they can, is an important part of the healing process for family members of the deceased. The victims and their attorneys appealed Matsch's decision. After the appellate courts refused to overturn the judge, the victims asked Congress to intervene.

The victims were successful, and on March 20, President Clinton signed a new law which forbids district judges from barring from court victims and family members who want to testify about the crime's effect on their lives during a sentencing hearing.

The next day the victims asked Judge Matsch to reverse his decision based on the new law. In a five-page ruling on March 25, he reversed his previous ruling and said he would allow victims and family members of the deceased to watch the trial, even if they wished to testify during a possible sentencing phase.