The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Transcripts
Terry Nichols
Tuesday, October 28, 1997 (morning)
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 50)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 8:30 a.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
(In open court at 8:30 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Good morning. Are we ready with 549?
Good morning. Would you please raise your right hand
and take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 549 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Please be seated there in that chair by the microphone.
And you don't have to worry about the microphone. You don't
have to position yourself with respect to it at all. It'll
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
pick you up.
A. Okay.
Q. And the only reason we have it there is to help us hear
you.
A. Okay.
Q. So we're not broadcasting this. I don't want you to get
the wrong idea about the microphone.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, you know that when that oath refers to "the case now
on trial," that is the case of the United States against Terry
Lynn Nichols.
A. Yes.
Q. And you got a summons notifying you that you have been --
well, your name has come up through a random selection process
as a juror --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for this case. And we asked of you to respond to that
by telling us some things on -- about you on a short
questionnaire. You did that. And told us two things that
concern you about possibly serving in the case, one being an
injury that you sustained in a car accident --
A. Yes.
Q. -- affecting your ability to sit, and the other is the
financial impact of a loss of wages.
A. Yes.
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
Q. We didn't ignore that, but we did ask you to come out to
the Jefferson County Fairgrounds with others on September the
17th to respond to some questions, a lot of questions. And in
the course of that proceeding and actually before giving you
this questionnaire to fill out, I introduced the people who
were there with me when I met with you and the other members of
the jury panel. I want to do that again so you know who's with
us this morning.
A. Okay.
Q. And here at the first table, which is the table for
Government counsel, are Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth
Wilkinson, who were with us there last month. They are now
joined by Mr. Patrick Ryan, Mr. Jamie Orenstein, who are
additional lawyers for the Government.
You met Mr. Michael Tigar, Mr. Ronald Woods, attorneys
for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols, of course, was present.
And then I explained the background of the case; that
is to say, giving the sort of basic information, most of which
was probably already known to you; that is that this case
arises as a result of an explosion that occurred in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, on April the 19th of 1995, when a federal
office building was destroyed, people in it were killed and
injured; that later, the Government lawyers filed charges in
the form of an indictment, a statement of accusations charging
that a man named Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Nichols -- and
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
the indictment then refers to "and other persons not named" --
were in a conspiracy, a criminal plan, to bomb that building,
to kill and injure the people in it. The charges included not
only the conspiracy or planning to do that, but also
allegations that the defendants carried that out, carried out
that plan and -- plan and did bomb the building with the intent
to destroy it and to kill and injure people in it; and the
charges include some eight charges or counts of first-degree
murder, premeditated murder of eight law enforcement agents who
were present in the building and died in the explosion.
To these charges, the defendants entered their pleas
of not guilty, thereby creating the issues for trial. And that
the case was moved for trial from Oklahoma to here in Denver
because of a concern about jury -- you know, getting people
from Oklahoma to serve on the jury.
And then I ordered separate trials. That the evidence
as it may relate to Mr. Nichols be considered separately from
the evidence relating to Mr. McVeigh --
A. Yes.
Q. -- as a matter of fundamental fairness so that the
defendants would be separated and separate juries consider
whatever the evidence may be.
There was a trial here of the evidence relating to
Mr. McVeigh. A jury was selected for that case and returned a
verdict of guilty; and also a second trial or hearing was held
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
before that jury on the issue of punishment, and the jury
returned a recommendation for a death sentence.
A. Yes.
Q. That was earlier this year. We are now ready to begin the
trial of Mr. Nichols and whatever the evidence may be with
respect to him. All that happened in the McVeigh trial must be
set aside now by all those who know anything about it. And
those who have read, seen, or heard something about it must
disregard that; and of course, the outcome of that case has no
bearing on this case. To allow the jury verdict in that case
to in any way influence a jury in this case would obviously
violate the reason for the separate trials. You understand?
A. Yes. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Now, I -- and what we're doing here is you answered
all of these questions on the written questionnaire, and we
made copies of it for the people who are here with us this
morning. And their use of it is limited to what we're doing
here now. These copies haven't been given to anybody else,
certainly will not be made public. And also, we have
attempted, so far as we can, to try to balance out the privacy
interests of the people who are answering questions that are
quite personal in nature and the public interest in this trial
proceeding. And as a part of that, we're not using your name
here, and we make these arrangements so you can come and go to
and from the courthouse without TV and press photography taking
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
your picture. So that's the background of all of that.
Now, you understand we are in open court and what is
said here is public.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you, as I recognize, did answer this first
questionnaire with telling us of your back injury, and I just
want to ask you about that now. What is your present condition
as far as your back is concerned?
A. I am now in a new job where that I can get up and down and
out of the chair where it's not -- where that it's not all
day -- or most of the day being in a chair or -- or standing.
My back has caused me to change my job because the job before
that was in a chair, was working at a PC all day, and it was
just -- it was just too much for it.
Q. Now, is the job you have now the one that you described on
the questionnaire?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And of course, this job that we're talking about --
that is to say, the work of the jury here -- involves a lot of
sitting.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You're in a chair. You see the other chairs in the jury
box are the same.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And, you know, you're here for about -- in this position
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
about two hours at a time, generally speaking. We do take a
recess roughly midmorning, there's a noon recess obviously, and
for about an hour and a half during the trial, and then a
recess in the afternoon. So there is a chance for the jury,
you know, about every two hours, we would say, to get up and
move around; and of course, there's a hallway back here for
people to exercise, walking up and down if they want to do it.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you've seen the jury room facilities.
A. Yes.
Q. So you just have to tell us because we don't know any other
way to find out -- you tell us whether you can perform this
jury duty physically as far as your back is concerned and your
well-being.
A. Yes. I -- to be honest, I -- when I am traveling, I am
told that -- that -- that I can set for two hours at a time; so
if that would be the case where that it would just be the two
hours in the chair, I would think that I could do it. In other
words --
Q. You were here yesterday, had to wait all day yesterday.
A. Yes.
Q. Right. And we're sorry to keep you all day yesterday, but
we just don't have the ability to judge the time here such that
we can put people on one after another and organize it. But --
so you were in a chair part of the time yesterday, and of
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
course, you could get up and move whenever you wanted to then.
A. When I -- when I got home, I took a very hot bath, Bengay,
and put heat on my back, so it -- so it did affect my back.
Q. Yeah. Were you sitting most of the day?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Were you sitting most of the day?
A. No. No. I was up and down. I got up and walked. I was
known as the pacer for a while because I walked back and forth.
Q. Sure. Well, and you'd be free to do that at breaks during
the trial; but, you know, this is day in and day out. And I
don't know -- I'm not trying to talk you in or out of anything.
Do you take pain medication for this condition?
A. Only over the counter, but it is daily. I always carry it
with me.
Q. Like Motrin or something like that?
A. Tyle --
Q. Tylenol?
A. Tylenol. I kind of balance it around so I don't always
affect the same part of my body daily. It's not good for the
body. The liver, the kidney, the stomach, whatever.
Q. Yeah. Well, tell us about the new job, too. When you --
when did you get this new job?
A. I -- it was in May, the middle of May. I think it was the
18th.
Q. So it's the same job you had when we first contacted you
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
with the summons?
A. Yes. When I -- when I did quit my old job, it was in
August of '9 -- of '96.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And I was at home for -- for a while and went back to work
in May of this year. But it was with a job that I could get up
and down with.
Q. Yeah.
A. Still working on the -- still working on the computer
because that is my background.
Q. Your injuries were in an automobile collision?
A. Yes. Yes. It would be three years in December.
Q. Did you sustain injuries in addition to the back injuries?
A. I -- it was -- was my head, neck, back, hips, so --
Q. In connection with the head injury, were you -- were you
unconscious for a while? Did you have a -- you know, a head
injury in that sense?
A. I was -- I was in an El Camino, hit from behind. I am told
that I -- I -- that the impact was enough that it brought the
seat back, which therefore, I -- excuse me -- I hit the back
window, and I was the one that broke the -- the back -- back
window out. So the back of my head was -- was bruised.
Q. Were you unconscious?
A. I don't recall being unconscious. And if so, it was for a
very short time, but I don't believe I was.
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
Q. Sometimes they refer to certain types of head injuries as a
closed-head injury where the brain gets bruised or there's
bleeding onto the brain. Anything like that happen?
A. No. No. I -- there was pain for a -- for a long while.
It took a lot of tests and X-rays and whatnot. It was just --
it was just more involving the -- it didn't even go all the way
to the skull. That was not fractured.
Q. I see.
A. So my brain was not --
Q. You had neck -- a sore neck?
A. Neck. Which even still at times would -- but it was
whiplash. I was in a collar for -- being worn most of the time
while being up for about two weeks. I was -- I was out of work
for three weeks, went back for two weeks being only half-times.
Q. Has all of this affected you in ways other than the -- you
know, this period of pain and discomfort and stiffness and
soreness and the residual on the back, has it affected you in
any other way physically?
A. If -- if you are asking about my speech, I have always
stuttered, so no other way.
Q. Well, you're very perceptive. I was trying to find a -- a
gracious way to ask about your speech.
A. Sure.
Q. But you saw what I was looking for, and thank you. And
don't be embarrassed about that. You don't seem to be --
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
A. No.
Q. -- at all. And that's good. Now -- well, just tell us
whether you think you can do this physically because if you
can't, we understand that. We're not trying to put people
through, you know, something that would injure them further or
where because of their physical limitations they just can't
focus on what's happening here. Obviously, we need people on
this jury who can listen attentively for days at a time here.
This could last a long time.
A. The days at a time is -- I would feel would be more of the
months at -- at a time. And I really doubt if -- that my back
could take it.
Q. Yeah.
A. I woke up with a sore neck this morning. I cannot turn --
turn -- turn -- I cannot turn my head around.
Q. Yeah. And it's one thing to do a day or two days or three
days, but we're talking about the possibility of having people
sit in these chairs for several months.
A. Yeah. That -- that is what I'm saying. I really do have
my doubts if -- if -- that my back would not --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- create a problem for me.
Q. Well, and a problem for you is a problem for us.
A. Sure.
Q. Because we're all concerned about people being able to do
Juror No. 549 - Voir Dire
this work, and physical limitations are a problem. I don't
know.
THE COURT: Do counsel have any questions?
MR. TIGAR: No, your Honor.
MR. MACKEY: Judge, we consent.
MR. TIGAR: We consent.
THE COURT: May we agree then?
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: We're going to excuse you. We don't want
to put you through some torture here for your back, and we do
indeed appreciate your efforts.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And, you know, it isn't that we didn't
believe you the first time when you said you had a bad back,
but what is necessary in these circumstances is to find out
more about it and to talk with the person involved. So thank
you for your efforts.
You're now excused from service in this case. You're
excused from your summons, and you can leave. And we'd
appreciate, however -- you understanding the importance of not
talking about this with others until we get a jury seated in
this case.
JUROR: Okay. Sure.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks.
22.
Good morning. Would you raise your right hand and
take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 22 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated there in the chair by the
microphone.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you understand that the summons you received was for
service as a juror in the case of United States against Terry
Lynn Nichols.
A. Yes, I do, your Honor.
Q. You responded to the summons by the return of a
questionnaire in which you gave us information about yourself,
including that you're a practicing lawyer and a sole
practitioner, and you're certain about the impact of jury
service on your practice, both with respect to your financial
interests and the -- and your representation of your clients.
A. That is correct, your Honor.
Q. In spite of that, you were directed to come to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds, along with the other persons
summoned, and to respond further to the questions on a written
questionnaire. You did appear and did answer those questions
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
for us, as well.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at the time of your appearance, along with other
members of the jury panel, I introduced myself, discussed the
background of the case, and also introduced the attorneys and
the defendant in the case. And I'll do that again to
reacquaint you with the people who are present, including
Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson here at the
Government's table, along with now Patrick Ryan and James
Orenstein, who were not there then but who have now joined the
prosecution.
Also, you recall meeting Mr. Michael Tigar and
Mr. Ronald Woods, attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols
was present.
I explained the background of the case, and you
probably were already aware of the background of the case; but
again, so that the record will reflect it, I advise you again
that this case arises out of the explosion of a -- that
destroyed a federal office building, injuring and killing
people in it in Oklahoma City on April the 19th of 1995, the
filing of an indictment later then in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma
City, accusing a man named Timothy James McVeigh, together with
Terry Nichols -- and the indictment refers to "and other
persons not named" -- with a conspiracy to bomb that building
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
and to injure and kill people in it. The accusations in the
counts of the indictment include not only the conspiracy, but
also the carrying out of a plan to do that and eight counts of
first-degree murder with respect to the lives of eight law
enforcement agents who died in the explosion. And I explained
further that the defendants entered their not guilty pleas in
Oklahoma City.
The case was transferred here to Colorado for trial
because of a concern about obtaining a jury in Oklahoma. Then
I entered an order for separate trials, ordering that to avoid
confusion and to provide fairness in their trials, the evidence
relating to Mr. Timothy McVeigh would be considered by one jury
at a separate trial from that relating to the evidence relating
to Mr. Nichols. We did have such a trial here with respect to
the evidence as concerns Mr. McVeigh. The jury was selected in
that case and heard that evidence, returned a verdict of guilty
on all counts and then, as a result of the further hearing on
penalty, returned a recommendation for the death sentence for
him.
That, too, you probably already knew? Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And I reviewed it, of course, so that all persons would
have the same background information.
Now, we want to turn directly to your situation and
your practice. As I gathered it from your response to the long
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
questionnaire -- and you have it there in front of you. And
you know, I think, that I've provided copies to the lawyers
participating here and that we're also attempting to protect
the privacy interests of all who have been summoned in here by
not using their names and by including the manner of entry and
exit from the courthouse to prevent press photographers and so
forth.
Now we're in open court, of course, and what happens
here is public. I'm sure you understand that.
A. Yes, I do, your Honor.
Q. And you told us here you graduated from law school and have
been in private practice as a sole practitioner from 1994?
A. That's correct, your Honor.
Q. And your -- what does your practice include? Is it general
practice?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. A bit of everything?
A. That's about right, your Honor.
Q. Including trial work?
A. Yes.
Q. Any criminal? I see at one time, you interned with the
Colorado public defender's office.
A. Yes, I did, your Honor. My practice consists of about 25
to 30 percent criminal defense work, another 25 to 35 to
40 percent family domestic law, and the rest is simply general
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
litigation, collection work.
Q. All right. And what's your schedule for the next several
months, your own schedule? You know, professional schedule.
A. I have quite a few hearings, a felony trial coming up next
week and then some county court cases throughout. Over the
past three years, my business has been busiest, it seems, from
August through February, and it's showing true again this year.
Q. So your court schedule includes, you said, a defense of a
felony case next week?
A. That's correct, your Honor.
Q. And then are there more trials scheduled in --
A. Yes -- I have some county court, you know, criminal cases.
I have some municipal cases coming up, and then there are some
custody, divorce-type hearings coming up also through January.
I know I have a few of those.
Q. And in all of these, are you the only lawyer representing
the clients you're serving?
A. Except for the felony case, which I am co-counsel on, I am
the only attorney of record.
Q. Okay. So the situation is as you first reported it, I
guess, in the original summons questionnaire; that you are
committed to these people to represent them during this same
period of time that would be involved in the trial of this
case?
A. That is correct, your Honor.
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
THE COURT: All right. Well, do you have any
questions of this --
MR. MACKEY: No, your Honor. We would consent to his
release.
MR. TIGAR: May I ask two questions, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. Yes, Mr. Tigar.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. My name is Michael Tigar, and we're not -- not trying to
harass you. I just want to focus on something -- you know, a
couple of things in your questionnaire. You understand that
it's important to everybody here that we have a jury that's as
representative as possible and that there are no volunteers?
A. I understand that.
Q. And have you thought about what would happen if you were
selected for jury service on a long case like this?
A. Since I received the summons, yes, I have thought about it.
Q. Okay. Is there any way in the world that you can think of
that you would be able to serve as a juror in this case and
still stay afloat?
A. No. I mean, I could work after hours, in the morning hours
like I do now. I put in at least ten hours a day now. But I
would lose new clients. I get referrals quite often. People
Juror No. 22 - Voir Dire
come in the door; and if I'm not there, they are going to go
on. Once the existing work dries up, I'm going to be stuck for
a few months afterwards. So I'm not going to be able to pay my
overhead, my education overhead expenses, et cetera.
Q. And the domestic relation -- the felony criminal trial --
as I understand it, you say you also have a number of settings
in civil cases?
A. That is correct.
Q. And these are custody matters and so on?
A. Yes.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you very much for answering my
questions.
May I just have a moment to confer, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. Yes.
MR. TIGAR: I'm sorry, your Honor. One more.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Did -- did you factor in that the court does not sit Friday
afternoons?
A. Yes, I was aware of that from the last --
MR. TIGAR: Okay. Thank you.
We consent, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we're going to excuse
you, and we appreciate your cooperation with us in going
through this process to this point. And of course, you know,
we're concerned about you and your ability to continue to
practice; but principally, of course, it's the impact on your
clients and the other courts that are involved. We don't
excuse lawyers automatically, as you understand. So thank you
for your cooperation.
You're now excused. We'd appreciate it if you not
talk about this process with others until we get a jury seated.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.
680.
Good morning. Would you please raise your right hand
and take the oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 680 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated in the chair there by the
microphone. Excuse me. And you don't have to worry about
positioning yourself with the microphone. It's just there to
help us hear you, and it'll pick you up without having to lean
over and talk into it.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. You understand that the oath there refers to the trial of
the United States against Terry Lynn Nichols for which you
received a summons for jury service last July.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. In response to that summons, you sent back a short
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
questionnaire, and we appreciate that. And then the second
thing was that you were notified to appear at the Jefferson
County Fairgrounds' auditorium building last month on September
the 17th to answer a much longer questionnaire. And you did
that. You appeared there and you did fill out the
questionnaire, but as part of that, I also made some
explanations about the case and introduced people who were
there with me. They're here with me again today and I want to
reintroduce them so you know who's here with us this morning.
First for -- at the table here for counsel for the
Government, we have Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson.
You met them out there at Jefferson County. They are now
joined by Mr. Patrick Ryan and Mr. James Orenstein. They were
not there. They are additional lawyers for the Government.
You did meet Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols. Of course, Mr. Nichols was there
with us and is with us again today.
And then I want to just review with you briefly what I
told you out there about the background of the case and some of
the basics here. And please understand that I'm not suggesting
you didn't hear and listen to what I said or that you don't
remember it, but it's important -- we speak often in court
about doing something for the record. And it's important for
the record to review this again as sort of the backdrop for the
questioning, and we're going to ask you some more questions, if
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
you can believe it.
But I told you and the others that this case is -- has
been filed because of a -- an explosion that destroyed a
federal office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April
the 19th of 1995, resulting in the deaths and injuries to many
of the people who were in the building. That the attorneys for
the Government then filed an indictment -- a statement of
accusations or charges -- in Oklahoma City in the Federal Court
there, accusing a man named Timothy James McVeigh, along with
Terry Lynn Nichols -- and then the indictment says "and other
persons not named" -- of conspiring or entering into a criminal
agreement to bomb that building and to kill and injure the
people in it.
Now, the indictment consists of some 11 counts or
charges that include the conspiracy and then include
allegations that these people went forward with that plan and
did, indeed, bomb the building with the intent to kill and
injure people in it. And the indictment includes eight charges
or counts of first-degree murder of law enforcement agents who
were in the building. These are officers of or employees of
different law enforcement agencies of the national government,
persons who died in the explosion.
To all of the charges, the defendants entered their
pleas of not guilty, thereby creating the issues for trial.
The case was then moved from Oklahoma City here to Denver
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
because of a concern of asking people in Oklahoma to sit on a
jury since the event occurred there.
And then after the case was here in Colorado, I
entered an order for separate trials, finding that it would be
fundamentally unfair to both Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols to be
tried and the evidence with respect to each of them tried in
the same -- at the same time before the same jury because of
expected differences.
So as a result of that order, there has been a trial
earlier this year of the evidence concerning Mr. McVeigh. And
Mr. McVeigh was represented by lawyers other than the lawyers
representing Mr. Nichols. That a jury was picked for that
case, using much the same process as this. That jury heard
evidence relating to Mr. McVeigh and found him guilty, and then
the jury was required to hear a second trial concerning the
issue of punishment and did do that and returned a
recommendation for a death sentence for Mr. McVeigh. That's
over.
Now we're getting ready to hear the evidence
concerning Mr. Nichols and picking a jury to do that. And of
course, what happened in the trial of Timothy McVeigh now
cannot be considered in connection with Mr. Nichols. So
whatever anyone coming in on the jury here may have read, seen,
or heard about what happened at Mr. McVeigh's trial, that has
to be set aside. We start with a clean slate with no evidence
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
at all in the case. You understand these points?
A. I do.
Q. And now, the purpose, of course, is to have a jury hear the
evidence that the Government may have with respect to
Mr. Nichols and determine whether it meets the required
standards under the law. And I want to mention these
fundamental principles of law, too, before we ask you any more
questions. And, you know -- you've never been on a jury in a
criminal case, have you?
A. No.
Q. And that's true, of course, of most of the people who have
been summoned in here, and that's why I took time then and I
want to take a few minutes to repeat now these basic principles
of our criminal justice system. They are basic because they're
required under the United States Constitution, so they're a
part of our fundamental law. And they are applicable in all
criminal cases in the United States regardless of who the
defendant is or what the crimes charged are or who the
prosecution is or even what court it's in as long as the
court's in this country, following our Constitution.
Basic to all is the -- of course, a fair jury, having
a jury consisting of 12 persons who can fairly hear and
consider the evidence in the case and follow the law. And
that's what we're engaged in here, picking a jury, selecting a
jury. But then the defendant, whoever he is and whatever he's
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
charged with, is presumed to be innocent of those charges.
These statements of charges are simply allegations,
accusations, and the person charged is presumed to be innocent.
And that presumption carries throughout the trial and entitles
that person to an acquittal, a verdict of not guilty, unless 12
jurors, hearing and considering only the evidence on trial,
determines that it proves the defendant guilty and proves it
beyond a reasonable doubt.
No person who is accused has any burden or duty of
proving himself not guilty or indeed of proving anything in his
trial. He need not call any witnesses or introduce any
evidence, and no person accused need take the witness stand and
answer any questions from the lawyers or explain anything to
the court and jury. In other words, a defendant who is charged
can simply remain silent and challenge the evidence against him
by objections to the admissibility of evidence and by
cross-examining the witnesses and so forth.
And at the end of the trial, after all of the evidence
is in, the court gives the jury instructions about the law,
which include the specific requirements of what has to be
proved by the evidence. The -- as to each offense charged --
we refer to it as the elements of the offense, what things must
be proved to find the defendant guilty of a conspiracy or
guilty of first-degree murder -- and then goes through other
detailed instructions with respect to the consideration of
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
particular types of evidence and the like and then asks the
jury to decide whether what you've heard and seen as evidence
in the case proves it to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable
doubt. And if not, then the jury's duty, of course, is to
return a verdict of not guilty.
Do you understand these points?
A. I do.
Q. And those instructions always say in a case in which a
defendant does not testify that the jury may not consider that
fact at all. It's not something that would warrant any kind of
inference that well, what's he hiding or, you know, if he's an
innocent person, why doesn't he take the stand and tell us.
There are many reasons why a person who is innocent of a crime
would not testify at trial. Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. And so we say routinely in such circumstances on the
instructions that look, you can't think about it, you can't
talk about it. You have to put that aside. And then what the
rule about the presumption of innocence really means is that if
at the end of -- and of course, the jury talks about what they
heard and saw as evidence in their deliberations, but in the
end, the jury is asked to -- or directed to follow the
principle that if, after all of that, there is a reasonable
doubt about whether the evidence shows guilt, then the
defendant must receive the benefit of that doubt and be found
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
not guilty. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, in very real terms, you understand that Mr. Terry
Nichols sits in this room with us this morning presumed to be
innocent of these charges made about him?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you agree with these principles?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you prepared to follow them if you were to serve on
the jury in this case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Now, after I went through these same -- briefly, these same
explanations, I asked you to turn to the written questionnaire
and answer all these 166 questions, and you did that, and we
appreciate that. Then what we did was take these answers that
you gave us, made copies for the people who are here
participating in this process, the people I've introduced, and
with, of course, the understanding that because a number of
things that we asked of you might be thought of as personal and
private, we respect your privacy and we have not given this
information to anybody else and won't use it for any purpose
other than this. And we are not referring to you by name here,
and we arranged for you to come and go to the courthouse so
there can't be press photographers taking your picture and all
that.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
So we balance that privacy interest out and also
recognize the public interest in the proceeding. Please know
that what we do now is public. You understand?
A. Yes.
Q. So your answers to these questions now are in the -- in
public.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, you may not want it that way, but we do have
to balance --
A. I have to answer them; right?
Q. Yes, you do.
A. Okay.
Q. If there's anything that we're to be particularly sensitive
to, you tell us.
We're not going to go through all these questions all
over again. Don't worry about that. All I want to do is
review with you a few of the things that you said here, ask you
to explain or expand on a few of them; and then I have some
additional questions that are not on the questionnaire. And
when I'm done with questions, a lawyer for each side will have
an opportunity to ask you some more, so bear with us a while,
if you will.
And I want you to know, too, that there are no right
or wrong answers. This isn't a test, and you're not going to
be challenged on what you say. Nobody's going to criticize you
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
for any answer that you give. In the areas where the questions
asked for your opinions, attitudes, beliefs, you know, you just
tell us what they are and don't worry about how we react to
them because we've just about heard it all, you know. So I
don't think anything that you say to us will cause us to think
less of you or be concerned.
Now, if I could just review your background a little
so that we understand it. You are originally from Denver. You
were born and raised here.
You have to answer out loud. That's one of the
rules --
A. Yes, I am.
Q. -- so that your answers can go into the record.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you are married with four children living at
home.
A. Yes.
Q. And you are also now employed, and the work you do for your
employer is in the human resources field.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you've been there for a good long time.
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. Tell us -- you refer to yourself as a coordinator in human
resources. Would you tell us a little more about what you do
in that work.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Well, that's a term that you can use so that you can do
anything, I think. So I assist the vice president. I do the
company newsletter, unemployment, training, recruitment.
Q. You work directly with personnel on things like their
insurance benefits and --
A. I help a little bit with that, too.
Q. -- and all that. And what about areas of dispute? I
assume this employer has some kind of a grievance procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are also union contracts there; right?
A. Yes. Right now, I'm taking notes for one of the
negotiation processes, but only because the person that would
be just resigned, so . . .
Q. All right. So do you deal with the -- you have both union
employees and nonunion employees?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you deal with both?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And with respect to the union employees, obviously, they
have particular procedures applicable to them because of the
bargaining contract?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there a different procedure for nonunion employees?
I'm talking about where they have a grievance, for example,
against a supervisor or something of that nature.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. They would just come to human resources directly.
Q. Yeah.
A. There's not a contract or anything. A written procedure,
no.
Q. No written procedure for the nonunion?
A. Right.
Q. So again, do you monitor compliance with the requirements
of the union contracts?
A. Not specifically. I mean, employees come to me sometimes
as a liaison or just --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- to speak about something, but I don't really have the
authority to --
Q. Do you have a formal role in investigating grievances or
complaints and taking them through this -- I assume there are
various steps in the process.
A. No. Sometimes I can explain the contract to them, but I
don't have a role.
Q. Do you also have a role in the hiring of new employees?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And I take it you follow some formal procedure for
applications, interviews, and so forth?
A. For the most part.
Q. And is -- do you work with lawyers?
A. We use lawyers occasionally, but I don't specifically work
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
with them.
Q. Okay. Well, I was only referring to things like if
there -- again, I seem to be dwelling on grievances and things,
which is not to suggest that your employer has more than
others; but we're simply looking at it in terms of whether
you've been involved in some kind of fact-finding and
investigation process of working with lawyers to resolve
disputes, that kind of thing.
A. When we have grievances that, say, go to litigation or --
we get attorneys. I do not sit in on those.
Q. Okay. And your husband is also employed, and as I
understand it, he works with an energy company?
A. Yes.
Q. And works for them in computer-assisted or computer-aided
drafting?
A. Right.
Q. And he's been with them for -- well, he's been in that line
of work for a number of years?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you -- in the area of opinion, we asked you very
broadly your opinion regarding the effectiveness of the
criminal justice system. I'm referring now to page 22. Please
refer to your own -- you have your questionnaire there, I hope.
Okay. Please turn to 22. And it's at Question 100 there near
the top. Just take a moment to review what you said.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
There seem to be two parts to your answer, one
relating to your observations and opinions about the trial of
this case of O. J. Simpson. Just tell us, if you would --
expand on what you said here about that and its effect on you.
A. Well, that -- that certainly -- the O. J. Simpson trial,
the biggest trial that we've ever been able to follow -- and,
you know, I did not think it -- it was done well.
Q. How much did you follow it?
A. You know, I watched some pieces of it at home at night. I
wouldn't say that I dwelled on it like most people.
Q. It was telecast, of course, live as it was happening.
A. Yes. I think there were certain parts -- and it was rather
lengthy. It got a little boring after a while, I think.
Q. And do you have criticisms of particular aspects of the
case, like lawyers for one side or the other, the judge, the --
A. Well, I don't think the judge seemed to have the control
that maybe he should have. But having no experience, it's hard
to say --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- if that's normal or not.
Q. So is that the only case that you followed with the same
exposure to it as --
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever sit and watch a trial in court --
A. No.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Q. -- that wasn't telecast and publicized?
A. No.
Q. Then you mentioned another part of it as to traffic
violations, minor offenses, like county courts and municipal
courts.
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't think that they work well. Would you expand
on that answer a bit.
A. Well, I have four sons, so I've had occasion to attend with
them for small things.
Q. Like speeding tickets and --
A. Tickets. I think the -- the one that I didn't like the
least (sic) was a violation for shooting a firecracker, which
is --
Q. You mention that in here.
A. -- which is possessing firearms and --
Q. Tell us a little about that, will you?
A. Well, I don't consider shooting --
Q. Well, what did happen?
A. Well, he was on his friend's driveway after the 4th because
he had purchased these while he was with his baseball team at a
tournament in Wyoming where you can purchase them. So he
didn't arrive back with them until after the 4th.
Q. Yeah.
A. So, you know, you tell them not to shoot them, but . . .
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Q. How old was he then?
A. He was 17. So I think he only got one out. They were on a
driveway, and I think probably it had been reported in the
neighborhood prior to that. And, you know, I wasn't there, so
he may have said something, too, but he got a ticket. So you
go --
Q. The police came up?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is this in the same city where you live?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. In your neighborhood?
A. Yes.
Q. And so --
A. And the parent was home, also. And first of all, I think a
warning would be okay, but it's not -- but I'm not sure it
should fall under possession of firearms for one thing.
Q. That's your understanding of the charge?
A. Yes. Because when he had to go up, they asked if you
understand the charge, and I told him, "Well, if you don't
understand it, say you don't understand it."
Well, it took the judge quite a while to find it in
the big book. And then he read it and went into guns and, you
know, bombs and explosives and, you know, "Do you understand
it?"
"Well, I guess so."
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Q. Was this a city ordinance? Was that your understanding?
A. I assume so.
Q. Okay.
A. And the problem was is that there are several kids here at
the same time for various reasons. And it was kind of
interesting that the kid that had marijuana had a probationary
officer with him and just kind of received a reprimand; and if
you have good behavior, no fine, it's okay. This was, you
know, it's on your record, $80 fine. And my son said, "That
doesn't seem fair."
And I said, "Well" --
Q. Didn't to you, either?
A. But what are you going to do? You really can't -- you
can't plead not guilty because you were guilty. So I mean, you
really cannot express your opinion in these types of things.
Q. Well --
A. So --
Q. -- the way I get it from you is you and your son agreed
that he was guilty of a firecracker --
A. Yes.
Q. -- violation, but you didn't think that's the same as
shooting a handgun?
A. Well, that; and I don't think it's the same as, you know,
getting caught with an illegal drug or --
Q. I see.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. -- shoplifting; you know, the variety of the things that
were -- we were kind of protecting the child that had been in
trouble, trying to keep him out of trouble, and he -- and --
Q. So is that the principle -- and this was a city court, as
you understood it?
A. Yes.
Q. A municipal court.
A. And I had been for other things with my kids, you know,
minor things that you have to go for, but --
Q. Okay.
A. But that was the most one that I --
Q. Now, you do also refer to a matter lower on that page at
102. And is this another one that you think was handled poorly
all around?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what happened there.
A. Well, of course, this is just getting the information
from -- not being there, but my son and three of his friends
were jumped as they were coming out of a King Soopers.
Apparently, two of the kids had had an altercation with these
people downtown, picked up my son and another friend after the
fact; but these people had followed those two. They jumped
them. Actually, you know, just hit my son. I mean, he went
down. Never even knew what hit him. But the police come, and
they were all ticketed for disturbing the peace, I believe it
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
was.
Now, we wanted to, you know, get an attorney and --
and -- these -- the -- the adults that did it were on probation
and had been involved in things before. But he -- he was over
21, and he just -- his friends told him, "It's not a big deal.
It's just a misdemeanor. Just pay the fine, and it's a lot
easier that way."
But I -- that's our own fault for not fighting --
Q. What happened to the people you believe to be the
perpetrators?
A. I know that they went on trial because they had called my
son to be a witness but then excused him before he went, so I
don't know.
Q. Do you know what happened?
A. I don't know what happened.
Q. And then on the next page, there's another incident. And
this one, as I understand it, involved some assault on your
husband?
A. No. Actually, he was a witness.
Q. Oh, just a witness. Okay. And tell us what you understand
that one to be about.
A. Well, that was after a basketball game that he was
attending. And when the -- these were friends that were
playing, young kids. And when they came out, one of the
players from the other team just blindsided the one kid, and my
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
husband was a witness to that. He was called -- it's been
quite a while ago -- to testify. But the problem was the kid
never really got in trouble, and he had been in trouble before
for assault. And as I recall, he just got off. I -- I don't
remember the details.
Q. He got what?
A. That he just got off. You know, he didn't --
Q. No charge filed?
A. No.
Q. How old were these people?
A. Probably 19, 20, 21.
Q. Was it like a high school game or a --
A. I think it was like right around in that age. At -- not a
high school game, but, you know, kids that get teams --
Q. Pickup game.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And is your understanding of this event that this was
something done in retaliation for something that happened
during the game?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. You were asked here, also, your views about -- and
I'm going to go to page 27 -- about the Constitution and the --
really the First Amendment of the Constitution. The freedom-
of-speech aspect. And I'm looking at page 123 -- excuse me --
Question 123 where you say that perhaps there ought to be some
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
guidelines to writing opinions, could hurt someone. Could you
explain your view there and offer any suggestions, if you have
any, about what kind of a guideline you would think there ought
to be?
A. Well, I think we already have, I suppose, some guidelines.
I mean --
Q. Like lawsuits for defamation, for example?
A. Yes. But I'm just, you know -- think that you could hurt
someone if you -- if everyone could express their opinion in
writing. I think most papers or whatever try to be selective
and have guidelines, but --
Q. Some speech hurts, is offense to other people?
A. Yes.
Q. Without any physical harm to them?
A. Right.
Q. Now, are you suggesting some restriction with respect to
speech of that type?
A. Well, I don't know what it would be.
Q. Well, that was my question to you.
A. It would be, you know, someone's opinion of -- of where --
where you draw the line. I suppose it would be hard to do.
Q. Sometimes, those who are critical of too much -- too freely
expressing opinions refer to some things as hate speech where a
person speaks out against a particular race or -- or gender or
whatever and is very offensive to the -- that group. What
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
would you do about that, if anything?
A. Well, I guess we already have laws, you know, handling
that. But that's kind of a different -- I think that's
probably different than what I mean, race, and -- you know, we
already have laws protecting race and gender and people type --
Q. Well, we do in certain circumstances; but there's also the
broad treatment of the First Amendment --
A. Right.
Q. -- that permits people to speak out even in ways that are
offensive to other people.
A. But there again, it's just a language thing that, you
know -- in the workplace, anyway, where it -- it might be put
in writing and generally followed, but then when you get behind
closed doors or -- your true feelings come out anyway.
Q. I see. So are you more concerned here about things like in
the workplace when someone says something offensive to
co-workers and that type of thing?
A. No. But that's probably more where my experience is at, in
viewing it.
Q. Okay. Well --
A. Not everybody acts the same -- they think that they are
saying the correct thing; but then in a different situation,
away from this person, you know, they are totally saying
something else.
Q. Let's take a specific example about rallies of the Ku Klux
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Klan which sometimes involves speech very offensive to a lot of
people. And you know there have been instances where Klan
members have organized protests, demonstrations and so forth.
Do you think that there should be greater restriction on a
group like that?
A. Yes.
Q. And what restriction would you impose?
A. Well, I don't see why they wouldn't fall under -- I mean,
they are definitely a hate group and -- I mean, I experienced
it when they had practically a riot downtown several years
back, and I don't think it was necessary that they even be
allowed to organize like that.
Q. Well, they were allowed to --
A. They were.
Q. -- by a court order.
A. Yeah. And -- so I don't know how you get around that if --
if they can go through those channels and be allowed to do
that. But I -- it was something I felt very strongly they
should not have been allowed to -- to do.
Q. If you could do it, you would prohibit them from having a
gathering and speaking out?
A. Yes. On that particular day, for sure.
Q. All right. Well, this is what we want to hear from you,
what your views are.
A. I mean, I think their sole purpose was to create a problem
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
on that day.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And which they did.
Q. Do you know who the judge was that entered that order? Me.
A. No, I don't. Do you?
Q. You do now. And the only reason I -- you know, I'm not
trying to challenge you.
A. Can I go now?
Q. No. Anything from that that would affect your -- you know,
these attitudes affect you in considering the issues in this
case and also recognizing I'm the judge in this case?
A. I don't see why it would.
Q. Okay. And you do understand and have expressed here at
page 30 the importance -- page 30, Question 129 -- of following
the court's instructions on the law.
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't explain your answer because I assume you
felt that by saying "Agree strongly," that's explanation
enough. You recognize that's a responsibility of the court to
instruct the jury on the law and for the jury to follow it,
whether the jurors individually may agree with the law or not
agree.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, we had to ask you some questions here about
your opinions with respect to punishment and particularly the
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
punishments of death, death penalty, and the punishments of
life in prison without any possibility of release, true life
imprisonment. And we did that because of the -- a potential
for a jury to have to consider such an issue as a part of their
duties in the case.
Now, we said at page 27 again, turning back and gave a
rather lengthy explanation that the fact that these questions
about punishment are being asked of you should not be in any
way considered contrary to the principle that Mr. Nichols is
presumed innocent. It's just that if there is a conviction in
the case, then the jury may have a responsibility to hear and
consider punishment questions. Understood -- did you
understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. And at page 28, we asked you some questions about your
attitudes, opinions, and beliefs concerning these possible
punishments, recognizing that, you know, this is an issue upon
which there is strong disagreement among the public. So just
take a moment to review that.
And also, on the next page, there's -- page 29,
there's another one.
Now, we recognize that these questions came to you
sort of right in the middle of the questionnaire and that we
didn't give you much opportunity to think about it because
these were included in a lot of other questions and a certain
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
time pressure on you, so it may well be that upon reflection,
your answers would be something different from this. Has that
occurred? I mean, have you thought about these questions and
your answers since you wrote these answers?
A. Well, certainly, with the recent execution, it brings to
mind that thought a lot more.
Q. There was a lot of publicity about different views?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. In connection -- you're talking about the execution of this
man named Davis --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or -- as a result of a murder conviction in the Colorado
state courts?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read much of that?
A. I read some of it. The night that it happened, I was in
the car and it -- and I did sit there and listen until it was
final. It was kind of keeping me there. And I had a really
strange feeling, but I -- I couldn't quite pinpoint what it
was, you know, that I was feeling.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. It just seemed sort of odd. I didn't know if I was sad,
and then I didn't know if it really accomplished anything so
far later, you know.
Q. Uh-huh.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Ten years later. So I thought about it a lot more, but I
don't know that I came to -- to any conclusions that were
different. But it did leave me just feeling a little strange
about the whole thing.
Q. Did you give some thought to what the jurors who heard that
case might be thinking or feeling at that time? Anything like
that come to mind?
A. Yeah. I think there was too much publicity on the whole
thing, but I would imagine that they had some feelings. I
don't know. I -- you know, if you're not there and you weren't
around the man and you didn't hear all the evidence and how
brutal or whatever it was, I'm not sure you can --
Q. Yeah.
A. I almost felt a little bit for the man. I just -- a little
bit in the death thing, but -- but I don't know. I guess
that's just a feeling when someone is --
Q. Well, let me put it this way: If I asked you these same
questions right now here today, would you give us the same
answers that you wrote?
A. I think so.
Q. All right. And here too, you know, we want you to be
forthcoming and -- and just tell us what you think. We're not
trying to get a certain answer from you or push you into a
particular point of view. And the way I have understood your
position is that you pretty much sum it up on page 29 with what
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
you wrote under E there.
A. Well, I think so, but referring to the -- the first page
and the recent execution, I mean, I think that I stated what my
religion was and there was a lot of publicity from my Church.
Q. Yes.
A. I mean, I -- I read more papers with their views which made
me think, now, this is how I'm supposed to be thinking. You
know, I -- I respect life, but I still don't know if you
don't -- aren't faced -- for the most part, I would say I'm
against it. But then I think, well, you know, what if Charles
Manson or Hitler or someone were in a room with me for a long
time.
Q. Yeah.
A. I -- I don't know what I -- I might feel such a different
feeling for them that I might be able to. And I think it's a
similar issue with abortion. You know, I'm against it. But if
I had a daughter or -- or a rape situation or something that I
was faced with, who knows what my feeling would be.
Q. So you're -- you follow the Church.
A. Yes.
Q. You're active in the faith?
A. Yes.
Q. And a practicing Catholic.
A. Yes.
Q. But there are times when you -- the teachings of the
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
hierarchy, if we can refer to the church organization in that
way, may be something different from your personal view.
A. No. I'm not really saying that. I mean, I -- I pretty
much follow everything. I'm just saying if you -- you know,
that I'm against it, I wouldn't want to say. But if I sat here
and was exposed to some extremely horrible -- horrible thing,
who knows what I might feel. I don't think if you're --
Q. Well --
A. You can always give your opinion, but until you're faced
with it in your personal life, you really don't know what you
would do.
Q. There are those, I suppose, who in this church, as in some
other churches, believe that if you go against something that
is recognized as teaching from the leadership, that you have in
some fashion committed a sin or that you're going to have, you
know, consequences affect you personally from it. Do you have
any view like that?
A. Well, we have confession in the Catholic Church.
Q. You have absolution, even.
A. It's not like they get rid of it. And I think this Gary
Davis thing, too, it's -- it's so long between the time that
these penalties are actually carried out that they lose their
value anyway. So I think that whole part of the system makes
it kind of a -- not that big of an issue. I mean, if you
sentence someone to death and ten years later they die, I don't
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
know that you accomplished anything.
Q. Of course, there have been some changes in the law with
respect to that, and also, there's federal law that deals with
the process of review in a different way from what the state
law is. But let me go through it with you as to what actually
is done in Federal Court. And that's where we are, and we're
following federal laws and federal practices. So I think to
help us in this discussion, I should explain to you exactly
what's done.
We have the -- the Congress has passed statutes that
provide for certain kinds of crimes that punishment may be life
in prison with no possibility of ever getting out, the person
spends the rest of his days on earth in prison. The second
possibility is the death sentence. And then there can be a
sentence lesser than those two. And this applies to certain
kinds of crimes.
Now, for purposes of simplification, let's simply
limit this to cases involving the intentional killing of other
people, essentially murder, because the Congress has provided
for such punishments for that crime, that type of crime. And
in other federal cases not involving murder but cases like bank
robbery or, you know, selling drugs, all these other federal
offenses, the procedure in those cases is the jury comes in,
hears the evidence, makes a decision guilty or not guilty
following these principles that we've already discussed at some
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
length here including the presumption of innocence, the
necessity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of
the crime and so forth.
And if the jury returns a verdict of not guilty,
obviously, that's the end of it. If the jury returns a verdict
of guilty, that's still the end of it as far as the jury is
concerned, because the jury has now performed the function of
determining whether the evidence proves the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. And then the matter of sentence is left to a
judge. And the judge who heard the case with the jury then has
another hearing at a later time than the day that the verdict
was returned, and that hearing is for the decision as to what
the sentence should be for this person.
And before the judge can make a decision like that,
recognizing that the decision must be individual and particular
for this person, not just for the crime -- because we don't
have automatic punishments for crime. It's not like perhaps
the situation you had in municipal court where here's the
violation, here's the fine. I don't know if that was the
situation. But at any rate, we don't have a schedule of
punishments. What happens is that the court gets a lot more
information than what was presented as the evidence at the
trial, and that information includes additional circumstances
about the crime, things like what was the impact and effect on
others, victim testimony and so forth, and then also gets all
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
the information available about the defendant, the person found
guilty, including that person's life history, really, all about
where he was born and raised, family life, what happened to him
after that, education, what was the education, things that can
relate to his intelligence levels, things relating to his
health if that becomes pertinent, family history, then in
connection with marriages, divorces, children, employment
history, military history, good things that he's done, bad
things that he's done, if there's a criminal record,
essentially, you know, the story of this person, what has he
done, what has been done to him.
And then there's a hearing at which both sides, the
prosecution and defense counsel, can present their views and
the judge makes a decision considering all of these things.
And take a case in which there are multiple defendants, more
than one person involved in the same crime. The judge has to
make individualized decisions as to the punishment for each of
them, and it can be different because one of the factors in
decision-making is also what is the relative role in the crime,
you know, what did this person do as compared to what some
other person did. And I suppose you could illustrate that with
a bank robbery, for example, with somebody going in with a gun
and another person -- and holding the people at bay and another
person grabbing the money, another person out in the car
driving the getaway car. You could view those as different
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
roles. And then the judge makes these decisions. Now -- and
the jury doesn't play any role in that at all.
If the crime, however, is one that, like murder,
involves these other punishments, then under federal law, the
jury has to make a decision and has to make a decision about
life or death because they could say -- the jury could say
well, something lesser than life or death and turn it back to
the judge, but the life or death has to be made by the jury,
and that's because Congress has said that's not a decision for
judges to make. It's not a decision for one person. That's
for the 12 people on the jury.
And the jurors then who heard the trial and decided
the evidence supported a guilty verdict must do more now in
deciding what should the punishment be. And accordingly, there
is another trial on that issue. Punishment is not involved as
an issue in hearing the evidence and determining its
sufficiency. But now, all of the attention is focused on what
should the punishment be. And so witnesses are called, the
exhibits are received in evidence, both sides, lawyers for both
sides participate in very much the same fashion as at trial,
itself. Understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is heard now in this second stage or second trial
is the same kinds of things that a judge factors into a
sentencing decision, again, the things that involve the crime
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
and the circumstances and the consequences of it and then also
the things that are individual to the defendant, because --
excuse me -- what the law says is, you know, if you're making a
decision about whether to take another person's life, you need
to know whose life you're taking and everything about that
person. Follow me?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And so there would be all of these things about that
person's background, you know, his life story. And then at the
end of this second trial or hearing, the court gives
instructions summing, really, what has been heard and reviewing
with the jury what has been heard and dividing it up into the
classification of what may be considered as aggravating factors
or circumstances, the things that the jury has been given
information about that suggests that death is the deserved
punishment for this crime and this person who committed it.
On the other hand, the court would explain those
things that could be considered as mitigating factors,
mitigating against such punishment, and suggesting to the jury
that although the crime is such that the death penalty could be
imposed for it, this particular person does not deserve to die
for it. Understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the court can give to the jury some questions that
may assist in analyzing and sorting through it, and the jury
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
will discuss all -- all 12 of the jurors will discuss it, but
there's no formula that can be applied. It is a very
subjective decision. And in the end, each juror has to make
this decision, should the defendant live or die. And, you
know, the best way to characterize such a decision, subjective
as it is, is a decision based upon the information that has
been received and a decision that is a rational, reasoned moral
response to that information. Understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you -- the question for you and what you must tell us
is whether you can participate in that process and make such a
decision.
A. I'd say that I could, but, you know, I -- I would find it
very hard to do --
Q. Well, nobody questions that.
A. Is it a majority? Does everybody have to -- I mean --
Q. Well, the punishment can't be imposed without unanimity,
but each person has to make a decision. You know, this is not
like --
A. But I mean if all 12 are -- if there's one that doesn't, I
mean, what happens? I don't know what the majority --
Q. Well, the penalty cannot be imposed without unanimity, but
that should not be the basis for your answer here.
A. No. I just --
Q. I mean, you have to decide this as an individual decision.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Sure, you talk about it with others. But, you know, you can't
just say, well, the votes -- you know, the majority is -- I'll
go along with the majority one way or the other. You have to
really make the decision yourself. And then it is a matter of
everybody made the same decision, but that should not play a
role for you to decide whether you can make a decision. And
what we're really looking for is whether you are -- and if
you're not, you tell us -- whether you are open to both --
well, to the whole range of punishment and would consider the
penalty of death, would consider the penalty of life in prison
with no release or even the possibility of a lesser sentence.
A. Well, I'd have to say that death would be the least option
that I -- I'm sure -- would be the hardest option for me to
choose for.
Q. Yes.
A. Life imprisonment would not be; but there again, it's, you
know -- it's a hard thing to say.
Q. Of course. And what makes it even more difficult is that
we cannot tell you what to anticipate --
A. Right.
Q. -- in the way of the information. We can't tell you
anything about Terry Nichols. We can't tell you about what you
would hear in aggravation. We can't even tell you what the
evidence at the trial is going to be with respect to
Mr. Nichols. Now I heard the evidence at the trial of
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Mr. McVeigh, and I know what that is and was. But I can't
anticipate that the same evidence would come in in this trial.
I have to start with a clean page, too. So it does make it
doubly difficult to deal with this in a vacuum, not knowing
what will come in. But the point of it is are you open to the
consideration, as the jury is required to do, of these
alternative punishments and decide it on the basis of the
Court's instructions and the information provided?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know, what we're really asking you, in a sense, is
can you set aside the Church's teachings with respect to this
matter and do it according to the law as it is?
A. Well, I don't think when you put it that way, I mean --
those teachings are going to factor into my feelings. I mean,
when you're raised with those teachings --
Q. Well --
A. You know, I can't say I'm going to set it totally aside.
That would be a consideration, I'm sure, for me.
Q. One, you know -- one could characterize many of the
teachings of your Church as being a high regard for the
sanctity of the life and the individual soul.
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And nobody is asking you to disregard that. That's not
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
what we're talking about. What we're talking about is -- what
I'm talking about is when the Church leadership specifically
talks about a penalty as saying this penalty is immoral and
should not be in the law and criticizes the law as it is, that
is the point that departs from the law as I've explained it.
Because the law provides -- the law that applies to this jury
and to this court, to me, includes the possibility of a
sentence to death. Now, understand?
A. I do.
Q. So we're simply asking you to tell us whether you can go
according to the law as it is.
A. Yes.
Q. And make a decision on the basis of the law and of course,
the information that's provided you.
A. Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we have questions from
counsel.
Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Please bear with us a while longer.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Good morning. My name is Pat Ryan. I'm the United States
Attorney in Oklahoma City. I'm here with fellow prosecutors to
present the Government's case involving Terry Nichols. I have
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
a few questions based on some of the things that you discussed
with his Honor.
A. Right.
Q. I gather that the task of raising four boys is a formidable
one?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have had all of them living at home right now?
A. Yes. They are going to college here, so they are all at
home.
Q. A little tuition?
A. Well, it saves me to provide them room and board as opposed
to paying their tuition.
Q. And do they like to keep the same hours that you and your
husband keep?
A. No.
Q. I -- I read in the questionnaire that you were reading the
book The Sanctuary.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that -- does that have anything at all to do with
capital punishment, the Church, or anything we've been talking
about today?
A. I don't think so. I really enjoyed it.
Q. As opposed to this?
A. I mean, I don't think we got to any trial in that.
Q. You indicated that you had followed the O. J. Simpson case,
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
and you've expressed some criticisms you had of the way the
case was handled. Did you have an opinion about the verdict in
the case?
A. Well, it seemed to me that he was guilty; but, you know, I
wasn't there. I didn't hear all the evidence. You know, still
very sad. And someone obviously did it, and, you know --
there's a good chance that it was him; but I didn't --
obviously, all the evidence did not point to him.
Q. All right. And if I could -- if I could ask you to turn to
Question 126 on page 29.
Would you read your answer to yourself, and then if
you would be kind enough to expand on that and tell me what
you're thinking.
A. Well, certainly, you know, all the things that happen in
the presidency and everything do not point toward honesty in
the government. They never have.
Q. You're talking about individuals within the government?
A. Yes. But that basically turns out to be the government. I
mean, we have some -- of course, we elect individuals, but
there is certainly a lot of dishonest people. I think, you
know -- this is going way back, but the Kennedy thing just
still haunts me that that whole thing could be covered up like
that. Still.
Q. The Kennedy thing.
A. The assassination. And, you know, I still don't think any
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
of that is, you know -- I still think there's government
involvement there and --
Q. In what way?
A. I don't know that we'll ever know. Conspiracy and the
whole -- I guess I've watched "JFK" too many times, but I just
don't think -- nothing is open to the public, and there's just
a lot of dishonesty that we can't really do anything about.
You know, we elect people, but they're not -- you might just be
electing the lesser of two evils half the time. There's a lot
of dishonest people and, you know -- but they are dishonest in
the -- in the workplace. I mean, the top people in a lot of
companies are dishonest. Maybe that's how they get where they
got. I don't know. I'm just kind of a big person on honesty,
but I don't think that you can necessarily fight it. It's
just --
Q. Do you have a view with respect to the assassination of
President Kennedy that the government had President Kennedy
killed?
A. In -- you know, I think -- you know, somewhere along the
line, they -- somebody played a part in that. There were too
many -- too many things covered up; and, you know, I just -- I
just don't think it was a single person assassinating him. And
I don't know why we can't know now.
Q. I'm going to get off this subject, but let me just pursue
one more question if I could. Is it your view that there was
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
more than one person involved in that assassination or that the
government was involved in it or both?
A. Well, I think it's a conspiracy-type thing; but yes, I
think that there was probably some government involvement.
Q. All right. Now, you -- you have told us about a few little
skirmishes that you've attended with your kids in traffic court
and minor things that we all go through as parents. Do any of
your experiences that you've had do you feel at all color your
ability to judge this case?
A. Oh, no. I mean --
Q. Do you have a feeling that the Government is -- it's a
practice of the Government to bring false charges against
people?
A. No. No. I just don't think they give you the opportunity
to -- in those smaller issues to explain. You can never
explain. Of course, that wouldn't happen in something like
this.
Q. All right. Now, did you -- you gave an answer with respect
to the events at Mt. Carmel and Waco, and that's at page 30,
Question 132. Do you see your answer?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Aside from the natural loss and sorrow of losing children,
do you have a view as to what happened there or who was at
fault in the loss of those lives of those children?
A. Well, I think the adults that were there are the ones at
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
fault.
Q. The Davidians for not letting the children out?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, do you recall when the bombing of the
Murrah Building in Oklahoma City occurred?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall where you were when you heard the news?
A. I was at work.
Q. Did you have a television?
A. No. Some -- an employee just told me; and, you know, it
was just -- he had just heard it.
Q. Did you take time out then to go look at a television set?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you think?
A. Well, I would just say in shock.
Q. Did you follow the story of what occurred there in Oklahoma
City for a few weeks after the initial bombing?
A. For a -- yes. Yes.
Q. Was there any particular aspect of that story that captured
your attention?
A. Well, it's mostly just the feel for the loss of, you
know -- of lives and the people that are left.
Q. Have you read any of the stories about the -- about the
victims that have been published in the newspapers in the last
couple of years?
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. I'm sure that I did around the time that it happened.
Q. Anything recent?
A. No.
Q. Now, if I could, I'd like to turn to this issue of the
death penalty.
A. Okay.
Q. You feel like you've already answered enough questions on
that subject?
A. I probably haven't answered it very well, I guess.
Q. Do you have a view as to what purpose or a valid purpose
for the death penalty is?
A. Well, I don't see that it has a lot of purpose when we do
it once -- one out of 90 people or something. I just -- I
mean, I don't see that it can be a deterrent when it's handled
that way. And I don't know that it would be anyway because,
you know, some of these people just can't be deterred, you
know. So I don't know. It just -- it doesn't happen very -- I
guess in Texas, it happens quite often.
Q. Do you think it has any valid purpose?
A. The way that it's handled, no.
Q. And when you say "the way it's handled," you're speaking
now of the time frame that you talked about --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- to his Honor, between when the sentence --
A. Ten years later.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Q. Right. Okay.
A. I don't know, you know, that it . . .
Q. Do you think it has a purpose in society if you didn't have
that delay?
A. I -- I don't know. I mean, it's only going to be used
in -- in cases, you know -- of extreme cases, and I don't know
that that type of person is definitely not mentally -- you
know, that is capable of that behavior, I don't know that that
would be a deterrent to that type of person.
Q. All right. Now, do you know what your Church's views are
on the death penalty?
A. Oh, they are definitely against the death penalty.
Q. In all circumstances?
A. Yes.
Q. I mean -- in all cases?
A. Just taking life at all is -- is wrong.
Q. All right. You -- you indicated earlier to his Honor
that -- he asked you a question about would you think it would
be a sin if you were a juror voting for the death penalty in a
case, and your -- do you recall that question?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you said something about well, we have penance.
A. Well --
Q. Do -- do I take from that that you think it is a sin, but
it's one that you could go to confession for?
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Well, it -- it would certainly be, I guess, an issue of
having a hand in taking a life, so it would be kind of a -- you
know, a moral thing for me to think about; but, you know, birth
control is a sin, too. So I mean, I certainly -- I mean,
without going into too much detail, I didn't exactly follow
that one to the --
Q. Right. I won't ask you any details about that. I just
simply want --
A. Now, I don't think the Church is quite into those set sins.
It would be an issue that I would have to deal with.
Q. Right. And you understand we're -- we're here just to get
your views. We're here to find out whether you're capable and
able and willing to give both Mr. Nichols and the United States
Government a fair trial in this case. And one of the issues is
guilt or not guilty. And the other issue is what the
punishment is. And what we're trying to find out from you --
and I'm probably doing it in a very awkward manner -- is to
simply have you tell me are you willing to not just consider --
not just listen to the evidence on the penalty phase and not
just consider it but actually willing, if you thought it was
the right punishment, to give the death penalty.
A. Well, if I thought it was, but --
Q. Well, can you conceive of circumstances -- I'm not asking
you to name them right now; but can you conceive of
circumstances in which you -- you would find that it was the
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
right punishment, the death penalty?
MR. TIGAR: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. You're not being asked for particular circumstances. I
think that the question here -- and that's the reason I
sustained the objection -- that what Mr. Ryan is getting at and
what I've attempted to get at is after discuss -- considering
all of the information and listening to what I would be saying
about aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances,
are you open to considering that because of what you've heard
and considering aggravating and mitigating, there's the
possibility that the aggravating circumstances would warrant
the death penalty?
A. I'm open to that, but I -- I have to be honest and say
that, you know, I'm -- that was going to be the thing I would
lean furthest from, but it would have to be something that just
struck me so emotionally to make me opt for that. I'm --
Q. Well, it can't be an emotional decision. It has to be a
rational, reasoned decision, you understand.
A. Right. I mean, you know, I've said, you know, they ought
to kill somebody or, you know, they ought to drop a bomb on
this guy and get rid of him. You know, that's probably wrong
for me to say that; so I'm saying there are some people out
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
there that I've said that about and maybe that type of person,
I could say, you know, we would be better off without this
person anywhere. But I -- I don't really understand -- I guess
it's a very important issue, but why, you know --
Q. Well the issue is whether you can follow the law. It's
that simple. And what the law requires you to consider in the
event of a conviction and in the event then of sufficient
information that would be provided at this sentencing hearing
that under the law says for this crime, this person could be
put to death; for this crime, this person could be sent to
prison for the rest of his life -- and you have to decide
which.
A. You know, I -- I can say I would have trouble with it, but
I don't know, you know.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. And I'm --
A. Now, that's probably --
Q. This is my last question. I know you're tired of answering
these. I mean, the question I'm trying to -- to find out from
you is whether or not, no matter what the facts, no matter what
the aggravating circumstances are that the Government would
introduce, are you always going to choose a life sentence?
A. That would certainly be my first choice, but I -- you know,
like I say, I don't know. I've never been in a situation where
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
you've been presented with some -- some very graphic evidence
or something that might, you know, bring out a hate-type
feeling in you that would make you think maybe that's right.
Maybe this is the right thing.
Q. So you think you could do it given the right facts?
A. I think I could do it. But, you know, I -- I want to say
that I wouldn't certainly -- it would not be the option that I
would want to do.
MR. RYAN: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Woods.
MR. WOODS: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. We have to go last. The Judge and the prosecutor have
already covered just about everything. There's not much left
for me to cover. So a few questions and you'll be out of here.
A. Okay.
Q. Mike Tigar and I, Ron Woods, were appointed by the United
States District Judge in Oklahoma City shortly after May the
10th of '95, when these Government lawyers accused Mr. Nichols
of being responsible for the bombing of April 19, '95. How do
you feel about him having lawyers appointed by the court to
help him here in court against all these government lawyers?
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Well, that's part of his right.
Q. Does he start off at any disadvantage because he couldn't
afford a lawyer?
A. No. I would assume that the court appoints lawyers that
are capable.
Q. Okay. So it's not going to bear any weight in your
consideration of the case against him if you were to end up on
the jury, the fact that he has court-appointed lawyers?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What did you think when you first saw Mr. Nichols in
person last month at the fairgrounds? I assume you had been
reading or hearing about him for over two years. You must have
had some picture in your mind. What did you think when you
first saw him?
A. Well, I wasn't prepared to see him, so I was a little
shocked. I think I remember commenting he looked quite normal.
Q. Okay. What do you think of him seeing him this close?
A. He looks about the same.
Q. Okay. Did you have any picture in your mind that seeing
him in person changed or to confirm what you thought, or what?
A. I don't think I really had a picture of him in my mind
before. I really hadn't followed too much the involvement.
Q. Okay. Okay. Without naming where you work, there are
people where you work that have followed this case very
closely. Would you agree?
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. After you got your jury summons and it became known that
you were a possible juror -- juror, did anybody talk to you
about your service on the case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Anybody mention, you know, that Mr. Nichols should
get the same thing that Mr. McVeigh got?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. However, I think that a lot of people know I am in a jury
pool. I mean, just -- you kind of have to tell --
Q. Sure. You've got to tell your employer?
A. Well, and when you get that, you're kind of like --
Q. Why did I get that?
A. You're all excited. You run in and say, Look what I just
got. Then it spreads pretty quickly, so . . .
Q. Anybody suggest to you about how you can get off, answer
questions certain ways?
A. I had a lot of suggestions.
Q. What kind of questions or -- what kind of suggestions did
you get?
A. Let's see. Definitely for or against the death penalty.
Q. Well, you certainly haven't taken that position either way,
have you?
A. Let's see. They thought just considering where I worked
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
would automatically disqualify me. Being a mother might
disqualify me easily.
Q. That wouldn't leave us with many potential jurors, would
it?
Any other suggestions on how to get on or get off that
you received?
A. Just act -- act kind of nutty or something. I don't know.
Q. Okay.
A. They kind of quit talking to me about suggestions.
Q. Okay. I take it from your answers to the Judge and to the
prosecutor that you're not attempting to get off; that you're
attempting to answer questions honestly and let the process run
its course; is that correct?
A. I am. And you know, I'm sorry that I can't be more, you
know, definitive in that death penalty issue. I mean, it's --
you know, one minute I say, Well, I'm against it; and then --
but what about, you know . . . And then you think of different
people in the past: What if, you know, he was sitting there?
What if he was sitting there? Well, certainly, he deserved to
die. So that just puts you in a situation that you're --
you're not really sure.
Q. Sure. Sure. And I'll get to that in a second on the death
penalty issue.
I notice that you've read a number of books on the
criminal justice system. Undue Influence. Is that Patterson?
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
A. Yeah. Or Martini. I don't remember which one.
Q. And the Grisham books, Runaway Jury, etc.
A. Yes.
Q. What impressions did you get since those are lawyers -- is
Patterson a lawyer? I don't recall whether or not he and
Martini were lawyers.
A. I think.
Q. Grisham is. What impression did you get of the criminal
justice system from reading those books?
A. That a very good lawyer can work miracles in the courtroom.
Q. What impressions did you get about prosecutors in the
criminal justice system?
A. Nothing in particular either way. Just, you know, focused
on lawyers and how they can bring things out that you would
never have thought of.
Q. All right.
A. Make people say things that -- you know --
Q. What impression did you get of criminal defense lawyers
then?
A. I don't -- I don't think I really distinguished between the
two.
Q. Okay. You didn't finish one answer there. We could bring
things out that the -- the role of the attorney is to develop
the facts, but then you started another answer about "make
people say," and then you tapered off there. Make people say
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
what?
A. Well, you know, they get them all flustered and then they
say damaging things, whether they are true or not, but it is
just fiction so --
Q. Okay. From reading those books, would that affect your
deliberations in this case and in watching the evidence develop
from that witness stand where people are under oath and have to
tell the truth?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. I truly read for pleasure, so I mean it's just -- it's a
pastime.
Q. Okay. And you haven't been on a jury before; and as the
Judge asked you, you haven't set (sic) through any trial; is
that correct?
A. No.
Q. And your only experience, I gather, from a trial is the
O. J. Simpson case and whatever experience that gave us.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Have you seen any other case televised?
A. Probably not that I've followed. Not that I remember.
Q. Okay. Now, in the questionnaire, when it talks about the
gun laws and your impression of the gun laws and possession --
possessing guns, what are your feelings or opinions about
people who are in the business of buying and selling guns,
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
either retail or at gun shows such as that?
A. Well, I -- you know, I really hate guns. I mean, I was
never brought up with hunting or anything like that. And as a
mother, I really fear them because I know they are in so many
homes; so I fear the fact that maybe my child might be going
somewhere where guns are laying around and I -- and I would
really like tough gun laws.
But on the other hand, I know some people well that
are in that business. It seems to be a very legitimate hobby
for them.
Q. Okay. So it would -- I take it you would not hold it
against someone if they were testifying, they were a witness or
something? The mere fact that they are in the business, which
is a legitimate business, you wouldn't hold that against them
to observe their credibility?
A. No. As long as, you know -- I consider going to gun shows
a little different than maybe selling them, you know, on the
street to somebody. I don't know, you know --
Q. Right. I don't think we'll have any evidence --
A. That's what I mean, but . . .
Q. I don't think there will be any street sales here, if
that's what you're referring to.
Now, you mentioned to the Court and to the prosecutor
that you watched television pretty carefully the first few days
when it happened back in '95. If you would look on your
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
questionnaire on page 33. Question 144 asked the sources from
which you have obtained information about the Oklahoma City
bombing. And you checked off TV news, radio news, newspaper,
conversations, and heard other people discussing the case.
And then 145: "How would you describe the amount of
media coverage . . ." And you -- you checked off "quite a
bit."
And then the next question about "Have you closely
followed news reports about any criminal trials or criminal
cases over the past five years?" You checked "somewhat."
What -- do you know what you're referring to there in 146, what
other trials?
A. Well, I suppose I only mean the O. J. Simpson trial.
Q. Okay. Okay. From what you have seen, read, or heard over
that period of time before the Court asked you not to read
further, you know, out at the fairgrounds -- he asked you, You
may be a juror on the case, so please don't read anything
further. But up until that date, do you recall how many people
were killed in the bombing from what you'd seen, read, or heard
in the media?
A. It seems to me it was 160-something.
Q. Okay.
A. But --
Q. Do you recall whether or not there were children killed?
A. Yes.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Q. And do you recall why there were children killed in the
bombing of a federal building?
A. Because of the day care.
Q. Okay. Do you remember how many children were killed?
A. No.
Q. All right. And I'm sure you still recall the images of
that day and the next day of the rescue workers and the dead
and the injured being removed from the building. Would that be
accurate to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think you'll ever forget those images?
A. No.
Q. Okay. If you were chosen as a juror in this case, it's
likely that the Government will present a number of witnesses
that will relive those days, and there'll be photographs and
videos and testimony that will be so emotional and
heart-wrenching and sad that most of the people in the
courtroom will be crying. And my question is if you were on
the jury, can you look at that testimony for what it is; that
is, evidence of the crime which nobody disputes, nobody is
disagreeing that that occurred, but can you look at it for what
it is and keep it separate from looking at what is the
Government proving and offering into evidence that Mr. Nichols
was responsible for that -- that will take an objective look
without letting all the emotions spill over into the jury's
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
mind and thinking, well, somebody did this crime, somebody
ought to pay for it. Can you keep those two things separate?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And back on the publicity issue, do you
remember how the bomb was delivered to the building?
A. In a truck. Ryder truck.
Q. Do you remember what the Government claimed the bomb was
made of?
A. I think I only remember like fertilizer and something --
not specifically.
Q. Okay. And from what you've seen, read, or heard, do you
remember how Mr. McVeigh was arrested by law enforcement?
A. I think he was pulled over for a traffic violation.
Q. Okay. And from what you've seen, read, or heard, do you
recall how Mr. Nichols initiated contact with the law
enforcement authorities?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Do you remember whether or not he was in Oklahoma
City at the time of the bombing?
A. No.
Q. That's no, you don't remember?
A. No. I don't remember.
Q. Okay. From what you have seen, read, and heard over that
period of time, what is it that you recall that the Government
here claims that Mr. Nichols did to make him responsible for
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
the bombing?
A. Well, to be honest, I didn't really follow too much of --
of his involvement. I think it had to do with creating the
bomb. Getting supplies or helping make it, or something like
that.
Q. Okay. Can you -- do you remember what it is that you saw,
read, or heard about creating a bomb?
A. That he might have gotten some of the supplies or had
experience in knowing how to. I really didn't follow it that
much.
Q. Okay.
A. As a matter of fact, when I got it, I kind of felt
embarrassed that I didn't know more about his involvement and
kind of wanted to --
Q. Okay.
A. -- study it, but . . .
Q. And when you say "involvement," what do you mean by that?
Are you -- are you saying that he is involved, or what do you
mean by that?
A. What his alleged involvement is, you know.
Q. The alleged involvement. Okay. Okay. Was there anything
else that you recall from the media other than that he might
have helped create the bomb?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. Okay. And on page 34, you checked off the names,
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
the long list of names there; and you were fairly thorough and
went through and picked out the names that you had recalled; is
that correct? Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols and Fortier and
James Nichols.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what do you recall about James Nichols?
A. Just that that's his brother.
Q. Okay. And do you know where he lives?
A. I thought they lived in the same place, but I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. Okay. And do you know where that is if it's the
same place?
A. I should know, but -- is it Kansas?
Q. Okay. Again, as the Judge said, this is not a test. You
know, we're not grading your papers, and we're just trying to
see what you recall and what information or opinions you have.
A. I mean, I -- it's been a long time since I've been able to
read it, and I really don't recall from -- you know, really
focused on McVeigh and nothing else.
Q. Okay. As to the verdict on McVeigh, at your work or at
your home or at your other associations, did you ever hear
anybody say they disagree with that verdict?
A. No.
Q. And as to the death sentence, did you ever hear anybody
say, well, that wasn't proper?
A. No. But I don't -- until it's carried out, I don't think
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
you get the people expressing their opinions.
Q. Okay. Didn't read the newspapers and see on television all
the people being quoted right after the death verdict was
rendered?
A. Well, yeah. I think I -- mostly the Oklahoma persons were
very happy, as I recall.
Q. Okay. Did you see the publicity about the crowds of people
that came out of the downtown buildings and lined up the
sidewalk to clap for the prosecutors?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you think of that?
A. I don't think it was something that I would come out to
clap for. I mean, I would think it's a -- it's a sad situation
and it -- I don't think that kind of reaction is something I
would be involved in.
Q. Okay. Did you personally disagree with the death penalty
verdict on Mr. McVeigh?
A. I -- no. I mean --
Q. Okay.
A. It wasn't me that had to make it, so --
Q. Right. And the Judge and the prosecutor have covered this
pretty thoroughly; but I just want to sum up, if I can. The
Judge explained to you what the law is. If you were a juror
chosen to set (sic) in a case and it reached the penalty
stage -- and again, I want to emphasize that Mr. Tigar and
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
Mr. Nichols and I are not conceding we're going to get to it --
to a penalty phase. Mr. Nichols is presumed innocent here.
The Government's got a theory about Mr. Nichols' being
responsible. We don't agree with that theory. They are going
to have to put on witnesses to prove that theory. We're going
to cross-examine them thoroughly.
And then when they get through, since they go first,
even though the Judge told you we don't have to put on
witnesses, we are. We're going to put on a number of witnesses
that will contradict their theory.
It'll be the judge -- the jury's job then to weigh
that evidence and render a verdict. And only in the event the
jury says Mr. Nichols is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
premeditated and deliberate murder of all those individuals --
only then will we get to a punishment stage. And again, as I
say, we're not conceding that we'll ever get there; but because
we won't have a chance to talk to you again, this is the only
time we can talk to you about the penalty phase.
The Judge explained to you the law about how a penalty
phase is handled. The Government here will be offering
aggravating circumstances in -- into evidence to try to get the
jury to return a death penalty verdict. In the event we're at
a punishment stage, then we will be offering mitigating
circumstances into evidence to try to get the jury to go with
life imprisonment without release.
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
And the Judge's question to you was can you listen to
that evidence, give consideration to it, and then return your
verdict one way or the other, either death penalty or life
imprisonment based on what you hear at that phase of the trial.
A. I would say I can, but I don't -- is it like a -- I mean,
it's like they are for sure going to want the death penalty no
matter what? I don't really understand. Is that the
situation? They have to --
Q. Well, I can't speak for them; but since --
A. I mean, is that the way it's going to be? I mean, is it
always that?
THE COURT: No.
MR. WOODS: May the --
THE COURT: Let me respond to that.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. No. It isn't always that. And here again, we don't know
what will happen. We don't know what position the prosecution
will take with respect to information. But what we have to
look to here are the possibilities. What is the potential.
And certainly, it is the possibility and the potential that the
prosecution, these lawyers, will ask the jury to return a
recommendation for death. But you know, the only reason this
comes up is because of the nature of the offense charged and
the notice that the prosecution has given that this is the kind
Juror No. 680 - Voir Dire
of case in which they may ask for it. But they have to support
it with aggravating circumstances information.
A. But is there ever a case where they wouldn't ask for that?
I mean --
Q. Well --
A. I don't know. It almost seems like they have to win --
Q. It isn't winning, no.
Look: This is not like a contest between lawyers with
winning and losing. The law -- the role of the lawyers in this
case, the prosecution and the defense lawyers, is to present
the evidence and the information that's necessary for a
decision by a jury. But it's not a contest of lawyering skills
and it's not a question of, well, the prosecution has to push
for death or anything like that. It's a question of -- the
role of the lawyers as officers of the court is to conduct a
trial in cooperation with the judge to present the necessary
evidence and information to the jury to decide. That's it.
Understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think what we're being asked here is: Can you then
perform the role of the jury and decide according to the
information and according to the law?
A. Yes.
MR. WOODS: Okay. Thank you, your Honor, for the
clarification.
And thank you for your answers. I appreciate the time
you've given us.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We all do. And we've taken a lot of your
time both waiting and in here, and we are most appreciative of
your willingness to be forthcoming and tell us what you think,
as I asked you to do.
I can't tell you now about the selection. It takes
yet a while for us. We're talking with more people.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: But we'll let you know as soon as we can.
In the meantime, please assume that you'll be on the jury.
Assume that you will have the responsibility to make the
decisions that we're talking about; and accordingly, be very
careful now about anything that you read, see, and hear and
discussion with others to avoid anything that could affect your
ability to serve in the case.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Please do that, and you're excused for
now. If anything should happen here that changes your
circumstance, you get called out of town on a sudden emergency
or something, let us know immediately.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We'll be back in
touch with you.
Let's take our recess. 20 minutes.
(Recess at 10:40 a.m.)
(Reconvened at 11:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
572 -- 472. Lost my place here.
Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Will you please raise your right hand and
take the oath from our clerk.
(Juror No. 472 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: If you'll be seated, please, at that chair
by the microphone. Don't be concerned with the microphone.
You don't have to speak into it. The only reason it's there is
to help us hear you. It's not something that's being
broadcast, you understand.
JUROR: Okay.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you also understand that when the oath refers to "the
defendant now on trial," we're talking about the case of United
States against Terry Lynn Nichols. And you received a summons
advising that your name came up through our chance selection
process as someone summoned for possible service on the jury of
the case. And you responded to that with a brief -- answering
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
a brief questionnaire.
And then you got a notice to go out to the Jefferson
County Fairgrounds on September 17, and you did. You appeared
there with a number of other persons. I was there, talked with
you and the others about the case, explaining the background
and so forth; and I also introduced people who were there with
me.
They're here with me again as participants in this
case, and I want to reintroduce them again so you again know
who is here with us.
Here at the first table are attorneys for the
Government, Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson. You
were introduced to them out at Jefferson County. They're now
joined by two additional lawyers for the Government,
Mr. Patrick Ryan, Mr. Geoffrey Mearns.
You also met Mr. Michael Tigar, Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols was then present
and is, of course, present now.
And I, after giving you some explanation about the
background and some re -- reviewing some of the principles of
the criminal justice system and the law that is applicable,
asked you to answer a lot of questions on a very lengthy
questionnaire. And you did that for us, and we're appreciative
of that.
Before we go any further here, I want to reemphasize
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
something that I mentioned, and that is we have a concern about
your privacy. We know that the questions we asked you are
quite, some of them, personal in nature. We try to balance out
your privacy interests with the public interest in the
proceeding by not referring to you by name here and by also the
process that gets you to and from the courthouse without the
opportunity for the TV cameras and so forth to focus on you.
You understand that.
And now we are in a public courtroom. This is a
public proceeding, and what is said here is public. You
understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And we'll try to be careful. We are going to ask you some
more questions. You've answered, I'm sure, in your view, all
the questions we could possibly ask you; but we want to go over
a few of the things that you've told us, ask you a few
additional things. And I will ask you a number of questions,
and then a lawyer on each side will have a chance to ask you
some more.
But before doing that, I want to again emphasize there
is no right or wrong answer to these things. We have some
things that you've told us about yourself factually, and we
rely on that, of course; and then there are some other things
we asked you about in connection with opinions, attitudes,
feelings. You know, there can be no right or wrong answer to
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
that; there is only your answers. And we just ask of you to be
forthcoming with exactly what you think and don't be concerned
about how your answers will be considered by us.
The process calls for us to, you know, ask you some
things so that we can know about attitudes, opinions, and
beliefs as it might possibly affect the case. So please -- and
don't -- don't think that any one question has particular
significance because we're asking you. You remember I
mentioned that, too. I do want to just go back over and review
some of the things that I said there; and it isn't because I
think you've forgotten them, but I just want to establish
something of a foundation for the questioning that follows and
just review with you the factual background of the case.
As I explained, the case arises in court as a result
of an explosion that destroyed a federal office building and
resulting in death and injury to people who were in the
building and occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19
of 1995; that some days later, there were charges filed in the
United States District Court in Oklahoma City, where lawyers
for the Government, in an indictment, which is simply the word
for a statement of accusations, charged that a man named
Timothy James McVeigh, together with Terry Nichols -- and then
the indictment refers to "other persons not named" -- entered
into a conspiracy or a criminal agreement to bomb that building
and to kill and injure people in it; that in addition, the --
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
there are 11 charges. The other charges in addition to the
conspiracy are that the defendants carried out that plan, did
indeed bomb the building with the intention to kill and injure
people. And then there are eight counts or charges of
first-degree murder, intent to kill eight law enforcement
agents, people who were employed by several national law
enforcement agencies who were occupants of the building and
died in the explosion.
To these charges, the defendants entered their pleas
of not guilty, thereby creating the issues to be tried.
The case was then moved from Oklahoma City here to
Denver because of a concern about getting juries -- asking the
people in Oklahoma to serve on a jury. And then after the case
was here in Denver, I entered an order that there be separate
trials and that the evidence as it may relate to Mr. McVeigh be
considered by a jury at a trial in which he was the only person
on trial and then the evidence as it may relate to Terry
Nichols be tried with a different jury and in a completely
different trial.
And as a result of that order, there has been a trial
of the evidence relating to Mr. McVeigh. A jury selected very
much like what we're doing here came in, heard that evidence,
returned a verdict of guilty. And then the jury was asked to
consider the question of punishment, and there was a second
trial or hearing on that issue, and the jury recommended a
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
sentence to death.
Now, you probably already knew those things before I
told you about them. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. But the important thing now is to understand that for a
fair trial for Mr. Nichols, the McVeigh trial has to be
disregarded; and therefore, to whatever extent you or any other
person coming in here for jury service might remember seeing,
reading, or hearing anything about that trial, that has to be
set aside. And certainly the outcomes -- that is, the jury
verdict and recommendation -- cannot in any way be considered
here; otherwise, there wouldn't have been any point in the
separate trial order, because the separate trial order is based
on the fundamental fairness question of each person being
considered separately from the other. You understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I also went over with you and the others some
basics about our law and recognizing that most of you have
never served on a jury and don't really have any experience
with the criminal justice system in this regard. And that's
true of you; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You've never been on a jury.
A. No.
Q. And so again without seeming to have the view that you
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
didn't pay attention or something, I just want to review it
with you again, because these are fundamental things. And
instructions about the law are given at the end of a trial in
detail because a lot of the instructions depend on what the
evidence was in the case and how the jury may consider
particular things in evidence and the like. But there are
things that are so fundamental they're applicable to all
criminal trials in the United States, because these are the
commands of the Constitution; and that is that each person who
is accused of any crime in the United States, no matter what
that accusation is or what court it's in -- each person is
presumed to be innocent of whatever he's accused of. And that
presumption of innocence, as we refer to it, carries throughout
the trial, entitles that person to an acquittal, a verdict of
not guilty, unless 12 fair-minded people sitting on the jury
hearing the evidence and following the law decides that the
evidence proves the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
No defendant in a criminal case has any burden or duty
of proving anything. He certainly doesn't have to prove
himself to be not guilty. He doesn't have to call any
witnesses or introduce any evidence.
The lawyers for the Government filing the charges have
the responsibility to bring in the witnesses and the exhibits
that are relied upon as evidence. And a defendant does not
have to take the witness stand and answer any questions from
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
lawyers or explain anything. A defendant can simply remain
silent throughout his trial, challenge the Government's
evidence by cross-examining the witnesses and by objections to
evidence being offered under the rules of evidence that govern
what a jury can hear and consider.
And at the end of it, the Court gives instructions,
detailed, for the case about the law that applies and then asks
of the jury: Now, has the evidence that you heard and saw
under these instructions shown the defendant to be guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt?
And of course, what the jury has to do, then, is if
there is a reasonable doubt remaining after the 12 of them
discuss it and consider it, they must give the defendant the
benefit of that doubt, finding him not guilty. You understand
these points?
A. Yes.
Q. And among the instructions that are given in cases in which
a defendant does not take the stand as a witness and testify,
the jury is instructed they may not consider that at all. You
can't draw some kind of inference or suggestion that, well, if
he's innocent, why didn't he tell us that? Because there are
many reasons why an innocent person may not testify at a trial.
And what I tell juries, then, is: Look, you can't talk about
it, you can't think about it. Disregard the fact that a
defendant doesn't testify, if that's the way it's done at this
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
trial. You understand those points?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in addition to understanding these principles, do you
agree with them?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you kind of expressed some uncertainty about that.
This is what is referred to as due process of law, a phrase
that you probably heard before.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. That no person under the Constitution of the United States
shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process. And
due process is these things that I have mentioned.
A. Okay.
Q. So do you accept that as our fundamental law?
A. Yes.
Q. And not only do you accept it in principle, do you accept
it in this case and agree to be bound by it?
A. Yes.
Q. What I'm asking you, can you accept here that Terry
Nichols, although accused, sits with us in this room now
presumed to be innocent of these charges?
A. I don't know. I guess. I don't know.
Q. Well, why do you -- just tell us what's in your mind.
A. I don't want to be here.
Q. You don't want to be here?
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
A. No.
Q. Well, no one does who is in the chair where you are. And
of course, you have to understand that the law also says we
don't put out a call for volunteers to serve on a jury and that
the -- a part of the basic constitutional structure here is
that people are called to service in a random way, a chance
way; and we expect people to serve who come in from all walks
of life, with different experiences, what are often referred to
as a cross section of the community. So we just don't get
people in here who don't have anything better to do. It's a
very important part of our responsibility as citizens to serve
on juries. You understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And it isn't a question really of whether you want to do
it. The question is are you ready to do it and accept the
responsibilities that I've talked about, including these
principles of law.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, I'm not trying to force you into saying something you
don't believe. Do you believe that a person who is accused of
a crime in the United States should be presumed to be innocent
of it?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you believe that the person who is accused of a
crime is entitled to a jury who is fair-minded and who
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
considers only the evidence received at the trial?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the jury must hold the prosecution to its burden
of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, in your responses here to the questionnaire,
you've told us some things about yourself. I want to review a
few of those things with you and ask you a few additional
questions, as I said; and then a lawyer on each side will have
an opportunity to ask you some more.
A. Okay.
Q. Bear with us here. I know you don't want to be here; but
as I said, most people have the same approach.
Now, you were born in or near a town in Ohio?
A. Yes.
Q. What part -- I'm not familiar with the name of this place.
What part of Ohio is that?
A. It's close to the Indiana border.
Q. All right.
A. Just north of -- well, it's in the middle of the state
towards the Indiana border.
Q. And towards the middle of the state: You mean north and
south?
A. To the west. West of Ohio.
Q. All right. And you lived there, went to high school in
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
Ohio?
A. Yes.
Q. And then came out here to Colorado some 20 years ago,
about.
A. Yes.
Q. And have lived here in Colorado since.
A. Yes.
Q. Married a man also from Ohio, looks like from the same high
school.
A. Not the same high school, but it's like 8 miles away.
Q. All right. You knew him there?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Oh, you didn't.
A. No.
Q. Met him out here?
A. Yes.
Q. By a coincidence, I take it.
A. Yes.
Q. You've got two children and they're in school.
A. Yes.
Q. And you have a couple of brothers living back in Ohio where
you used to live.
A. Yes.
Q. And your work now is -- you told us administrative
assistant. We're not asking for the name of the company
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
because you gave it at page 9; and if you'll -- you have your
questionnaire there, I believe. If you will turn, please, to
that page.
And is this -- the business of this company, looking
at your job duties, suggests that it has to do with financial
management?
A. Yes.
Q. Of other persons' investments, that type of thing?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have worked with them more than four years.
A. Yes.
Q. And the particular office that you work in is a small
office because in the original questionnaire you mentioned
that.
A. Yes.
Q. That it would be a hardship on the office for you to be out
of it for a while.
And I take it when you got your summons you may have
discussed that with whoever is in charge of your work.
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that discussion? I mean, what did that person
or those persons say to you about jury summons?
A. Um --
Q. I don't mean word for word, but I mean in substance?
A. She just said it would be tough if you were gone because we
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
wouldn't get the books done.
Q. Right. And then after you came out to Jefferson County and
completed the questionnaire, did you talk some more about that?
I mean, with those persons?
A. No.
Q. Because you didn't mention in this full questionnaire the
same thing. Maybe you thought, Well, we didn't listen to you
the first time, so why mention it again?
A. Yeah. So I didn't.
Q. Okay. And, of course, this is again not something that we
ignored. I read it and still asked you to come out because for
the very reason that I just mentioned: Juries ordinarily
consists of people who are busy, who are working and doing
other things; and, you know, we recognize very well that we
interrupt that and have people come in and that it has effects
and consequences. So that's why we asked you to come in, not
only to Jefferson County to complete the questionnaire but to
come in here and answer some more questions.
And was there a discussion with your employer,
supervisor, about whether you would be paid if you were serving
here on the jury, paid by them?
A. No, there was no discussion about it.
Q. Do you know what to expect in that regard?
A. I assume they would, just because we're close, it's small.
Q. But has this ever happened to your knowledge before that
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
some person working there got onto a jury and it lasted a
while?
A. Yes, there is one other person, and she got called, but she
was only out for a day.
Q. Yeah. But not like -- and of course you're aware that we
may be at this a while.
Did you talk with your husband about it?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, without the specific -- what he told you
specifically, what reaction did he have to the news that you
had been summoned to jury service in this particular case?
A. Just that it was mind-blowing to him that I was called, you
know.
Q. That's pretty much --
A. Not much has been said.
Q. That's pretty much your reaction, too.
A. Yes.
Q. How in the world did it happen to me?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. And, you know, have you had discussion with anybody
else about -- here you are being summoned in this case, it
could take several months to try the case; that you know
something about the issues -- anybody talk to you in terms of,
well, you ought to try to get off by answering in certain ways?
A. Yeah.
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
Q. And what kinds of things were suggested to you in that
regard?
A. Oh, you mean you want me to tell you --
Q. Yes.
A. -- what they said?
Q. That's why I'm asking.
A. Just, I don't know -- just say things like he's guilty and
maybe they'll let you off.
Q. Uh-huh. Something you might have thought of on your own,
for that matter.
A. Probably.
Q. Okay. Well, you know, we assume that under the oath that
you've just taken you're going to be honest with us.
A. That's why I told you.
Q. Has anybody suggested to you, well, if you get on the jury,
this is how you ought to decide it?
A. No.
Q. Something like that?
A. No.
Q. Expressing opinions about Mr. Nichols or about the case?
A. No.
Q. Now, there are a few things I'd like you to look to your
answers and then tell us a little bit more about. Your husband
works for the company that you've identified and has been there
20 or more years; right?
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
A. Correct.
Q. And on page 11, if you'll please turn to that page, you --
we asked you there under 53 some questions about members of
your family ever being employed. One of them is in a state,
county, or city law enforcement office. And you said yes.
Please explain that answer. Who are you talking
about?
A. My mother was a deputy clerk for a judge in the county for
probate and juveniles.
Q. Okay. And in what county?
A. Mercer.
Q. In Ohio?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was that? Was that when you were growing up
in the family?
A. Yeah. She was employed for probably 20-some years. She's
now retired, but she was employed for about 20-some years at
that.
Q. All right. And then you also marked social workers,
agencies using social workers. What's the reason for that yes
answer?
A. Well, she also did that because it's a small -- they had
social workers that came in and dealt with juveniles and things
like that.
Q. I understand. Okay.
Juror No. 472 - Voir Dire
Then we asked of you to tell us -- very broad
question: What do you think about the criminal justice system
and how well it's working? I'm referring now to page 22, and
this question is at No. 100 there towards the top.
And you said, "Adequately." And then we gave you a
place to explain, but you didn't fill that in.
Would you just expand on your view there? What do you
think about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system?
And you may be thinking about it -- let me give you a little
suggestion as to why I'm asking. Some people get impressions
and form opinions ab