OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 04/28/1997 11:32 CDT/CST
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Advertisement
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,
Defendant.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury - Volume 34)
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on the 14th day of April,
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 M. RYAN, United States Attorney for the
Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
JOSEPH H. HARTZLER, LARRY A. MACKEY, BETH WILKINSON,
SCOTT MENDELOFF, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, and VICKI BEHENNA, Special
Attorneys to the U.S. Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street,
Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 80294, appearing for the
plaintiff.
STEPHEN JONES, RICHARD BURR, and MICHAEL ROBERTS,
Attorneys at Law, Jones, Wyatt & Roberts, 999 18th Street,
Suite 2460, Denver, Colorado, 80202, appearing for Defendant
McVeigh.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 9:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
All right. We'll resume with No. 559.
(Juror No. 559 was recalled to the stand.)
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: You'll recall that when we recessed on
Friday afternoon, Ms. Wilkinson was asking you some questions
on behalf of the Government.
You may continue.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Good morning. How are you this morning, sir?
A. Fine.
Q. I do have a few more questions for you, if you wouldn't
mind.
A. All right.
Q. I'd like to go back to your work for just a moment; and in
your work in construction, do you come across or do you have to
deal with any seismograph data?
A. I haven't. I probably wouldn't.
Q. So you have no knowledge or expertise in that area?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You told me that you don't have the ability to hire
and fire people; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. But do you supervise people at the construction site?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. Can you explain that to me a little bit.
A. I work with a superintendent, and we supervise and direct
craft, labor force, construction.
Q. Is your role more as a special -- as an area of
specialization that you're an engineer advising these people on
how to carry out these construction projects?
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. If we could, I'd like to turn to some of the questions that
we -- you were asked in the questionnaire about the government
and its role in society. We asked you about Waco, which is
Question 131. If you could turn to that in your questionnaire.
It's page 30.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said -- you were asked what you thought about what
happened, and you said the victims were overly influenced by
their leader. Could you just explain that to me a little bit,
please.
A. Well, I think that -- I think that the people there were --
I don't know what you would call it, mass -- mass -- influence,
large group under the influence of a person that they believed
was their leader or very -- next to God or something like that.
I think they were led astray by this person.
Q. Did you find any fault with the government in its conduct
at Waco?
A. No, not that I really thought about.
Q. If you could turn to page 31, please. Question 137. It's
about firearms and any potential changes in the law you would
like to see.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You said that you thought firearms' ownership is a
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
constitutional right that should be protected, but ownership
and registration should be far stricter and regulated. No
semiautomatic weapons should be owned by the general public.
Can you tell me what brought you to those views?
A. Well, I've been a hunter and I've owned firearms and my
family has, and I thought we've always been real good -- had
done a real good job of handling those and respecting those,
but it -- my views or firearms, especially, my -- my -- in
recent years have been that -- that firearms are -- are way too
free on the streets and that it's been -- it's been way too
easy for the general public to get firearms and own firearms,
so I think it ought to be a lot more restricted. I know myself
what I would want, what I would be willing to go through, what
would be harder for me in order to keep and own a firearm; and
I'd be willing to put up with that to see more restriction.
Q. Have you, with your family, engaged in safety training --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- with firearms?
And would you find that an acceptable restriction on
firearms' ownership, that if someone were to get a license for
a firearm, they would have to undergo safety training and
things like that before they could actually use the weapon?
A. Yeah. I would think that would be part of it.
Q. We also asked you another question about the O. J. Simpson
case. And I think you discussed this with the Judge briefly on
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Friday. I'm not positive. You had said that the length of
trial and sequestration, you thought, led to some of the
problems, and his Honor informed you that he didn't intend to
sequester the jury in this case. And you made the point that
you thought the sequestration actually could have affected the
jury's ability to really determine the guilt of O. J. Simpson;
is that right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you explain that to me a little bit more, please.
A. Well, as -- you know, from what I saw from the -- the media
and their -- their covering the case and -- and some of the
turmoil that went on with the jury, the length of time,
considering -- but myself, in their spot, I just think that the
length of that -- that -- that trial and what they went through
could have started changing their minds, changing their
opinions, swaying them one way or another.
Q. You had the sense that basically they wanted to get out of
there, they had been together for so long and might want to
move on?
A. Right. They might start believing other -- other things to
be true or not true.
Q. I'd like to ask you a couple questions about your views on
the death penalty because, as you know, that's an important
issue that we're here to talk to you about today. You answered
your questionnaire -- and I'm not sure I really understood what
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
your views on the death penalty really are. So if you can
forget how we asked it on the questionnaire.
A. Okay.
Q. And just tell me generally what are your views about the
death penalty.
A. I've obviously given it more thought since being -- since
filling out the questionnaire and having to think about it; and
like on my questionnaire, it's something that I don't view
should happen all that often, but there are a few exceptions.
The -- since -- since even the questionnaire, I think the death
penalty is something that should be strongly considered when
you consider the nature that a -- of the -- of the criminal
act, the death, the people involved and their situation. I
mean, did they know this was happening to them, were they
involved in a situation that they knew this could be an outcome
or were they innocent, helpless, unknowing; and that's where I
see the death penalty.
Q. It sounds like then you're -- you're on board with the
Judge's instructions, which are that you're going to have to
consider all the facts and the circumstances before you make
any decision on the death penalty. Would that be correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you also believe it's appropriate in certain cases; is
that true?
A. Yes.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Q. As you said, it's one thing to kind of think about it or
even have your views when you're watching the news with your
wife and talking about these issues, but it's another thing to
be faced with truly having to make the decision.
A. Yes.
Q. Obviously, if you're selected as a juror in a death penalty
case, there's a chance that you're going to have to make that
decision. And what I want to know is, are you comfortable
doing that? I mean, is there something inside of you that
makes you reluctant to have to make that decision? Obviously,
it's an incredibly important and difficult decision.
A. Again, my thinking in it, since even the questionnaire, is
that I -- that I hoped if the facts of the case, the evidence
is strong enough that when -- whatever the jury -- you know --
when the jury comes to a verdict, that when that verdict comes
down, and, you know -- and everyone believes that that -- that
verdict is correct, then the death penalty is a -- is a very
viable, you know, choice in penalty.
Q. You told us, I think, that you're a practicing Catholic; is
that right?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. You were raised Catholic? Would that be a better way to
say it?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Do you go to mass every week?
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is there anything about your Catholic upbringing
that makes you hesitant, if the facts and the law are
appropriate, to impose the death penalty?
A. Not now.
Q. Do you think if you were with your fellow jurors,
deliberating and you had decided that a defendant -- and we're
not talking about this case, obviously, because as the Judge
told you, we don't know what the facts of the case are going to
be yet because no evidence has been taken. If you were in a
capital case and you had made the determination with your
fellow jurors that the person was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt as the law requires and you moved on to the penalty phase
and you heard all the evidence and you were with your fellow
jurors making the decision, would you be comfortable telling
your fellow jurors what your decision is, being polled by the
judge -- that this, is your verdict -- and then going back to
your family and to your wife and telling her the decision that
you had made?
A. Would I be comfortable? I believe so. I think that a lot
of that depends on what kind of evidence was presented during
the case. There's quite a range of different kinds and -- and
intensity of evidence, I guess, graphic or whatever. Also,
the -- between the verdict and the actual sentencing, I know
we'll probably hear more information, and I would have to look
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
at that. But that once -- once I gave my decision, I would be
comfortable, regardless of the other jurors.
Q. Okay. There's one other issue I want to cover with you
this morning and that's the pretrial publicity that you've been
exposed to in this case. You were very candid with us and told
us in the questionnaire that you had seen a documentary on
Mr. McVeigh's adult life.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And that you thought that had some information or evidence
that persuaded you that he could have been part of the bombing;
is that correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you understand that while the -- there is a great public
interest in this case and information about the defendant, that
the media doesn't have access to all the information and that
it would be inappropriate for you to bring those views into the
courtroom if you were a juror?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think even though you saw this documentary, you
could set that aside and come in here with an open mind and
listen to all the evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember how long ago it was when you saw this
documentary?
A. I don't. It was last year sometime, I believe.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Q. Do you remember on which station it was shown?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember who the host was or anything about it?
A. No, I don't.
Q. What do you recall about the story that made you feel like
it was more likely that the defendant was involved with the
bombing?
A. I remember -- what I do remember is military career, and I
don't remember specifically what was said about some of the
people that he served with, but that some of their opinions
were not what they would have considered normal behavior or --
or normal lifestyle.
Q. It sounds like that you don't remember a whole lot of the
detail of this program. Would that be correct?
A. Right.
Q. So would it be that hard for you to set that aside and come
in here and wait until you heard the evidence?
A. No, it wouldn't.
MS. WILKINSON: I appreciate you answering my
questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: Yes, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Good morning, sir.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
A. Good morning.
Q. As the Court has introduced us, my name is Stephen Jones
and I'm from Oklahoma, and I have the privilege of representing
Mr. McVeigh; and seated to the left of him -- I guess it would
be his left and -- is Mr. Dick Burr from Houston, Texas.
Mr. Burr was not here Friday when the Court introduced us.
When you were here Friday and the Court was asking you
various questions, you indicated that there might be some
hardship on your job with respect to serving on this jury,
particularly if it lasted for several months. Have you given
any additional thought to that over the weekend or made further
inquiry so that we might evaluate that?
A. No. The only other thought I've given to it is that it's a
personal feeling. In the overall picture, it may not mean a
whole lot to this -- to this case or this group.
Q. What do you mean, "the overall picture"?
A. Well, I just -- I even questioned my putting it down
because it's of such a personal -- from my -- my viewpoint only
comment.
Q. Well, no. No. That's perfectly all right for you to do
that. It just helps us. My recollection is that you felt that
you would not suffer any loss of income or benefit, in other
words, that would continue on, but that your particular job
description or the need to replace you with someone else who
could perform similar tasks might be the likely result. Did I
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
understand you correctly about that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Well, that's -- that's a legitimate concern, so
let me just ask you up front if I may: Is your situation such
that you are willing to serve and that you are able to serve,
or would it be a real hardship on you and your family?
A. No.
Q. No, it would not be a real hardship?
A. No, it would not be a real hardship.
Q. All right. So you're willing to serve if -- if called?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, I've made some notes on your
questionnaire. Do you have it there with you, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. Just a few things that I want to ask you about
to be sure that I understand your thinking. Do you know what
the Turner Diaries is?
A. I know very little about it.
Q. What -- what do you know about it?
A. I know that it is about an extremist group that is out to
somewhat seek revenge on the Government.
Q. Okay. And do you know how they do this --
A. I do know about --
Q. -- according to the novel?
A. About how the -- how they do bomb a building.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Q. Do you know the building?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what city it's in?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the name of the principal character in the
novel?
A. No.
Q. Have you read the novel?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen it?
A. I may have seen the cover at one time.
Q. Right. Okay. Now, you indicated that on page 15, at
Question 68, that you watch on a regular basis "X Files" and
evening news and various comedies. What is -- from your view
of it and watching it, what is the theme of the "X Files"? How
would you describe it?
A. I would just -- I would describe it as a show that has a
couple people involved in -- in very bizarre cases that --
that -- that the FBI wants to look into, but maybe not spend a
lot of time on.
Q. All right. What type of cases?
A. Cases that are unexplained or may be considered out -- not
a real credible nature.
Q. And would you say from your view of it that the program has
a pro-government bias or an anti-government bias? And I
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
recognize those are very broad terms.
A. I -- I can't say one or the other. I think some shows are
anti-government and some shows don't necessarily -- aren't
necessary -- would be pro-government.
Q. All right. Is it the same two characters every week?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And then on page 16, you indicate that you subscribe to or
read regularly Time. Have you read articles in Time magazine
about this case?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Even before you were summoned for the jury?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. And then you marked Fraternal Order of Police; and again,
like probably 90 percent of the other people, that was a phone
solicitation?
A. Yes.
Q. And then could you turn, please, to Question No. 98 on page
22.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, there, is it not, the question is, "What is your
opinion regarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice
system"; and you put, "It is working adequately." And then you
were asked to explain and you wrote, "As with any governmental
agency, it appears too much time (and money) is spent on
issues, items that could be handled quicker."
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Can you tell me a little bit about your feelings with
respect to that and -- and share with me what you meant when
you wrote that, just so I have a little better understanding of
what issues or items you're talking about that you think could
be handled differently? And then I recognize you're not a
lawyer, which is probably one of the reasons why your opinion
is more important than someone that is; but could you just tell
me a little bit about what you were thinking?
A. Well, again, I haven't -- I hadn't spent a lot of time with
the court system or even -- or even watching a lot of the court
cases, but I know from -- like I said, my own experience with
the government agency and -- and some -- the trials I have seen
through the media, it just -- it just seems like there's been a
lot of time on. The O. J. Simpson trial, for one, that has, I
think, drug out way longer than it should have; and I wasn't
there to know what all the evidence was and what all had to be
presented, but it just seems like things could have been
handled quicker for everybody involved.
Q. Okay. Mr. Simpson's case was a case being tried in state
court in Los Angeles?
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. Any other cases that you've watched or formed a similar
opinion on?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Did you form an opinion as to who was responsible for the
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
length of time which you found to be unreasonable in
Mr. Simpson's case?
A. Well, I thought the judge could have done something about
making that trial quicker.
Q. All right. And could you turn, please, to page 25.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you see Question 111 there?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, that question asked you, "In your opinion, how
reliable is eyewitness identification." And as I read it, you
wrote, sir, "Very reliable based on their description of events
and how sure they are." Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. All right. Do you have any other factors that you would
look for to judge the reliability of an eyewitness?
A. Well, nothing other than what they're eyewitness to, how
detailed their eyewitness report is -- how relevant it is, how
relevant I think it would be to the case.
Q. Is there anything about the eyewitness himself or herself
that you would focus on?
A. If they had any relation to the defendant would be it --
would be all.
Q. Have you ever been in a position yourself -- and you say
you've never served on a jury and not been a witness and not
been the victim of a crime; but just in general everyday life,
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
perhaps at work or at home where -- maybe a fender-bender or
some type of automobile accident, where the statement of an
eyewitness was important and you had the opportunity to gauge
the credibility or reliability of what this person was saying?
Have you ever been exposed to anything like that?
A. Not -- not that I can remember.
Q. Okay. Could you turn, please, to 27. Page 27.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, up at the top on Question 119, the Judge asked you a
little bit about this. I believe we're talking about the
constitutional language about the First Amendment and freedom
of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and
so forth; and you're asked to tell us how you feel about that.
And you say or write, "I believe that, also, but question those
opinions which may have harmful or dangerous ideas about them."
Now, you put the word "opinions" in quotation marks.
Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you tell me why you did that and -- and what you were
thinking, if you can remember today? Can you recall it?
A. Well, I put that in quotation marks maybe for lack of a
better word, but I believe everybody's political or religious
beliefs are opinions and that they have a right to them.
That's the only reason I put that in quotations.
Q. All right. Are you making a distinction in your mind
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
between opinions and actions?
A. Well, yeah. I'm -- opinions being the -- a belief or -- or
an idea about something. Actions being different.
Q. Sure. Well, let me just ask you straight out: Do you hold
to the view that opinions and beliefs, no matter how unpopular
or how unorthodox or how different from yours, enjoy the same
protection as your opinions, or mine or anyone else's?
A. Yes. Opinions do.
Q. Okay. Now, on the next page, page 28, you're asked there a
series of questions about the death penalty if you were a
legislator or someone that was making the law; and on Question
B there -- subpart B at the top of page 28, the question is
asked of you, "In your opinion, what is the best reason for
imposing a penalty of death in a case in which someone was
killed by a criminal act?" And as I read it, you wrote, "The
length of sentence, if not death penalty (if" -- I assume
that's "thought to be a life sentence)."
I'm not sure that -- and it's probably my fault, but
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're conveying there.
Can you tell me a little bit more about that.
A. Yeah. My answer is there done quickly, but -- and based on
not having given the death penalty a lot of thought, especially
having to be a person who might have to decide that -- that
sentence. I would say that's answered probably with some
cold-heartedness in that anybody who is going to spend their
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
life in prison without -- without parole and considering the
circumstances for -- or why they are in there, the death
penalty could -- is an option.
Q. All right. Well -- but the question is asking what is the
best reason for imposing it. And so let me just ask you, what,
in your view -- if you were a legislator, what would be the
best reason to impose a death penalty?
A. Now -- now, after thinking about it, I would say it would
have to do with the -- the nature of the crime that -- that
would be the -- the -- the situation of the crime, how it was
carried out, who was involved, did they know, how innocent were
they, how large of a -- how many people were hurt by this,
how -- like I said, how it was carried out.
Q. Okay. And the next question is, "What is the best reason
for not imposing the penalty of death in a case in which
someone was killed by a criminal act?"
And do I take it that your answer there is essentially
the same thing as your answer that you just gave me?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. All right. I think that's clear enough to me.
Thank you.
Now, could you turn, please, to page 30.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, the first question that's asked you there is about the
Branch Davidians, what we call the Waco, Texas, or Mt. Carmel
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
incident. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. First question I want to ask you -- and this is a little
out of order -- but Question C was, "Have you ever seen a
videotape about the Waco incident?; and you just put a check
there. Does that mean yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you remember about the videotape? Are you
referring to something you saw on television or are you
referring to a videotape that you rented at a store or somebody
sent you or you bought?
A. Probably just a news magazine program.
Q. Like "Prime Time" or "60 Minutes" or "Nightline", something
like that?
A. Something like that.
Q. And you don't remember which one you saw?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember what was on the tape, what the theme of the
videotape was?
A. It was -- yeah. It was trying to document the days before
the -- the final incident.
Q. Do you remember whether it had a particular spin to it, I
think is the term used today?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, if we could go back up just a moment to B.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
You were asked, "What do you think about what happened"; and
you said, "I think the victims were overly influenced by the
leader." Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What do you mean by that? What do you base that on?
What -- what thought or opinion did you see? Just tell me a
little bit about how you formed that opinion.
A. I think certain people in -- in certain groups can be
overly influenced by a person. Other -- other cases I can
think of where a person had the power to sway people's thinking
or opinions or -- or sway them in the -- into a -- acting in a
way that wouldn't -- wouldn't follow the norm.
Q. And do you think that's what happened here?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you basing your opinion on that, as you say, upon
general news stories during and after the incident?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on Question 132, which concerns the incident
involving Mr. Weaver, you're asked what you remember, and you
say you roughly remember a family held up in their home until
forced out by federal agents. You indicate in the response to
the next question you have very little information, but you say
that Mr. Weaver should have given in to authorities, but his
death could have been avoided. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Q. Is it your recollection that Mr. Weaver died in that
incident?
A. I thought so at the time.
Q. All right. And again, is this based upon something that
you followed and viewed in the media at the time?
A. Something I saw in the media. I didn't really follow it.
Q. All right. Then you indicated you also had some concerns
about Mr. Simpson's case, and we talked about that earlier.
Did you think, based upon what you saw and heard, that
Mr. Simpson was guilty?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, that was influenced by what you read or saw in
the media?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you watch the Court Television presentation
of it or the actual testimony that was heard by the jury?
A. Just clips of it on the news.
Q. Then on 31, down at the bottom, you say that "Firearms
ownership is a constitutional right that should be protected."
Then you have "but" in capital letters. At least that's the
way it looks to me. Was that intended?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Then you say, "Ownership and registration
should be far stricter and regulated." Do you have something
specific in mind there?
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
A. Not specific. Just an idea about more restriction.
Q. Are you familiar with news reports concerning states where
registration and restriction of the ownership and type of
ownership has been debated pro and con?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, do you yourself own any weapons?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you own, sir?
A. I own a rifle and a shotgun.
Q. And that's primarily for hunting?
A. Yes.
Q. Then on page 32 when you're asked at Question 140 if you've
heard or read anything about this case, you mark six categories
including "Conversations" and "Heard other people discussing
the case." Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that you have seen or read quite a bit,
including reading a few articles or watched a few television
specials; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you could turn over just a moment to page 15 -- I'm
sorry, page 35. It's Question 134. You're asked to summarize
what you have seen, read, or heard about this case; and you
say, "General and some detailed news reports"; and then you go
on and reference the documentary and some material on the
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
victims.
Do you know the day this happened? Do you know the
date? When I say "this," I'm talking about the explosion in
Oklahoma City.
A. I could guess pretty close, I think.
Q. And what date is that?
A. April 19.
Q. Do you know the year?
A. I think a year ago. Guessing.
Q. So 1996?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you remember what city this took place in?
A. Yes.
Q. And what city was that?
A. Oklahoma City.
Q. Do you know the name of the building?
A. I'd be guessing again.
Q. Well, do you have a specific name?
A. No.
Q. All right. Do you know what type of building it was; that
is to say, business building, residential, federal building?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir?
A. Federal building.
Q. Federal building. Do you know the identity of any of the
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
federal agencies that were in it?
A. FBI, I believe.
Q. Do you know the -- based upon press reports, how this
building exploded, what caused it to explode according to the
media?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. A bomb.
Q. And do you know what type of bomb, from what you read in
the media?
A. Some kind of chemical bomb.
Q. Do you know what the chemical was according to the media?
A. Just what a couple of the ingredients might have been.
Q. And those were?
A. Diesel or some kind of fuel and fertilizer.
Q. Do you know, according to the media, how this bomb was
delivered to the building or placed there?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is that?
A. In a van.
Q. And do you know what kind of van?
A. A Ryder truck.
Q. Do you know where the Ryder truck came from?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how many people have been arrested or charged
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
in this case?
A. I know a couple, but probably not all of them.
Q. And I take it one of the couple is Mr. McVeigh?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the name of the other one?
A. Yes. Terry -- Terry McNichols.
Q. All right. Do you remember when Mr. McVeigh was arrested?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the circumstances of his arrest?
A. Somewhat. A little bit.
Q. And what is it that you remember?
A. I remember being -- him being pulled over for some kind of
traffic violation, I believe.
Q. Do you think he's guilty?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know whether you -- whether he's guilty or not?
A. Well, I hope that if I should be on the jury that the facts
will show that and I can put the media aside and figure that
out.
Q. If you're on the jury, you hope you can put the media aside
and figure out the facts?
A. Right.
Q. Well, but as you sit there today, what do you think? Is
the playing field level or do you think he's a little guilty?
A. I think --
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
Q. Or maybe a lot guilty?
A. I think things are not in his favor.
Q. In your mind?
A. In my mind.
Q. The field is tilted a little bit?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that based upon these things that you've seen or
read or heard?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, since you were summoned for jury duty here, have you
seen or read or heard anything, even if just bits and snatches,
about this case?
A. Yeah. I've seen -- I've come across channels that were --
either news or -- or other things.
Q. Sure. So channel surfing?
A. Yeah.
Q. What do you remember from surfing the channels?
A. Since jury selection started, most -- a lot of the things
I've come across were items on the jury selection. I did, like
I mentioned on Friday, I think Thursday night come across
something that was a news magazine program or something about
Timothy McVeigh's adult life.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. But that's been about it.
Q. But I gather that that's not the program you were talking
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
about that's the documentary because you filled out this
questionnaire before that program came on Thursday night.
A. I can't remember if that had been the same one or not. But
if -- it's not -- that's not the program I'm talking about when
I filled out the questionnaire, of course.
Q. Sure. Did it look like something you'd seen before, just
the little bit you saw?
A. It looked like it could have been the same format, but none
of the same information, the little bit that I clipped through
it on Thursday.
Q. Sure. Now, what else have you seen and read since you
received your jury summons that you can recall?
A. Just little bits here and there. I couldn't think of
anything specifically.
Q. Have you read anything about or heard anything, even just a
little bit, about the Government case or Government attorneys
or the FBI?
A. Huh-uh. No.
Q. All right. Have you read or heard anything since you got
your jury summons about Mr. McVeigh or his case or his lawyers?
A. No.
Q. And have you read or heard anything about Mr. Nichols or
his case or defense or his lawyers?
A. Not at all.
Q. All right. Now, as I understand it, you followed the media
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
accounts somewhat in reference to the Waco incident or the
Mt. Carmel incident; is that correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And some of the opinions or most of the opinions that you
had on that were formed by what you saw or read or heard.
A. Right.
Q. And I understand that you also followed somewhat through
the media the events involving Mr. Weaver and his family; is
that correct?
A. Very little, yes.
Q. All right. But whatever it was that you saw or read that
you can remember was based upon media accounts, and that's what
helped form your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And the same thing with Mr. Simpson's criminal
trial. You followed that through the media and it formed the
basis for the opinions that you have which you've expressed to
us; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you have honestly and candidly admitted that you
know some of the details reported on the media concerning this
case and that you read -- or rather, saw some documentary about
Mr. McVeigh's adult life.
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. And you were frank to tell us that based upon what you had
seen or heard in that case, that you had formed some opinions;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And those opinions were tilted more, shall we say, towards
a theory that Mr. McVeigh might be a little bit guilty than
otherwise. Is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Then in response to a question by Ms. Wilkinson, you said,
however, that you could set all of that aside if you were to
serve on this jury.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. Where are you going to put it when you set it aside?
Can you tell me that?
A. I think I can put it away. I think I can get rid of it
because I -- I do understand the media a little bit, not that I
have any experience with it; but I think if whoever sits on
this jury is going to hear as close to the truth and the facts
and the real evidence that the media may -- may not have either
shown or made por -- given to us in a tilted -- tilted way.
Q. Well, it's important to me to know how you're going to do
that and whether in -- you can do it. I mean, I know that's
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
what you want to do because you've told us that. But I think
you would be the first to say that your view on other incidents
has been greatly influenced by the media; and of course, we
only get this one time to question this, and we don't know
whether you might change your mind during the trial, so that's
why we're -- we're asking you now if you can put that aside and
frankly, how you would put it aside. You tell me you can do
that.
A. Yes.
Q. Incidentally, did you follow what happened once the
surviving Branch Davidians were tried in their case? Do you
know the jury found them not guilty of murder?
A. No, I didn't know.
Q. Did you know that Mr. Weaver was found not guilty of
murder?
A. No.
Q. So there is a difference sometimes between what's reported
in the press and what happens in the courtroom, isn't there?
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I object. These questions --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. RYAN: -- have nothing to do --
THE COURT: I sustained the objection.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. If you set on this jury, you tell us that you will base
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
your verdict and deliberations only on what you hear in this
courtroom; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree with me, as Ms. Wilkinson said to you,
that not a single witness has yet testified?
A. Right.
Q. Not a single exhibit, not even Exhibit No. 1, has been
introduced to the jury?
A. Right.
Q. In fact, the jury hasn't even been chosen?
A. Right.
Q. And no piece of evidence has been offered?
A. Right.
Q. And would you agree with me that the most important chair
in terms of finding out the facts in this case is this chair
over here where these witnesses are going to testify under oath
and subject to cross-examination?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's their memory and their testimony that is far more
important to the jury than even the most talented and
resourceful news reporter?
A. Yes.
Q. So you're going to base your deliberations and ultimately
your decision, if you're chosen in this case, from what comes
from this witness stand, from this witness under oath, and not
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
from these ladies and gentlemen that sit in those stands who
write about the case; is that correct?
A. Yes. If the evidence comes from the witness stand.
Q. Well, I think there will be quite a bit that will come in.
I don't think it'll be an empty day. So when you go home,
you're not going to watch the television or read the newspapers
or magazines or talk to other people about the case?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And you're satisfied in your own mind that you can
put it away, I think is the way you put it?
A. Right.
Q. Is there anything else that you purport to know about this
case that I haven't asked you about, no matter where it came
from, that might affect your ability to sit on the case?
A. No, not that you haven't already asked.
Q. Okay. Fair enough.
MR. JONES: Thank you, sir.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Just to return to one thing you said there to make sure
that you understand, I think you said in response to one of
these questions something like things are not in his favor with
respect to Mr. McVeigh and the things you've heard.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And of course, the law is in his favor. Do you understand
Juror No. 559 - Voir Dire
that?
A. Yes.
Q. And by that, I return to what I was saying with you in
talking with you last Friday, of the presumption of innocence;
that Mr. McVeigh -- the law is in his favor in the sense that
Mr. McVeigh is presumed innocent and carries throughout the
trial and entitles him to a verdict of not guilty unless the
Government proves the charges to the satisfaction of the jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. We went over this in detail. Do
you still agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. And agree to be bound by it in this case if you were to
serve?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Well, now, we're excusing you for now.
But in doing so, I must continue to caution, of course, that
you should not discuss anything about this case with anybody,
including the questions you've been asked here and the answers
that you have given; and you must go from here today assuming
that you are going to be on this jury and be responsible for
doing what you say you can do, and that is to decide on the law
and the evidence as presented at the trial.
I also discussed with you this matter of jury
sequestration; and of course, you understand from that the
extreme importance of following these cautions and avoiding
anything that might appear in -- and you just have to stay away
from things on television, radio, newspapers, everything, so
that you can serve in this case.
Now, I can't tell you when we're going to let you know
whether you're going to serve. We'll have to ask you to be
patient for a few more days while we continue this process of
talking with people. Thank you very much for your time with us
today and last week, and you're excused for now. We'll be
getting in touch with you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We have 404. Fine. 404.
If you will please raise your right hand and take the
oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 404 affirmed.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Do you remember back on March the 19th, you came out to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds' auditorium building and took that
same oath?
A. Yes.
Q. And I met with you and others summoned for jury service,
explained the background of this case, what the charges are
against Timothy McVeigh, and asked you to complete a
questionnaire?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that. And we have taken your completed
questionnaire and the answers that you gave us and made copies,
provided these copies with -- to the lawyers in the case and to
me. We've read them with the understanding that we're not
going to use the information you gave us other than for this
process of selecting a jury for the trial of this case.
And we've asked you to come in now to answer a few
additional questions, some of which will be based on the
answers that you gave us; and to protect your privacy in
connection with this, we're referring you simply -- we're
referring to you by a number rather than by your name so that
you are known to us as Juror No. 404. You've got all that in
mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you've got your questionnaire there in front of
you so that you'll be able to refer to it.
Now, let me introduce the people you see in front of
you here today, people who are participating in this case. At
the first table are the lawyers for the Government, Mr. Joseph
Hartzler, Ms. Beth Wilkinson, Mr. Patrick Ryan, Mr. Lawrence
Mackey. They will be responsible for prosecuting this case.
On the other side of the room are lawyers for the
defendant, Mr. Stephen Jones and Mr. Richard Burr; and Timothy
McVeigh, who's the defendant, is here as well, of course,
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
standing and seated.
I want you to feel free to be able to change any of
your answers here. We'll be asking you a few things about some
of these answers, but all of us here realize that completing a
questionnaire under the circumstances there, you sometimes put
down things and then upon reflection later on think, well, I
wish I'd have answered it a different way. Anything like that,
feel free to tell us if you have some changes upon reflection
or if, in response to these questions that we put to you today,
you have some changes. In other words, you're not stuck with
just exactly what you said here.
Also, you'll recall that when you left after
completing the questionnaire, I gave you and the others some
cautionary instructions directing that you be careful and avoid
discussions with people, avoid publicity in any form, news
accounts or otherwise, on radio, television, newspapers,
magazines, so that you can serve on this jury; and, as I said
then, you have to assume and you had to assume after you
completed the questionnaire that you would be called upon to
serve.
Now, we know that there has been a lot of it out there
since March the 19th, so it's easy to have come across
something, even inadvertently. Has it happened that you've
seen or read something since you completed the questionnaire
that relates to the case?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. No.
Q. And your normal practice with respect to keeping up with --
with the news has been -- before this, has been what?
A. Occasionally radio. I would listen to the radio. That --
that was generally where I got my news.
Q. Like in the car or --
A. No. At home.
Q. Okay. Well, did you -- you know, was there a certain time
of day you listened to the radio for the newscasts that came on
at that time or --
A. In the morning. Occasionally.
Q. And what -- what radio station or was there --
A. Public radio.
Q. Okay. And I don't know whether there's been anything on
there since March the 19th. I suppose there has. Have you
heard anything on public radio since you've filled out the
questionnaire about this case?
A. No, I haven't. I turn it off if -- you know, when they
start -- if they mention the trial at all, I simply turn it
off.
Q. And you're married with a husband and -- excuse me -- two
children at home?
A. Yeah.
Q. And have you discussed this case with your family?
A. Just that I'm on the jury.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. And let's see. You've got -- one of your children's
in high school?
A. Yes.
Q. And of course, your husband is an active person. We'll
talk about him a little bit. Have any of them expressed any
views to you about your status being on this jury in terms of,
well, you don't want to do that and here's how to get out of it
or you do want to do that and here's what you ought to do, or
something like that?
A. No. My husband would like me not to do it.
Q. Because of the impact on the family or why?
A. I think mostly because of the impact, yes.
Q. Well, has he -- what kinds of things has he said to you?
A. Well --
Q. I don't want to violate the marital privilege here, but we
do -- we do want to know sort of what he said.
A. Well, part of it -- I'm sorry. I think a big part of it is
that I'm also hoping -- doing job hunting, and this is --
coming up soon will be the main job-hunting time, and it would
probably interfere with that.
Q. And is this a teaching job that you're --
A. I would hope, yeah.
Q. -- looking for?
You've been substitute teaching?
A. Right. Right.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. In both -- as I understand it, both in the public school --
school system and in a church -- with church schools?
A. Yeah.
Q. Are you looking for a public school position?
A. I would prefer public, yeah.
Q. And in Larimer County?
A. Yeah.
Q. And how much have -- that's in the elementary level --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- right?
That's your experience and training?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, how much have you -- well, I'll put it to you
in the plainest way because we need to get right to it. In the
last year or two, have you contributed much to the family
income from your substitute teaching?
A. Well, all my income, I guess, is about a third of the
family income.
Q. So with -- you are still lined up to be a substitute
teacher next fall?
A. Yeah.
Q. So this wouldn't change what it has been in the last year
or so?
A. No.
Q. But would interfere with the possibility that you got on
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
full-time?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And are you willing to make that sacrifice if it
becomes necessary?
A. Yeah. Because it's simply a potential sacrifice.
Q. You don't know what your chances are, I --
A. Yeah. They are not too good, actually, in that district.
Q. Okay. Now, a few things I want to discuss with you about
your background. As I understand it, you were born and raised
in New York, in Brooklyn specifically?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to college and some grad. school, as well?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. I went right out of high school, I went in New York to
Kingsborough Community College and then Queens College, but I
dropped out; and I returned later, just a few years ago, and
went to CSU and got my undergrad., and then to UNC for the
teaching license.
Q. And what was your major in your undergraduate degree?
A. Music.
Q. Instrumental or --
A. I was --
Q. -- teaching music or what?
A. I was an -- what do they call it -- a nonperformance major.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Appreciation is what we used to call it, I guess.
A. Yeah.
Q. Music appreciation. But -- and then you got the
educational courses so that you could get, I guess, what they
call -- I never understood why -- certificated?
A. Right.
Q. I don't know why that's certificated instead of certified.
Do you?
A. No. They just switched to licensing now.
Q. I'm pleased to hear that.
Now, you came to Colorado about 15 years ago?
A. Yeah.
Q. You lived in Alaska for a couple of years?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you doing up there?
A. I guess I was 23 and tired of New York and I wanted a big
change, and I had a friend up there that I went to see and was
kind of wild.
Q. Where were you in Alaska?
A. Mostly on Kodiak.
Q. What kind of -- were you working up there?
A. In the canneries.
Q. And then having had that experience, you decided to --
what, you went back to New York?
A. I went back to New York. I actually had my first son up in
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Alaska and then I went back to New York.
Q. Okay. And then came here, as we've said, about 15 years
ago?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. To Fort Collins?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you've lived in Fort Collins --
A. That whole time.
Q. -- continuously.
Now, your husband has been -- as I understand it, was
a high school science teacher and then changed his profession.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And has gone into a project now which is -- I don't want to
identify it to not id -- so that we don't identify him, but as
I understand it, it's a program of support for single parents
who are interested in obtaining and keeping employment and
supporting their families.
A. Yes.
Q. And is that a federally funded program or a combination or
what, if you know?
A. I think it's county. I think mostly.
Q. But do you know if the county gets federal funding from
some federal agency?
A. I wouldn't know.
Q. You don't know. How long has he been in this program?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Two years. I think.
Q. Before that, he taught high school science?
A. Before that, he was five years with the county employment
and training.
Q. Oh. So how long -- was he a science teacher up there in
Fort Collins at one time?
A. He was in Loveland for a year and didn't get rehired.
Q. So he was nontenured?
A. Yeah.
Q. Working on a contract year by year.
You indicate on page 11, if you'll turn now to your
questionnaire at Question 49, some connection with farming and
ranching?
A. My dad.
Q. And what is --
A. My dad grew up on a Nebraska farm.
Q. And then went to Brooklyn?
A. In a roundabout way.
Q. Well, we won't go through all that detail, but was he as an
adult working on a farm?
A. No. He's a minister.
Q. Okay. So -- a minister?
A. Yeah.
Q. So you grew up in a -- in the environment of a church?
A. Yeah.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. And what religion?
A. Lutheran.
Q. Is he active still?
A. He's retired.
Q. And you also marked there on the same question something
about television and radio?
A. That was my dad, also. He -- he did work for a radio in
his younger days.
Q. Was that in connection with his ministry or --
A. Yeah. I think so.
Q. Then you indicate -- you show us that you have a sister who
works in court in legal transcription. Is she a court
reporter?
A. No. She works for a -- a correspondence school that
teaches transcription.
Q. Oh, I see. Teaches people to be court reporters?
A. Yeah.
Q. What does she do?
A. Well, teaches people to read court reporting -- to
translate it.
Q. Oh, I see. To take the stenotype notes and --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- and all that and make English out of them?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, if you'll turn, please, to page 14. And
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
you mention there an affiliation at question 61 with an
organization that I guess is a local organization, local to
Fort Collins and deals with local issues? Is that --
A. Yeah.
Q. What's that about?
A. That's -- it just started up in -- it's just looking to
network all the special interest groups and just keep each
other abreast of what's happening.
Q. And in -- in the context in which the people -- you and the
others believe that the things that you're supporting are
progressive?
A. Yeah.
Q. Meaning improvement?
A. I guess to me, that means --
Q. Would it be fair to say you're trying to make things better
than you think they are?
A. Yeah.
Q. And to use the Government to do so?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. You -- on page 17, we have the names of
organizations there at Question 79. And you show us that you
have heard, at least, of these organizations, the ones of which
you have marked with a check mark?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much do you know about them?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Not much, frankly.
Q. Have you --
A. But --
Q. Excuse me. Were you going to say something more?
A. I was -- I was just going to say we get solicitations in
the mail from, I guess -- from -- from the ones I've checked.
Q. Have you received, in addition to solicitations, any
material expressing the point of view that's being supported by
any of these organizations, as you recall?
A. A point of view?
Q. Yes. Well, for example, one of them, you've got here is
Southern Poverty Law Center?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. In the material that you received as a solicitation, is it
also described, the activities of the organization?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. What they are attempting to do?
A. Yeah. Yeah. I don't -- I don't read these things that
much. I just skim them.
Q. All right. Well, as you sit here now, do you know what
these organizations are about, what their agenda or programs
are?
A. Just in general.
Q. Well, tell us what you know. Maybe it's easier to do it
that way than playing this game of asking you a lot of
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
questions. Anti-Defamation League?
A. Well, that's a -- they do a lot of work with the -- with
anti-semitism, and I guess that's what I know.
Q. Southern Poverty Law Center?
A. They work a lot with racist -- racism issues. That's all I
know about them.
Q. And American Association of Retired Persons.
A. Well, they do a lot. I -- gosh. They have a lot of
programs. They have a -- they have an insurance program that I
believe my folks are on, and they are a very big umbrella
organization.
Q. Okay. Klan Watch?
A. And Klan Watch is just what the title is. You know, they
watch activities of the Klan and notify people around -- who
are members of activities and things and -- to write letters to
Congress people and that kind of thing.
Q. In the nature of things opposing or supporting?
A. Opposing. Opposing.
Q. Opposing. And the Child Welfare League?
A. Child Welfare League. They are on the forefront, I
believe, of -- of poverty issues and child -- child rights and
welfare reform that affects children.
Q. All right. Turn now, please, to page 19. I -- Question 83
is where I am, and I want to be careful of what I'm asking
here.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Uh-huh.
Q. As I understand what you've said, in some years past, you
have refused to make certain payments here because you were
concerned that the expenditures of money would be used for
things with which you strongly disagree.
A. Yes.
Q. And that had to do with what? The Vietnam war?
A. No.
Q. Or the -- defense spending, or what?
A. Defense spending and the Contra war in Nicaragua.
Q. And that's true right now, as far as the views of your
husband are concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm not going to ask you about particular tax returns, but
there -- did your position generate some activity by the
Internal Revenue Service, asking you for money?
A. Yeah. We've always been very up front with them. We
always wrote them letters, and my husband still does, telling
them exactly what he was doing and why; and they are currently
garnishing his wages.
Q. All right. So the Internal Revenue Service has disagreed
with that position and you're --
A. Yeah.
Q. You file separately, do you?
A. Yeah. Now, we do.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. All right. And what happened with respect to your returns
when there was a dispute?
A. There hasn't -- my returns, when I did more tax resistance
was only when we did joint returns.
Q. Okay. How long ago was that?
A. I guess we've been filing separately for two years now.
Q. In part because of this --
A. My husband and I disagree, yeah.
Q. Okay. Is there something in court with respect to your
husband's disagreement with the government on that?
A. No.
Q. Simply collection activities are going forward because he's
stood his ground on that position, actually?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And you believe, I take it, from other answers here
that the law should be that individual taxpayers can disagree
with the manner in which the government spends money and,
therefore, you oughtn't to have to pay for things you don't
agree with? Is that a statement -- I'm talking now
philosophically.
A. In extreme cases, yeah, I believe that. In -- people
shouldn't have to violate their conscience with their dollars.
Q. Is maintaining military services, the armed services,
something that you think money should not be spent on?
A. Me, no. I -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with the
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
military.
Q. It's the way in which specific applications of the military
might be used that concerns you? Is that what you're telling
us?
A. Yes.
Q. Like the Contras and the Vietnam war?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And -- are there any current ones?
A. No.
Q. Did you have a position with respect to the -- the Gulf
War?
A. That was a tough one. And -- I did -- I didn't have any
qualms with my tax dollars. Well, no, I can't say that. I
didn't feel --
Q. Let me ask you this: Were you opposed to the use of
military force against Iraq in that conflict?
A. I'm afraid I don't know what "the rock" was.
Q. Iraq?
A. Oh, Iraq.
Q. I mean, that whole thing is what I'm referring to as the
"Gulf War." Do you understand the question?
A. In general, yeah. I am opposed to military force.
Q. In any cause? Any war?
A. Yeah.
Q. So, you know, I don't want to use a label that you might
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
consider pejorative, because your views are respected here as
they are under the First Amendment; but are you a pacifist?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you have some friends who are lawyers and, as I
understand it, one is in Legal Aid?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know where that person works in Legal Aid?
A. It's Rural Legal Aid Services.
Q. Here in Denver, or --
A. Fort Collins.
Q. Fort Collins. And in connection with civil cases where
people who can't afford a lawyer in landlord-tenant disputes
and things like that; is that what you're talking about?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you also have a friend who was a lawyer and then became
a high school teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this a teaching -- was a teaching colleague of your
husband?
A. No.
Q. You and he know him from other circumstances?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you also have a former brother-in-law who is a bailiff
in some court in New York City?
A. Uh-huh.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. In what court?
A. I wouldn't know.
Q. All right. But do you know if it's a court that tries
criminal cases?
A. I believe so. But I'm not sure.
Q. Do you still communicate with him?
A. We haven't in the last year.
Q. Ever talk with him about cases that he's seen in court or
anything --
A. No.
Q. -- about his court work?
On page 22 in Question 100 -- and it goes over to the
next page with some others, but particularly 100, subparagraph
A, what, a car was stolen?
A. Yes.
Q. And apparently, no one was ever charged. Was the car ever
recovered?
A. Yes. It was found. Totaled.
Q. And was -- totaled. And why do you say the case was
handled poorly?
A. Because I think they could have found out who did it. They
had -- they had taped on a -- a temporary license in the back
window, and no fingerprints were ever taken.
Q. Where was that?
A. The car? When it was found?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Where? Yes. I mean, what police department was involved?
A. Oh, Fort Collins.
Q. Fort Collins. So is it your impression they just didn't
pay a lot of attention looking for somebody?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then B, your son's bicycle was taken at some time and
you thought that got handled well, even though no one was
charged.
A. Yeah.
Q. What's the difference?
A. They had -- they have a bicycle theft program where you can
go in and check for ones that they have recovered. They were
very courteous and explained the whole setup.
Q. So they did pay attention to that?
A. I guess they do.
Q. Is that what you're saying? Pardon me?
A. Yes.
Q. Even though the outcome was -- well, was the bike
recovered?
A. No.
Q. So the outcome wasn't satisfactory. It would have been
better to recover it and maybe charge somebody, but you at
least agreed they paid attention to it? Is that what you're
saying?
A. Yeah. And they had a system for handling that.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. Now, also, on page 24, question 106 -- and this
relates to your husband, as I understand it, does this -- are
you talking about this same matter of the difference of opinion
about paying taxes?
A. No. No.
Q. So what is this one about?
A. He's been arrested a number of times in protests in his
life, both before I married him and after.
Q. Any in Fort Collins?
A. Yes.
Q. What kinds of protests was he involved with?
A. One was against the -- the funding of the Contras and he
was arrested at a Congressperson's office for trespassing.
And another time was when a train carrying, I believe,
nuclear triggers was coming through town, he knelt on the
tracks to stop the train.
Q. He and others?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what, charged with trespass or something like that?
A. I'm not exactly sure what he was charged with. It was
eventually dropped.
Q. You answered on question 107 that he was not -- well, I'm
sorry. I misread it. He -- he actually wasn't charged and
then on 108, "justly investigated," you've got. I mean, you
agreed with what the police did?
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Yeah.
Q. And of course, that's part of civil disobedience; you take
what comes from your conduct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Have you been a student of disobedience, civil
disobedience? For example, read Dr. Martin Luther King's
letter from the Birmingham jail, things like that?
A. Yeah.
Q. You're familiar with that --
A. Somewhat.
Q. -- the letter that I referred to? And the teachings of
Ghandi?
A. Of Ghandi, yeah.
Q. You read Ghandi's --
A. Autobiography.
Q. And some of his writing?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And agree with it?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And on page 27 and over on 28, we asked you some things
about the death penalty. And you said -- if you want to take a
moment to review. Maybe you already have in mind what you
wrote here, but I don't want to take you at a disadvantage. I
want you to look to see what you wrote.
A. Yeah. I stand with what I wrote.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Which is that the death penalty is ethically and morally
wrong --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- under all circumstances.
A. Yes.
Q. And is that somewhat consistent with your overall views
of -- of politics and religion?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Does it have a religious basis to it? I already assumed
that. I shouldn't assume that. Let's separate this out for a
moment. Is your opposition based on religion?
A. I -- I would -- yes. Yeah. I can't very well separate my
religious from the rest.
Q. And a moral view?
A. Yeah.
Q. That's what you're characterizing it here as; I guess a
moral view?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You said, though, on page 29, if you'll turn to that,
please, and question 127. You said you agreed strongly that it
is important to follow this Court's instructions?
A. Yes.
Q. And that our court system is based on rules and the rest of
the things. Now, I -- it is one thing to talk about rules like
rules of procedure and that sort of thing.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It's another to talk about the law, itself. And I want to
talk about the law itself for a moment with you because I want
to have you tell us directly with respect to areas in which you
disagree with the law. And we've got some areas in which your
husband has disagreed with the law and disobeyed laws and took
the consequences. That's civil disobedience. Now, one of the
things that a juror has to do is obey the law and follow it,
just like I have to do. And a juror is not free in her role as
a juror to disobey the law that is given in the instructions of
the Court. You understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And the law in federal court provides for a death penalty
to be considered in certain kinds of crimes.
A. Yes.
Q. The charges made against Mr. McVeigh include that type of
crime for which the law provides that a death penalty can be
considered. Do you understand?
A. I understand.
Q. And I have to ask you just a direct question. Because of
your views as you've explained them here and in the
questionnaire, are you telling us that you would have to
disobey the laws as a juror because you don't agree with it on
moral grounds?
A. That's correct. I could not consider the death penalty.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
Q. Under any circumstances?
A. That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we're going to take a
recess at this time. We've been here a little while in court.
You've been waiting, but we'll ask you to wait a little while
longer. If you'll step out now, please, and we'll be getting
back to you after a recess.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Please step out.
Counsel, approach the bench.
(At the bench:)
(Bench conference deleted per order of court.)
(In open court:)
THE COURT: We'll recess 20 minutes.
(Recess at 10:22 a.m.)
(Reconvened at 10:43 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Return 404.
We have a few questions from counsel for the
defendant, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: Thank you, your Honor.
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Good morning, ma'am. My name is Stephen Jones, as the
Court has introduced us; and you've met Mr. Burr and
Mr. McVeigh, and this is Mr. Roberts sitting at the end of the
table.
I have a few questions that I wanted to ask you about
the death penalty. I'm reading your questionnaire, of course,
and the answers that you gave to the Court.
I believe that his Honor explained to you that the
first thing that the jury must determine once it is seated and
after it has heard all the evidence is to determine under the
Court's instructions whether the Government has met its burden
and proved that Mr. McVeigh is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
to the satisfaction of the jury; and if the jury finds that it
is not, finds Mr. McVeigh not guilty, that's the end of the
case and there is no second stage, so to speak. Is that your
understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. And I take it that given your views on the death penalty
that insofar as the first stage -- that is, the question of
whether he's guilty or not under the evidence -- you would not
have any problem in being a member of the jury.
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, with respect to the second stage, if Mr. McVeigh is
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
convicted of the offenses in the indictment, then the same jury
would hear information from the Government and from the
defendant. In other words, they would put on witnesses and
evidence and we would do the same thing. We call it
information in the second stage; and that would be a process
that might very well take some time. It's just like a second
trial; and the Court would at the conclusion of it give you
instructions.
One of those instructions, I would anticipate, would
be that if you found Mr. McVeigh guilty, that there is a range
of punishment that the jury must consider with an open mind;
and those punishments include death. They also include life
without the possibility of ever getting out, and then some
lesser sentence which may be authorized by law which the Court
would impose. That would be the range of punishment available
to the jury. Do you follow me so far?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And do you understand that there isn't any requirement that
you find one of those over the other? In other words, you base
your view on the information that comes to you in that second
stage. You're not required to automatically vote for death or
automatically vote for life without parole or do anything
except to consider with an open mind.
A. I understand that that's what would be asked of me.
Q. Well, you put it better than I can. That's what would be
Juror No. 404 - Voir Dire
asked of you.
Now, can you consider, as I have outlined here with
you, with on open mind those various options, should
Mr. McVeigh be convicted of the charges in the indictment and
the case move for a second stage?
A. I'm afraid my mind is closed as far as the death penalty.
I could not consider that.
Q. So you can imagine no set of circumstances in which you
could vote to impose the death penalty regardless of what the
information before you might be.
A. That's right.
MR. JONES: All right. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Well, we're going to excuse you for the
day, and we will get back to you after I talk with counsel, as
I'm doing with respect to every person who comes in. So
continue to follow the cautions that you have up to now and
continue to be careful about the things that you read, see and
hear, avoiding anything that could relate to this case and to
your jury service. We'll be in -- getting back to you. You're
excused for now.
And we'll talk with No. 405.
If you'll just raise your right hand and take the oath
of affirmation from the clerk.
(Juror No. 405 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: If you'll please be seated there by the
microphone.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And I want to first take you back to March 19. And you
remember that on that day you were summoned out to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds, at which time I talked with you
and other members of the jury panel, informed you about the
background of this case, the charges against Timothy McVeigh,
jury selection process and the like, and then asked you to
complete a questionnaire, which you did.
You have to answer out loud on these --
A. Yes.
Q. -- because we make a record of your answer -- answers.
And you have in hand right now that questionnaire as
you completed it. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what we did then was take the questionnaire as you
completed it and made copies of it, gave the copies to the
lawyers in the case and to me. We reviewed your answers and
are going to now ask you some additional questions and a few
questions about some of your answers.
Before we do that, I want to again reassure you that
we have not shared this information with anyone else and will
not do so; that the purpose of your completing this
Juror No. 405 - Voir Dire
questionnaire -- some of these matters are quite private in
nature and indeed some of the questions may be -- but we're
protecting your privacy by referring to you here only by a
number. And you're known to us on the record as Juror No. 405,
as is marked on your questionnaire. And as questions are asked
of you here, we'll try to do that in generalities so that we
don't identify you. All right?
A. Yes.
Q. I want you to meet the people you see in front of you here
in the courtroom, because you didn't meet them when I met with
you; so here at the first table are the lawyers who represent
the Government in this case: Mr. Joseph Hartzler, Ms. Beth
Wilkinson, Mr. Patrick Ryan, and Mr. Lawrence Mackey.
At the other table over here are counsel for the
accused, Mr. Stephen Jones and Mr. Richard Burr; and Timothy
McVeigh, the person accused in this case, is present.
Now, first, before we begin to ask you these
questions, what I want to assure you of is that you can change
your answers, if need be, in response to any of these
questions, if your present answer is in some -- something
different; and also, we would recognize the possibility that
you have thought more about some of these things and want to
change your answer even if not questioned about it. So if that
is the case, feel free to tell us.
Also, you'll recall that when you left that
Juror No. 405 - Voir Dire
auditorium, I told you and the others to be careful, staying
away from anything in any newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, whatever, that may relate to this case and also to
be careful in conversation with others and not permit anyone to
talk to you in any way that could influence you and so forth.
Have you been able to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. And we know that it has been hard to do because since
March 19, many things have appeared in various forms of
communication; and we understand the possibility that
inadvertently you come across something.
Has that happened?
A. No.
Q. What was your practice before getting this cautionary
instruction from me with respect to keeping up with the news?
What was your daily routine in that regard?
A. I basically don't read newspapers except for Sunday.
NewsOK has disabled the comments for this article.
See our commenting and posting policy.
See our commenting and posting policy.
New Rule in OREGON:
(APR 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Must Read This Immediately
www.ConsumerFinanceDaily.com
(APR 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Must Read This Immediately
www.ConsumerFinanceDaily.com
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.50%
If you owe under $729k you may qualify for 2.90% APR Govt Refi Plans.
www.SeeRefinanceRates.com
If you owe under $729k you may qualify for 2.90% APR Govt Refi Plans.
www.SeeRefinanceRates.com
Prev
