OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 04/28/1997 11:32 CDT/CST

Oklahoman Published: April 28, 1997

 Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
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.com has disabled the comments for this article.

Trending Now


  1. 1
    Dave Chappelle Reveals Shockingly Buff New Look
  2. 2
    Peaches Geldof Funeral to Be Held on Easter Monday
  3. 3
    Mayor Who Fired Lesbian Police Chief Caught On Tape In Homophobic Tirade
  4. 4
    NBA commissioner wants to raise age limit to 20
  5. 5
    Dream guitars I wouldn't mind calling my own (34 Photos)
+ show more