OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 04/28/1997 11:52 CDT/CST

Oklahoman Published: April 28, 1997
Advertisement
;


              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
 Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                    			
Plaintiff, vs. TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH, Defendant. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (Trial to Jury - Volume 41) 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 16th 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 and JAMES HANKINS, 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. Good morning. We're ready for 356. Good morning. If you'll please face the clerk here, raise your right hand and take the oath. (Juror No. 356 affirmed.) THE COURT: Please be seated there by the microphone. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q. And I want to -- Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. I'm sorry. I don't hear well so -- Q. All right. Well, you let me know any time that you're not -- A. Okay. Q. -- able to hear and understand. Just say so. A. Okay. Q. Now, I want to take you back to -- to March the 19th, about a month ago. You remember that on that day, you came out to the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. A. Yes. Q. And you were there with a number of other people who received jury summons and I was there and explained to you and the others the background of this case, what this trial is going to be about, the charges against Timothy McVeigh, and then asked you to fill out a questionnaire. You have to answer out loud so your answers can be recorded. A. Yes. Q. All right. And you did. I mean, there was a long questionnaire and you did fill it out, turned -- A. Right. Q. -- it in. And we've taken your answers, made copies of the completed questionnaire, and gave it to the lawyers and to me. And we have read your answers, and now we want to ask you a few Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire more questions -- if you can believe there are still more questions to be asked -- and also a few things about what you told us here. So I want to assure you before we begin that we know that a number of these things that we've asked you about are private in nature. A. Yes. Q. And you wouldn't be telling people about some of these things if you didn't have to because we've summoned you as a juror. A. Right. Q. So we know that, and we're protecting your privacy here by such things as referring to you here only by number so that you are known to us as Juror No. 356 -- A. Right. Q. -- without revealing your name and without revealing your street address or telephone number or any of those things -- those are all being kept from public view. And all of us who have read your answers are, of course, preserving the confidentiality of them and will not disclose them to anybody else. We're using them only for this process. A. Right. Q. Okay. Now, I want to introduce to you the people who have seen it and who are here participating in -- in this process, beginning with counsel for the Government, Mr. Joseph Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Hartzler -- they are at this first table. Mr. Joseph Hartzler, Ms. Beth Wilkinson, Mr. Patrick Ryan, and Mr. Lawrence Mackey. At the other table are lawyers for Mr. McVeigh, Mr. Stephen Jones and Mr. James Hankins. And Timothy McVeigh is, of course, here with us and standing, introducing himself. Now, I want to also tell you that if you feel that you need to change any of your answers because you have thought more about some of these questions or if as a result of anything that I or the lawyers asked you causes you to want to change any answer, you may do so. A. All right. Q. And you remember that when you left after you filled in the questionnaire and -- and turned it in, I asked you not to discuss this case with anybody. A. Right. Q. And also, to be careful about watching news or reading the papers and so forth so that you would stay away from things that relate to the case. A. Right. Q. Now, we know that that's some -- not easy to do because -- A. Right. Q. -- there's a lot of it out there and will continue to be. The case was -- has drawn a lot of public interest. Let me just ask you -- and we would understand it if it has happened -- if you have come across anything about the case Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire since you filled in this questionnaire. A. Only beginnings of news reports or something. As soon as it started, then I would turn it off or leave the room or -- and so it would be maybe the first sentence that I would catch. No details. Q. All right. And what -- what has been your daily routine practice of keeping up with the news? How did you do that before you got on this jury summons -- you got the jury summons? A. Actually TV news and read the newspaper. Q. And which newspaper do you read? A. The Loveland Daily Reporter Herald. Q. And that is a daily newspaper? A. Right. Six days. Q. And that's where you live, in that town? A. Right. Q. And does it have a lot of -- has it had, before you got the jury summons, a lot of coverage about this case? A. Not a lot, but the big issues, the main news items. Q. Yeah. Now, what television -- you watch television news? A. Yes. Channel 9. Q. 9. And at what hour of the day? A. Early in the morning and sometimes 5:00 and at 10:00. Q. Okay. And so when you have watched Channel 9 and things about this case came on, what did you do? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. I turn it off or leave the room. Q. All right. We appreciate your doing that. Tell me -- and I don't want to make too much of this, but tell me about your hearing. You -- if you want to turn to your questionnaire, you have it there with you. A. No, I don't have a hearing aid. There are certain voices -- Q. No. That isn't my question. My -- listen carefully. The question -- I'm going to ask you to turn to your questionnaire. You have that with you? A. Yeah. Q. All right. And page 4. And page 4 is where you tell us of your hearing. A. Right. Q. And you start it by saying that it is a minor hearing problem, and that seems to be the case. And then you say, "with certain voices." A. Right. Q. Depending upon how loud or soft or -- A. I think it's the tone of voice. I -- some women, I have a harder time and -- and some men, if they speak softly. Q. All right. A. Usually, one on one, I can hear all right. Q. All right. And -- A. And I hear you fine. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. So far, you're -- of course, I have amplified -- A. Right. Q. -- here. You mention that you may get a hearing aid. A. Yes. Q. And I think you started to say you did not get one. A. Not yet. I went to the doctor and he released me to get a hearing aid, but I haven't had a chance to make an appointment yet. Q. Well, we also have some hearing accommodation technology here. I don't know if it will help us, but let's try it. A. Okay. Q. Now? A. Oh, yes. Q. Does that help? A. Yes, but I was hearing you fine before. Q. Well, all right. Please be seated there. Do you find anything uncomfortable about wearing that? A. No. Q. Well, there is a device up there on the wall that, through some mystery of science unknown to me, helps you to hear. A. Oh, well, that's great. Q. Okay. Now, as long as that's not uncomfortable, we'll -- we'll see how it goes. A. All right. Q. And you mention another matter here, that you take some eye Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire drops. A. Yes. Q. But your vision is all -- okay with -- A. Yes. Q. -- with the glasses? A. Right. Q. Okay. A. It's for glaucoma, but it's under control. Q. All right. Good. You were born and raised in Illinois? A. Right. Q. Near Chicago? A. A suburb. Q. And you came out to Colorado how long ago? A. In '52. Q. And have been here ever since? A. Right. Q. And you -- you're married? A. Yes. Q. Husband is retired? A. Right. Q. And as I understand it, at one time you worked -- well, maybe you still do. Do you still work in this newspaper office? A. I do. Q. Yes. And you work on circulation? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Right. Q. For the distribution of the paper? A. Correct. Q. Is that the paper in Loveland that you mentioned? A. It is. Q. Okay. And you've been working there since 1971, as I understand it. A. Right. Q. Before your husband retired, what work did he do? A. He's an optometrist. Q. And he started out with a -- going to Purdue University and -- and like most people in Purdue, got an engineering degree? A. Right. Q. And then went -- when did he change to optometry? A. In about -- let's see. I think he got his degree in '51. Q. Okay. Which degree? A. Optometric. Q. Oh, all right. Now, there are a few things that I would like to ask you about from the questionnaire; but before that, as I understand it, your mother came over here from England? A. She did. Q. And your father from Germany? A. Right. Q. And they met here in the United States somewhere? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Yes. Q. Was that in Illinois? A. No. That was in Kansas City. Q. Okay. And then they moved to Illinois at some time before you were born? A. Right. Soon after they were married. Q. Okay. What -- what kind of work did your mother and father do? A. Mother was a housewife. My father was a compositor, I think they called it, for a magazine. Q. And -- did he do that during the years you were in the family growing up? A. Yes. Q. And do you know more specifically what he did for a magazine and which one? A. It was in the composing room. Q. Oh, I see. A. It was the florist review. And he was head of the composing room at the end. Q. Okay. Putting -- putting the magazine together? A. Uh-huh. They typeset every letter at that time. Q. That's how they used to do it, isn't it? A. Uh-huh. Q. Now, it -- you make a comment here on page 7 that maybe you want to go to school some more when you retire if that day ever Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire comes? A. Right. Q. Do you have any present plans to -- A. No. Q. -- retire? A. Really. No. Q. You like what you're doing? A. I do. Q. And you can continue to do it? A. I haven't had problems yet. Q. Well, good for you. You also have had a 4-H Club? A. Yes. Q. And taught Sunday school? A. Right. Q. Do you still work with youngsters in -- A. Not now. Q. -- either of those? A. No. Q. Okay. If you would turn, please, to page 11 and the Question 49 which simply listed a number of types of activities and asked if anyone in your family had such employment and you mention an agency using social workers. A. Oh, a long -- before we got married, my husband was a social worker in Chicago, but just for a short time. Q. Okay. And then the newspaper is what you do now, that you Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire work with a newspaper now? A. Right. Q. Is that why you marked that X? A. Right. Q. And then a telemarketing firm. What about that? A. Well, that's just the newspaper. We do some telemarketing. Q. I see. Now, you -- on page 20 -- and I think -- I'm looking at Question 8 -- 88. You see that? A. Yes. Q. And your -- your answer and explanation. A. Yes. Q. How long ago was this? A. It was in 1970. Q. And your daughter was then how old? A. 16. Q. Living at home? A. Right. Q. And she was in some kind of an automobile -- A. Right. Q. -- mix-up and then did it -- was there a lawsuit against her? A. I don't know. She had to go to court. I don't know whether it was a lawsuit. Q. Okay. A. But as I thought about this afterwards, I thought it wasn't Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire the judge as much that I was unhappy with as it was myself and our lawyer; that I felt we didn't have a chance to defend properly. But I think my daughter had just received her driver's license and she kind of felt like maybe it was her fault. So it probably turned out for the best. Q. Did you go to a trial? Did you attend at a trial yourself? A. Yes. And -- Q. Was there a jury? A. No. Q. A hearing before a judge? A. Uh-huh. Q. And was it for damages for getting money or was it like a traffic ticket? A. It was -- well, through the insurance company, to pay for the injuries to the other party. Q. All right. And how seriously was the other party injured, if at all? A. I really don't know. He had cuts on his face. I suspect he didn't have a seat belt on. He probably hit the windshield. I really don't know the details on that. Q. All right. So the matter was resolved by the judge? A. Right. Right. Q. And as you look back on it now -- and I recognize you're changing your answer a little, and this is exactly what I said you could do and we want you to -- is it your view of it today Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire that, actually, it probably was handled all right? A. Probably so. I felt like I should have said we need to have the police officer at the trial. Q. Yeah. A. And I -- but at the -- at that point, I was afraid he might incriminate her more, but now as I think about it, I think from what he had said to us, he might have -- have presented our side better. But that was my own fault. Q. Well, I -- you mentioned a lawyer. The insurance company give you a lawyer -- A. Yes. Q. -- to represent -- So it's not a lawyer you picked out? A. Right. Q. It's a lawyer the insurance company -- and you have -- was that a lawyer that you knew? Did you know the person before? A. No. Q. And you think maybe the lawyer didn't do all that he or she could have done? A. Well, he asked me one question and that was it, and I didn't feel like I had a chance to really present my side of it. I was with her at the time. Q. Oh, you were in the car? A. Uh-huh. Q. All right. Well, at any rate, is it fair to say that Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire matter is long over? A. Yes. Q. And it's not something that you think about now? A. Right. I don't even remember who the judge was. Q. Okay. Now, you mention, also, on page 21 that -- and it goes on over to 22, the explanation. And you see you told us that you were sued once by an employee who said she was unjustly treated? A. No. I wasn't. My son was. Q. Oh, your son was. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. A. I guess -- it says "you or anyone in your family." Q. It does indeed say that, and I jumped to a conclusion, which I should not do. So it was your son? A. Yes. Q. Was he supervising some people and -- at a -- some job? A. He was a personnel manager. Q. Of what kind of business? A. Public service type. Q. And how much do you know about this? A. Not very much. Q. Do you know this is a matter that actually went to court? A. I don't think it did. I think as it ended, I think she was finally let go because of other things. Q. Okay. A. And -- so I think it's all been taken care of. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. All right. And again, we asked you this kind of thing that as you sit here now, would that have any influence at all on your -- A. No. Q. -- participation here? A. No. Q. Following right along to the next question on that page 22, it asks your opinion about the effectiveness of the criminal justice court system, and you said, "It's working adequately." You gave it a C grade, I guess. And then we said, "Please explain," and you didn't offer any explanation. A. Oh. Q. Do you -- now, I'm not criticizing you for not doing that, but why did you mark "adequately," if you can tell us? A. I guess because of some of the stories you hear about maybe someone who was convicted of a crime and then later proven innocent and -- so I -- I felt kind of like maybe it wasn't perfect, but it's doing a good job. Q. Okay. Now, you have said several -- in several places here about the importance of fairness -- A. Right. Q. -- in the court system. Yes? A. Right. Q. I mean, you did? A. Uh-huh. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. And you believe, of course, that the system should be fair? A. Right. Q. You also told us that you agree strongly that a jury should listen to the instructions given by the court. A. Right. Q. And I want to talk a little about that. The instructions that a judge gives in a trial are things that include the law that the jury must apply to the case. The jury is going to judge the facts from the evidence, but the jury is required to follow the law as given in those instructions; and that's something you agree with, I understand. A. Right. Q. And you have never been a jury -- A. No. Q. -- on a jury, have you? A. No. Q. Well, there are some things that -- well, let me just say this: The detailed instructions are not given until the end of the trial -- because it's not until the whole trial is done, the evidence is in -- that a judge can say, well, under this evidence, these are the things that you must follow as the law. So the instructions depend a lot on what the evidence may be in the trial. But there are certain principles of law that are just fundamental and they apply to every criminal case, no matter in what court it is or who the defendant is or what the Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire charges are in the United States because these are principles protected by the United States Constitution. And the fundamental one is, of course, what we refer to often as the presumption of innocence. I'm sure that's something you've heard of before. A. Oh, yes. Q. And I don't mean to insult you by reviewing things that you probably already know, but it is important that I make sure that you know and to find out whether you agree with these things because what the presumption of innocence means is that any person who is charged with any crime is presumed to be innocent and there is nothing in the law that requires that person to prove that he or she is not guilty. No person accused in a criminal case has any burden or duty of calling any witnesses, producing any evidence, or testifying at a trial. A person accused -- and we call them a defendant, of course -- can simply plead not guilty and require the prosecutors to come in and prove the case. And that must be done by evidence that's admissible under the law, under the rules of evidence. So what a trial is all about, really, is a test of the evidence that is offered in support of the charge and any other evidence that's offered in the case. Now, the Government brings the charge in what's called an indictment, and I referred to that back there when we met Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire before in the auditorium and outlined what the charges are and explained that Timothy McVeigh pleaded not guilty to those charges and that's why we're going to have a trial. And this presumption of innocence carries throughout the trial and entitles him or any other defendant to a verdict of not guilty unless 12 fair-minded people who are impartial and who listen to the evidence at the trial and follow the law decide that he's been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So stated in a different way, the presumption of innocence means that every defendant is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt that remains after all of the evidence is considered. A. I see. Q. You understand what I've said? A. Yes, I do. Q. You agree with that? A. I guess so. Q. Well, it isn't good enough to say "I guess so." You either agree or you don't agree. A. Yeah. That's the law. I agree. Q. Okay. Now, Timothy McVeigh sits in this room with us this morning. He's been introduced to you. He is presumed to be innocent of these charges against him. A. Right. Q. And are you ready to give him the benefit of that Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire presumption? A. I will. Q. And in this case, we asked you in this questionnaire something about the death penalty. Do you remember the questions? And I don't want to do this without giving you a chance to look at them. It's -- page 27 and page 28 are this -- parts of the questionnaire where all this appears. And you notice -- maybe you'll remember, but I know it's been a while -- that on page 27, Question 121, there's kind of a lengthy explanation about the way in which capital punishment, the death penalty has been debated and it's been a matter of disagreement in public and in those who make the law over the years. A. Right. Q. And in fact, there are differences among the laws of the states now. So once -- there are some states who do not have the death penalty. There are other states who do. And then for those states who do, there are also differing procedures as to how it is decided. What we asked you here in this questionnaire is your view about capital punishment as a general matter and sort of if you could make the law, how would you do it, and you've given us your answers. And if you want to review those, that's fine. You see your -- I think your explanations of your answers are on page 28 under B and C. A. Right. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. All right. Now, I want to change the focus of this discussion a little to make it a bit more specific because under federal law -- and that's where we are, in federal court, so we're following the laws established by the Congress -- A. Oh. Q. -- and federal law provides for the death penalty for the offenses that are contained in the charge in this case so that if Timothy McVeigh were to be convicted, if he's found guilty under these principles that we've talked about, by a jury, then the death penalty must be considered, along with other possible penalties. So that's why I'm -- we must talk with you about it a little now. Now, you understand that in all criminal cases that do not involve the death penalty, the jury -- well, actually, in all criminal cases, the jury first decides whether the evidence presented to them proves all the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. What we've just talked about. A. Right. Q. And then if all of the jurors are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has been proved guilty, they return a guilty verdict. A. Right. Q. Now, in cases that do not involve the death penalty, the jury then goes home. The job of the jury is over as to Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire deciding whether the verdict should be not guilty or guilty. Of course, if the verdict is not guilty, they go home, there is no sentence. But in other kinds of cases, if there is a verdict of guilty, then it's up to the judge to decide the punishment, what sentence should be imposed. And before a judge makes that decision, there is more to be done because information is presented to the judge about the crime, circumstances of the crime that are not admissible directly in evidence at the trial, and also things about the defendant, information about the defendant as an individual human being, things like his life history, his employment experience, his family relationships, and all those other things that combine together to make each one of us unique. And then there's another hearing and the judge hears from the lawyers for the prosecution, for the defense, and then makes a decision about what the sentence is that the judge finds to be appropriate for this particular person. Now, it's different under federal law when there is the possibility of a death sentence because federal law says the jury must decide what punishment the defendant deserves. And the choices given to the jury are death, life in prison without any possibility of ever being released, and any other lesser penalty provided by law. Before making that choice, the jury, just as I've said is true for the judge in other kinds of cases, must consider additional information, and that is Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire information about the crime and about the uniqueness of the defendant as an individual human being. This necessary information is given to the jury at a second hearing. A. Oh. Q. A penalty phase hearing, it's sometimes described. But what it is is just like a second trial, an additional trial, and it proceeds like the trial in that the lawyers for the Government present information which they believe support -- supports a death sentence, and we refer to that kind of information as aggravating circumstances. On the other hand, counsel for the defendant -- the lawyers for the defendant present information to be considered by the jury in deciding that death is not deserved, and we often refer to that as mitigating circumstances. Now, what the jury has to do is consider all of that, all that they have heard, and then make what amounts to a moral judgment specifically as to the defendant -- and in this case, of course, the defendant is Timothy McVeigh -- and decide whether he should live or die. As is true with the question of guilt, the law says that the jurors must approach this task with open minds and be guided by what they hear and see in court. They must not allow themselves to be controlled by any preconceived notion that they might have about the facts and the law of the case. Each juror must make an independent decision, free from the Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire influence of any opinions publicly expressed by anyone else, and a decision that is in accordance with the facts and the law presented to the jury. Any personal disagreement with the controlling law must be set aside. I know that you've listened carefully to this explanation. Do you understand what I have said? A. I do. Q. Then with these points in your mind, I must ask you something about your ability to make a sentencing decision if that becomes necessary in this case. So I must ask you as a general matter now and without considering anything about what the evidence may show the facts of this case to be, because we do not have that evidence before us, do you have a personal, a moral, or a religious view either against or in favor of the penalty of death? A. I'm not sure how to answer that. I feel like if someone has done a terrible crime, perhaps they should be punished in a like manner. However, I'm not sure whether we have the right to say it's time for someone to die. Q. Well, let me ask you a few additional questions then. And you understand we're not asking you for an answer that is different from anything that you think because what we must explore here is what you think and feel. And to some extent, feelings are involved here, too. Is the death penalty something that you've thought much about in your life? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Not really. Q. Is it anything that you've been involved in any debate about or have you paid any particular attention to discussions about whether the death penalty should be a part of the law? A. No, I really haven't. Q. What I've attempted to say here -- and I'll phrase it a little differently because it may help you in answering the questions. The crime is a part of it. What kind of a crime was it. Obviously, this only comes up where some kind -- where death has resulted from some criminal conduct. But of course, there are many different varieties of cases in which people get killed and a lot of different circumstances, and then there are a lot of differences in who did it and why so that there are -- you know, if we were just to talk about all of the possibilities, there are so many you can't list them in any category, and that's why what the law says is you have to listen to the whole thing. And we can't talk about this particular case and what might be an aggravating circumstance or what might be a mitigating circumstance because that's going to depend on the evidence. A. Right. Q. And we don't know that yet because the evidence is something that's going to happen at the trial and happen at the sentencing hearing, the penalty phase hearing, if there is one. A. Right. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. So we have to talk about this in general ways. And that becomes difficult. But there are people -- and I'm sure you're aware of this just from a general awareness of people. There are some folks who believe that any time somebody gets killed, a person who has any role in that should also die. That's sort of the eye-for-an-eye and all that which I'm sure you've heard of before. A. Right. Q. There are some other people who say it is wrong to take a human life, it's wrong to do that in a court of law. The government should not kill anybody. That's up to God or -- for whatever reason, and believe that it's morally wrong to use the death penalty. So those are the two extremes: Those who would automatically say anybody involved in a death should himself die and those who say it's not up to us to decide a person's life and end it. There's a lot in between. And what I want to know from you is are you in between somewhere? A. I think I am. Q. Okay. A. I think I want to hear the evidence before I could say definitely one way or the other. Q. All right. And so to put it another way, are you telling us that you believe that you will be able to follow my instructions and to give fair and impartial consideration to all the facts and circumstances about this case and about Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Timothy McVeigh before deciding what his sentence should be, if he is found guilty? A. I would certainly try. THE COURT: Okay. Well, the lawyers have some more questions for you, so please listen to them and answer to them as you have me. This is Mr. Mackey. MR. MACKEY: Good morning. Thank you. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. MACKEY: Q. Good morning. A. Good morning. Q. My name is Larry Mackey, and I'm one of the prosecutors representing the United States in this case. It'll be our job during this trial to call witnesses to the witness stand and to elicit testimony, to ask them questions and develop testimony and to put into evidence exhibits against the defendant, Timothy McVeigh. That's -- that's our job. Do you understand that? A. I do. Q. All right. And your job as a prospective juror would be to listen to all of the testimony, not just that which comes from the Government, but also any evidence that might come from the defense, and not to make any decision until you have heard all of that evidence and talked about it and through it with your Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire fellow jurors? A. Right. Q. Is that a job you can do? A. I think so. Q. All right. Well, we're going to take a little bit more time with your patience this morning, and our objective is to get to know you a little bit better. It's one thing to read about you, it's another thing to meet you. And it's a pleasure to do that. A. Thank you. Q. Let me ask you, are you able to hear my voice all right? A. Oh, yes. Q. All right. The device has an adjustment, so if there's a change in the tone of voices, you can -- you can simply adjust it for that purpose. A. Oh. Q. So it sounds like it's working okay? A. Oh, great. Q. All right. Well, I have to tell you it's slick looking. It looks very good with your outfit. A. Oh, thank you. Q. You've been married more than 50 years now? A. Just over. Q. All right. Met your husband after his service in World War II? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Right. Well, I met him before and then we got married afterwards. Q. All right. So you are one of those sweethearts left behind as he went off the fight World War II? A. Not really. We weren't dating before he went, but I did know him. Q. Okay. He was from Chicago, as well? A. Right. Q. And then the two of you, many years ago, moved to this state? A. Right. Q. Why? A. Because of his practice. He got his optometric degree and looked around to see where would be a good place to start a practice and decided on Colorado. Q. Now, do you know many boilermaker graduates who went on to optometry school? A. No. I don't know any others. Q. What -- what prompted him to make that kind of change? A. Well, he was working as a salesman for an optical company and calling on optometrists and decided he'd rather do that angle of it than the selling. Q. All right. And I assume he practiced then in your home town here in Colorado? A. In Loveland, uh-huh. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. All right. And has been retired for a number of years? A. Yes. Q. What does he think about you being on this jury? A. He'd rather I didn't. Q. Okay. I know that you still have a brother who resides back in Chicago. A. Right. Q. And he's several years older than you? A. Right. Q. Is he in good health? A. As far as I know, yes. Q. All right. Is there anything in the way of a personal commitment on your part to his situation in Chicago or there are people there to care for him? A. Oh, he has children back there. Q. Great. Now, speaking of children, you raised four successful children? A. Right. Yes. Q. All right. And do they live here in Colorado? A. Three of them do. One's in Dallas -- near Dallas. Q. And do you get a chance to see them and their children very often? A. The ones here, yeah. Q. All right. What do your sons and daughters think about your prospective role as a juror in this case? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. They really haven't specified. Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you've put in more than 22 years at your current job? A. Right. Q. Raised the kids first and then launched your career? A. Right. Q. Okay. I know that you work at a newspaper. A. Right. Q. And I assume you're around newspaper reporters all the time. A. Yes. Q. But you've never had any reporting responsibilities? A. No. Q. All right. Yours is the management or helping in managing -- running the business; is that right? A. Yes. Circulation. Uh-huh. Q. If you were a juror and went home in the evenings and were in your hometown on the weekends and ran into one of your long-time reporter friends, could you resist the temptation of telling them what's going on down in Denver? A. I think so. So far, I've said, "Not talking." Q. Okay. Now, your questionnaire mentioned that you enjoy the community band concerts. A. Right. Q. Are you a participant? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. I play in the band. Q. Okay. And what instrument? A. Clarinet. Q. And have you done that for many years? A. Yes. Quite a few. Q. I'm envisioning this outdoor summer concert with an ice cream social and the like. A. Uh-huh. There's also concerts during the winter, too. Q. All right. A. We're getting ready for one now. Q. Now, can they fill that clarinet chair if you're unavailable? A. Oh, yes. I'm not that valuable. Q. You mentioned in your questionnaire that you have a number of friends who are lawyers. A. Well, there are several. Yeah. Not close friends. Q. All right. And that's my question, whether you've had occasion that they volunteered or you asked them anything about what it's like to be on a jury or anything about this case. A. No. Q. All right. Now, you've never been a juror yourself before? A. Right. Q. Has your husband or any of your children -- A. No. Q. -- or anybody close to you? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. No. I don't believe so. Q. What do you think a juror's job is? When you walked into this room, what did you expect you might be called to do? A. To decide guilt or not guilt. Q. Okay. And to follow the judge's rules in doing that? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, we asked you a question about your views on the tax laws, and you're not the only person who had a view. Tell me about your view. A. On the tax -- Q. Yeah. That there might be revisions that are necessary. A. Oh, well, when you make out your income tax, yeah -- that's what I had to do the night before I came. Yeah. It -- it seems like maybe there would be a better way, but I don't know what it would be. Q. You're like me, you always feel that especially in April of each year. A. Right. Q. Okay. His Honor asked you some questions about your view of the criminal justice system, and you recalled having read stories about cases that, on the one hand, had ended in guilt and then later, that person's conviction was overturned. Did you have any particular cases in mind? A. No. Well, there was one in the Southeast. I can't remember now. No. Nothing specific that I could discuss. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. All right. But I take it that troubles you, that the system didn't, in fact, fairly adjudge? A. A little bit, yes. To think -- suppose I was up there and not guilty and somehow -- they with maybe just circumstantial evidence said you must have done it. Q. Now, you know if you were a juror in this case, it would fall to your individual assessment, your individual decision of whether the Government had met its burden of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against the defendant? A. Right. Q. And that would be the standard? You understand that? A. I think so. Q. Is there anything about those stories you've read that would affect your ability to carry out that responsibility? Would that be in the back of your mind as you wondered about the proof in this case? A. I don't think so. As long as the evidence was presented and there was no evidence proving otherwise. Q. Well, would you be prepared to vote guilty if, in your judgment, the Government's proof, in fact, had proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt? A. I think so. Q. We asked some questions about Waco and the events in Waco, Texas. Tell me what you remember about that. A. Not a great deal. I was very confused about the whole Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire thing because I guess I -- I didn't feel like I got all the details on either side and I felt like I wanted the Government to be right, but -- but I was -- you know, because of the stories, I wasn't sure whether maybe there were two sides to it. Q. And no one wants to see innocent life lost? A. Right. Q. Right. As you sit there now, do you feel like one side or the other was to blame for that result? A. No. I really don't. I don't feel like I know enough about it. Q. I don't know how many cases will be in the future before we quit asking about O. J. Simpson, but I have one of those O. J. Simpson questions for you because you said in your questionnaire that it left you with many unanswered questions. A. Right. Q. What kind of questions were you thinking of? A. Well, personally, I felt like he should have been asked where were you, why this happened, why the run down the highway, why the letter, some of those things that I didn't hear answered. Maybe the jury did. I don't know. Q. Now, in a criminal case -- and that's the one I'm talking about now, the first case where Mr. Simpson -- A. Right. Q. -- was found not guilty -- of course, a defendant in this Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire case or any other case like Mr. Simpson has no obligation to answer any questions. A. That's what I understood. Uh-huh. Q. And that is the rule of law here in this courtroom, too. You understand that? A. Uh-huh. Q. And can you follow that rule of law here? Would you feel any temptation to insist in the back of your mind that something be produced from the defense when the law requires nothing from them? A. I guess if that's what the law says. Q. How much of the O. J. Simpson case did you follow? A. Well, it was kind of hard not to follow it because it was on all the news stories and -- Q. And from your exposure to the information, did you come to have any opinion about whether he was guilty or not guilty in the criminal case? A. Well, I kind of felt like he must be guilty; otherwise, why weren't they trying to find someone else who was. That was my own thinking. Q. Well, let's talk about this case and what you've been exposed to in the way of news accounts prior to becoming a prospective juror. I guess if you work at a newspaper office, you're around the news every day? A. Well, actually, I'm not in the news part of the newspaper Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire so I -- you know, people always think oh, you should know, but I don't. Q. Okay. A. And they don't come around and say oh, we just heard this or we just heard that, so it really has no bearing on my opinions or -- Q. Okay. Do you remember where you were on the day of the bombing? It's been two years ago now. A. No, I sure don't. Q. Do you remember any of the early images of the events that were transpiring in Oklahoma City? A. Well, of course, the building, you know, just disintegrating and the child being carried by the fireman. I can't forget that. Q. And since that time -- it's now some two years -- have you made it a point to follow the developments and the reports on those developments of this case? A. Well, any that were in the paper or on the news before I became a prospective juror, yeah, I kind of followed it. But I don't think we got as much news about it I'm sure as they got in Texas -- Oklahoma, or that area. Q. Understood. You know one of the rules again that would apply in this court is that you can't let anything you've read or seen before you become a juror affect your decision-making as a juror. Do you understand that? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Right. Q. And in some ways, it's -- it's more an academic exercise. You've got to be able to suppress and seclude and set aside entirely anything you heard about before you hear the first witness. A. Right. Q. You understand how important it would be to do that? A. I do. Q. Do you think you can? A. I'll sure try. Q. All right. Now, you mentioned that you have been active, supported the Red Cross -- A. Yes. Q. -- over the years. All right. Did you contribute through the Red Cross to victims in Oklahoma City? A. Oh, only indirectly, I guess. Nothing specifically, no. Q. And -- all right. Nothing through individually by you or through your church or anything? A. I don't believe so. Q. All right. Whatever support you may have provided even indirectly, is there anything about that that would have -- affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case? A. No. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. Let me conclude with a few more questions about the death penalty. A. Okay. Q. And it is hard for all of us to talk about this, and I take it this isn't a pleasant subject for you. A. Right. Q. Yeah. Let me just -- let me just ask you, what is your view on the death penalty? A. Well, like I said, it seems -- I guess my reaction, if it were someone close to me, some -- I -- I would feel if it were mine, he should be punished just the same way he treated my person. Whoever. But then I also have a feeling that maybe I don't have the right to say, you know, that this is it. Q. Understood. And those are the two issues that generate a lot of controversy about whether the death penalty is good public policy. Do you understand that? A. Uh-huh. Q. But those debates have been resolved; and at this moment in time, federal law authorizes, in some cases, the imposition of the death penalty. Do you understand that? A. I do. Q. But the judge doesn't make that decision; 12 citizens make that decision. A. Does that have to be unanimous? Q. It has to be unanimous. And that's an important question Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire because it means in carrying out the -- the law that each juror stands between life and death. Do you understand that? A. Uh-huh. Q. All right. Well, let me just ask you -- and reflect on it for a moment because this is our last opportunity to hear you say in your own words what you feel and how strongly you feel it. Are you the kind of person -- given your background and all the things that make you human, are you the kind of person that could vote death in a case? A. I think I could, given the proper evidence. Q. All right. And that's not a surprising answer because a lot of people say it depends on the facts. A. Right. Q. Right. As you evaluate my questions -- and I have just a few more -- let me make sure that you don't misinterpret. We're not talking about the facts of this case. There haven't been any. A. Right. Q. You understand that? A. Right. Q. We're not talking about a capital case where there are a large number of victims. We're simply talking in the abstract about a capital case where a person has been convicted of murder. Do you understand that? All right. The obligation that the Court has Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire described to you would be to set aside any personal views you have about the death penalty and to follow the law. Do you understand that? A. Right. Q. And so that -- this is the reason for these questions. Can you do that? Can you set aside those personal views and follow the Judge's instructions that will include your requirement to listen to all of the evidence presented either by the Government or by the defense and not make any decision about punishment until you had listened to all that evidence, talked about it, and evaluated it? A. Yes. Q. That's -- that's the law. Can you follow that law? A. I think so. Q. What, as you sit there now, would be the kinds of criteria, the kinds of facts -- not specific cases but the kinds of factual criteria, that you would use in evaluating the appropriateness of the death penalty? A. I think if it was done premeditated, it wasn't just an accident or maybe a spur-of-the-moment thing, something that was planned, that would have bearing on my thinking. Q. That would be one factor that you might consider in favor of the death penalty? A. Right. Q. If the degree of intent -- Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Right. Q. -- had been proven to you? A. Right. Q. Would you have an open mind to considering yet other factors that would support the death penalty? A. Such as -- Q. Such as the impact on the victims? A. Yes. That would probably be part of it. Q. The relative role of this particular defendant versus someone else who might have been involved? A. Yes. Q. Would you look at all the factors that would help you assess, then, both responsibility and accountability on the part of the defendant? A. Yes. Q. On the other hand, would you also be prepared to evaluate mitigating factors, those factors that militate against the imposition of the death penalty? A. Maybe something in the background of the -- Q. Absolutely. Right. A. Yes. Q. Sure. And it could include circumstances involving the offense. You understand that would be your responsibility to take all of those factors in and not make a decision until you had listened to all of those? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Yes. Q. You can do that? A. I hope so. Q. All right. Let me ask you, in this case -- or in any federal capital case, I should say, the jury has a choice between a death sentence and a life without possibility of parole, a verdict would mean that the defendant was incarcerated without release. As you sit there now, based on your personal view, could you give equal consideration to both of those sentencing options? A. I think so. Q. In the questionnaire, we asked you about whether you had an opinion about Timothy McVeigh, and you said no. A. No. I don't feel like I know enough about the case. Q. And in the questionnaire, we asked you whether you could be a fair and impartial juror, and you answered yes. A. I would sure try. Q. And that's your vote today? A. Right. MR. MACKEY: All right. Thank you so much for your time this morning. JUROR: Thank you. MR. MACKEY: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: May it please the Court. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES: Q. Good morning, ma'am. The Court has already introduced me to you. I'm Stephen Jones from Oklahoma. I have the privilege of representing Mr. McVeigh. And to his left is Jim Hankins, also from Oklahoma. And our duty here, as Mr. Mackey referenced, is to represent Mr. McVeigh's interest, to defend him vigorously, challenge the evidence that these ladies and gentlemen will put on, and to put evidence of our own. Your job, of course, if you're on the jury, is to listen and evaluate as the Court has told you. And you already know that. I wanted to ask you a number of questions, first a little bit about yourself and then about some of the points that we've covered. As I understand it, you and your husband have been married a little more than 50 years? A. Right. Q. You have four children, all of whom are grown and have left the home, all of them college-educated and gainfully employed, following their lives and careers; and you have five grandchildren? A. Right. Q. And although your husband is retired, you yourself work? A. Right. Q. And you made the decision to move to Colorado because you Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire thought -- he thought that the opportunities for his profession were better here? A. Right. Q. Have you been satisfied that -- A. Oh, yes. Q. Did you think it was a good move? A. Yes. Q. The newspaper where you work, you described yourself as working as a circulation secretary, I believe. A. Right. Q. But what is the circulation? A. Oh, something over 16,000, maybe 17. 17 something. Q. All right. And does your paper come out six days a week? A. Right. Q. Seven days a week? A. Six. Q. And what's the missing day? Monday? A. Sunday. Q. Sunday. Okay. So you don't publish on Sunday? A. Not now, but we will in June. Q. All right. And is your circulation figures -- are you one of those papers that circulation is measured by the Audit Bureau of Circulation or does it rely on self-reporting of the newspaper? A. No. It's ABC. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. And I take it you're familiar with that process and, in fact, probably integrally involved in it? A. To a degree. Q. Who owns your newspaper? A. The Lehmans. Q. Okay. A. Ed and Ruth Lehman. Q. All right. So it's still locally owned? A. Right. Q. And are there any other newspapers in town? A. Not in Loveland. Q. All right. Now, if you were on this jury and, of course, the -- although I've been told April is the cruelest month in Colorado, but presumably we'll move on through the summer or the spring -- about how long does it take you on an average to get from where you live to -- and without revealing where it was -- where you were picked up to come here this morning? A. About an hour. Q. Okay. So if you needed to be someplace by, say, 8:30 in the morning here to be picked up, that would require you to leave where you live -- and you don't have to tell me where that is -- about 7:30? A. Right. Q. And say that you left and got home, say, as late as 7:00 at night. Is that acceptable with your schedule and your health Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire and your responsibilities at home? A. The drive down and back is tiring because of the traffic. Q. Sure. A. If I weren't to get home until 7, I would probably have to give up evening -- my evening activities. Q. All right. Now, I take it from what you've said and from the way you responded this morning that the hearing arrangements here are completely satisfactory? A. Oh, it's great. Q. All right. You also mentioned that you had some treatment for glaucoma? A. Right. Q. You have those little scales that are put into your eyes? A. Just drops. Q. Right. All right. And how long have you been taking the drops? A. Oh, it's a number of years now. Q. All right. A. And it just seems to have held it. Q. So you don't have any problem with blurred vision or anything like that? A. No. Q. Good. Now, I noticed that your brother is quite a bit older than you. A. Right. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. And I take it also that your husband is quite a bit older than you? A. Right. Q. And your husband's in good health? A. Well, he's not really well. That would be one mitigating circumstance, if -- if he would get worse and need to have me at home all the time. That could be a problem. Q. Does he -- obviously, he lives there at the home with you. A. Right. Q. And does he -- is he mobile? Does he get up and move around and so forth? A. Yes. Yes, he does have trouble with his knees. He had both knees replaced with artificial knees. Q. Sure. About how long ago was that? A. The first one was, I guess, two or three years ago, and then the other one was later. Q. Well, I don't mean to pry, but, obviously, I need to ask you in order to know a little bit more about the situation. But what you're basically telling me, if I understand you correctly, is that he's mobile and in good health now, but that could change given his age? A. Right. Q. And the problems with his knees? A. Uh-huh. Q. All right. You don't have anyone there during the day Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire that's with him, do you? A. No. Q. And of course, where you work is not far, I take it, from where -- A. Right. Q. -- you live or at least certainly closer than being in downtown Denver? A. Oh, yes. Q. Now, where you work now, do you go home for lunch? A. Yes. Q. So you see him then? A. Right. Q. And you work five days a week, do you? A. Right. Q. So you understand that if you were on a jury, you could certainly call home and check on him and -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- be sure he was behaving himself and that type of thing? A. Yeah. Q. All right. Good. Now, I noticed also that at some time, and I take it during the war, that you were a teletype operator. A. Right. Q. And that's when you worked for Western Electric? A. Westinghouse. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. Westinghouse. Was the teletype work that you did there -- that's the old manual -- A. It was. Q. -- type? Where did you learn to type? A. I learned to type in high school. And it was the same system. Q. Right. Now, were they a competitor of Western Union or were you typing -- A. No. Q. -- teletype -- A. This was just interoffice -- Q. All right. A. -- messages. Q. Good. Now, you've made it pretty clear to us this morning that even though you work for a newspaper -- and I'm familiar with what you're saying -- the circulation is completely different from the news-gathering part of it. A. Right. Q. Okay. And then really, you all are busy enough that there isn't any chit-chat back and forth? A. Right. Q. Do you find yourself occasionally going over to read the AP or UPI wire? A. No. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. All right. A. I don't have time. Q. I understand. Now, what is your second choice of newspapers to read? It's clear to me what your first is. What's the second choice you read? A. Well, I really don't read any other. Q. I see. Now, you asked -- or rather Mr. Mackey asked you in response to a question -- you remember, of course, the day of this incident in Oklahoma City that we're all familiar with? A. I don't remember the day, itself, but I remember it happening. Q. All right. And you told us a little bit about the images that you remember. In the last two years, have you watched any of the so-called magazine shows on television like "Dateline" or "PrimeTime," "20/20," where there may have been something on about this case? A. Well, there was one way back where it told about some of the survivors or -- I don't remember details, particularly. Q. All right. A. The thing that struck me was the nursery where the children were. Q. All right. And you mentioned that, and I think you also mentioned that in connection with Waco, that there were -- A. Yes. Q. -- children that were killed in Waco or died at Waco. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Do you remember how many children died in the Oklahoma City -- A. No. Q. -- explosion? You just know there were -- A. Right. Q. -- several? The -- obviously, of course, we wouldn't be here if Mr. McVeigh hadn't been arrested. You know that? A. Right. Q. Now, do you remember the circumstances under which he was arrested or how that came about? A. No. Q. Do you remember whether anybody else was arrested? A. There was someone with him. I don't remember the name. Q. All right. And do you remember when the case was moved here to Denver and Judge Matsch was designated to preside over it? A. Yes. Vaguely. Q. Do you remember why it was moved? A. Because they felt that there wouldn't be an impartial trial in Oklahoma or in that area. Q. Sure. Well, you can understand that, can't you? A. Of course. Q. All right. Now, what about in the last, say, month, six Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire weeks, since you received your jury summons? Have you read anything or heard anything, even just a little bit, just bits and pieces about the government or the FBI or the Government's case or Government lawyers? A. Not really. Just where they'd start, they would say so many jurors who have been picked this morning. And there really wasn't -- I haven't seen much. Q. All right. There -- and what about Mr. McVeigh and our side? Have you read or heard anything Mr. McVeigh said or did supposedly or something about his lawyers or something about his case? A. Well, I think something was said about him having admitted it, but that's, I'm sure, rumor or -- I don't know. Q. Okay. Do you remember how you heard about that? A. That would just be the beginning of a news report. Q. Right. And does that make any impression on your mind today? Make you think he might be a little bit guilty or not? A. Well, I think I'd want to see the evidence before I would decide. Q. Okay. Fair enough. A. Or to have him tell me he admitted it. Q. All right. Well now, what about any of the other participants in this case? You mentioned you heard a little bit about we're selecting a jury. Is there anything else you've read or seen in the last few weeks that might make some Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire impact on you that you remember? A. Not in the last few weeks, huh-uh. Q. Now, you mentioned in response to a question by Mr. Mackey that -- and you mention it again right now about you had -- might have some unanswered questions or you wanted to hear all the evidence or from both sides or something like that, and I think the Court informed you this morning, of course, that the burden of proof is on the Government. We don't have to say or do anything. Now, that doesn't mean that if you're persuaded by the Government's case, you have to vote not guilty (sic). If you're persuaded by the Government's case beyond a reasonable doubt, you should follow the Court's instructions. But what I guess I'm asking you is -- is, will you require that we match the Government witness for witness or exhibit for exhibit or victim for victim or anything like that? A. Well, I would expect some evidence on your side. Q. Well, you -- you won't be disappointed, I can assure of you of that. But I'm just asking you is it some kind of building block, where they put on five, we put on five, they put on six, we put on six? A. Not -- not figures like that, but if -- if they present some evidence that you feel is not right, I would expect you to have some evidence to prove that it wasn't. Q. Well, I would expect that, too. Let me put it to you this Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire way because I don't want to confuse you. Would you agree with me that it's the quality and the credibility of the evidence that really counts and not the sheer number? A. I think so. Q. All right. Now, you also mentioned about telemarketing, and you said that was with respect to the newspaper. Now, do you yourself engage in telemarketing? A. As little as possible. Q. Okay. I noticed, also, that you campaigned door to door for President Nixon. A. Yes. That was a one-time deal. Q. Was that because you regretted doing it or because it was the only time you were active -- A. No. That was the only time I really was asked to. Q. Was that in 1960, '72, or '68? A. I really don't know. Q. And you indicated also that you have an interest in reading fiction? A. Yes. But no time. Q. You have the interest, but no time? A. Right. Q. All right. Now, I'm kind of in an awkward position here because Mr. McVeigh has entered a plea of not guilty, which means the burden of proof is on the Government. You understand that? Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire A. Right. Q. And I'm sure you understand that during this trial, of course, and at the conclusion of it, if you're on the jury, I'll be asking you to vote not guilty. A. Right. Q. You understand that? A. Right. Q. Now, however, it's always a possibility that I won't persuade you or the jurors and you might find Mr. McVeigh guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then we go to what Mr. Mackey called the second stage where we talk about the penalty, and the Judge mentioned that a little bit. The reason I tell you that is that now, in asking you these questions about the death penalty, I don't want you to think that I think we'll ever get to that point because I'm going to do everything I can within the law to do my job for Mr. McVeigh, just like these ladies and gentlemen are going to do their job for the Government. But I have to recognize the reality that you might vote differently than I want you to, and so we get to the second stage, and I want to ask you about that second stage. If there is a second stage, you've indicated that you could listen to all of the information that would be given to you, not only about the victims, but also about the circumstances of the crime, and the background of the defendant, how he grew up, those types of things. Is that Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire true? A. I think so. Q. All right. Is there anything that you would consider that's in your mind now that maybe Mr. Mackey and I haven't asked the right question to find out what that might be? A. I don't believe so. Q. All right. So if you're on the jury and if Mr. McVeigh is convicted and if we go to a second stage, then you tell us that you have an open mind, that you're not automatically going to vote for the death penalty; is that correct? A. Right. Q. And you're not automatically going to vote for life without parole? A. Right. Q. That you will consider the entire set of information given to you and all the sentencing options that the Judge will instruct you on? A. As much as possible. Q. Well, I can't ask for more than that. Now, you have mentioned in response to some questions that were asked of you that you remember the children that were killed at Waco and the children that died at Oklahoma City or that were killed at Oklahoma City; and of course, you have grandchildren, do you not? A. Right. Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire Q. And you've also mentioned your church affiliation and that perhaps through your church or through the Red Cross, you may have donated to the relief effort in Oklahoma City. A. Right. Q. And you remember that Mr. Mackey asked you if in the second stage, among the factors you would be willing to consider in any case, is the impact of the crime on the victims; and you said you would. Now, this is my question, and I apologize that it's a little convoluted. In the first stage, in the stage where we determine whether Mr. McVeigh is guilty or not guilty, I need to ask you two questions. The first is: Can you consider the question of his guilt or innocence only on the evidence and not upon sympathy for someone? A. Well, I -- I think they would have to prove that he did it -- Q. Right. A. -- no matter what happened to the victims. Q. All right. I'll accept that. And I think my second question is simply this -- I believe you've answered it already fairly, but I -- it's important, and I know you'll understand that. You work for a newspaper even though you don't work in the news -- A. Right. Q. -- department. And certainly, I don't mean any respect -- disrespect, I should say, to anybody that would report on the Juror No. 356 - Voir Dire case. Some of it, I agree with; some of it, I don't agree with. What I simply want to know is, is that regardless of your views on it and what you've read or what you may have heard or what somebody claims to know, when it comes to the important question of sitting on this jury and determining whether the Government has met its burden of proof, will you base that decision only on what you hear and see in this courtroom? A. That would be the -- the thing to do. Right. Q. And you can do that without any hesitation? A. I would sure try. MR. JONES: All right. I'm sure you will. Thank you very much. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q. Just with respect to a couple of concerns that you ex -- mentioned. Do any of your children live in this area? A. One's in Arvada, one's in Greeley, and one's in Loveland. Q. Okay. So if something should happen to your husband's health, you have some family here to help out? A. Probably so. Q. And with respect to the travel and all that, if you serve on this jury and found it to be more convenient to stay overnight down here somewhere, we would arrange that. A. I could stay with my son. THE COURT: Oh, all right. Good. Well, nobody's being selected or -- nobody has been selected for the jury yet, and nobody has been refused. We're in the process here of deciding who will serve, and there are more people to talk with about it; so I can't tell you what your status is right now, and we'll be getting back to you to inform you about that. You must go now -- as you just did when I excused you out there at Jefferson County, and go on the assumption that you're going to be on the jury. JUROR: All right. THE COURT: And that you're going to have the responsibility for deciding the case. So that means, of course, keep doing what you've been doing, stay away from anything on the news, television, radio, magazines, newspapers, the like, so that you can do what you've told us you can do; and that is decide on the evidence. Will you do that? JUROR: I will try. THE COURT: All right. Keep it up. We'll get back to you. Thank you, very much for your time here this morning. You're excused now for today. JUROR: Thank you. THE COURT: And we'll go to No. 10. JUROR: Let's see. I need to give this back. THE COURT: Oh, yes. You're better than I am. I forgot you were wearing it. JUROR: I could take it. It might help me other places. THE COURT: I think you've got to have this thing to make it work. JUROR: Thank you. THE COURT: No. 10. MR. JONES: Your Honor, could we approach the bench for just a moment. (At the bench:) (Bench conference deleted per order of court.) (In open court:) THE COURT: Good morning. If you'll just raise your hand and take the oath from the clerk. (Juror No. 10 affirmed.) THE COURT: Please be seated there by the microphone. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q. And I'll start with reminding you about a month ago, March the 19th, you came out to the Jefferson County Fairgrounds' auditorium building. A. Yes. Q. You were one of many there that day, and I was there that day and gave you some explanation about the background of this case and about jury selection and what would be involved in jury selection and also about what the charges are against Timothy McVeigh and what the trial is going to be about. Do you remember that day? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you received a long questionnaire with a lot of questions, some of which you may wonder why we asked you, but you answered them all and turned in your completed questionnaire. And then we have taken copies of what you wrote Juror No. 10 - Voir Dire and gave -- and have given those copies to the lawyers in the case and to me. We've read them with the understanding that we're going to respect your privacy and we're going to keep confidential the things that you wrote in here and not disclose it to anyone who is not involved in this process except to the extent that some of those things are talked about here in open court because this proceeding must be an open and public proceeding. You understand? A. Yes. Q. And we're going to not identify you by name but use this number assigned to you just as an arbitrary number, which is No. 10, as a juror number. Also, in the way in which we question you, we're going to try to avoid anything that would identify you individually. I want you to meet the people who are participating here, first the lawyers for the Government who are at this front table, and they are Mr. Joseph Hartzler, Ms. Beth Wilkinson, Mr. Patrick Ryan, Mr. Lawrence Mackey. At the other table across the room are Mr. Stephen Jones, Mr. James Hankins. They are lawyers for Timothy McVeigh; and Timothy McVeigh is here and standing. Now, we're going to ask you a few questions about your possible service here on the jury, and we'll be asking a couple of things -- or more than a couple, I suppose, but things about what you've answered here. You have your questionnaire there Juror No.

NewsOK.com has disabled the comments for this article.

Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Sex Valley: Tech's booming prostitution trade
  2. 2
    Colorado Is Consuming Way More Pot Than Anyone Ever Believed
  3. 3
    What Dan Gilbert said to LeBron James to get him to return to Cleveland
  4. 4
    Female Yahoo Exec Sued By a Female Employee for Sexual Harassment
  5. 5
    A company wants you to experiment on Facebook — by quitting
+ show more