CNN - Oklahoma City bombing trial

OKC Trial Main Page

Transcripts | Overview | The Players |The Bombing | CNN Stories

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,

Defendant.

ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury: Volume 25)
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 8:45 a.m., on the 14th day of October,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.

Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
APPEARANCES
PATRICK RYAN, United States Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma, and RANDAL SENGEL, Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park
Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing
for the plaintiff.
LARRY MACKEY, BETH WILKINSON, GEOFFREY MEARNS, and
JAMIE ORENSTEIN, Special Attorneys to the U.S. Attorney
General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado,
80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
MICHAEL TIGAR and RONALD WOODS, Attorneys at Law, 1120
Lincoln Street, Suite 1308, Denver, Colorado, 80203, appearing
for Defendant Nichols.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 8:45 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Good morning. The temperature in here is a bit warm,
but I'm advised that somebody has been informed about it and is
working on it. I'm sorry about that.
Mr. Mackey.
MR. MACKEY: If the Court please, I'd like to take
just a couple minutes to raise two objections on what I detect
to be objectionable questions evolving in the course of defense
counsel's voir dire.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MACKEY: One is questions that I would judge to be
argumentative and injecting personal views or expressions of
belief by counsel. We've heard a series of questions posed to
jurors about the Government having a theory of its case and
that the defense will call witnesses in and express some views
that those defense witnesses will contradict the Government's
theory, expressions of personal belief such as "We don't
believe we'll ever get to the penalty stage." I think the --
it's clear that the Court has addressed every one of these
principles of law by the time any lawyer stands and so the jury
understands what the burdens are and where those burdens are
and so questions that include expressions of counsel's personal
belief and predictions about the evidence are simply improper.
Beyond that, there are also other examples where I
think we're seeing too much foreshadowing of facts or
foreshadowing of defense theories. We heard yesterday a series
of questions about whether farmers are known to have certain
ingenuity in being long distance from hardware stores and might
have to rely upon whatever is on the farm in order to solve
that -- that problem. It really had nothing to do with that
particular juror's qualifications to serve; so those are my two
objections, your Honor, and I wanted to raise it since I had
seen some evolution in that direction.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Tigar.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor please, it is no secret to a
juror that we have the right to contradict the Government's
case. I can't see how a question that says we are going to
contradict their evidence or contradict their theory could
possibly be more than a description of the process. I do not
recall any lawyer on our side saying that we do not believe we
are going to get to a penalty phase. I think the word was we
do not concede that we are going to get to a penalty phase. As
the Court knows, when defense counsel rises to ask questions of
a prospective juror about penalty questions before we've even
had a trial, we labor under a considerable difficulty in
attempting to put those in context. So while I would agree
with Government counsel that we shouldn't say we don't believe
we're going to get anywhere, express some idea like that, the
fact that we don't concede seems to us unobjectionable.
With respect to questions about the jurors'
backgrounds, different jurors bring to this case their life
experiences. And just as we examined, the Government did at
length, the juror who had some experience in explosives, you
know, what are you going to bring it to this case, what do you
know about this process, it seems to us that these two jurors
who happened to show up on the same day who had some farming
experience, this is the -- you know, these are the sorts of
questions, well, what do you do, how do you solve these
problems and, you know, do you understand that that's -- that
that's how things work; that those are questions that have to
do with qualifications because they give us a clue as to how
the jurors are going to look at certain kinds of situations if
they should arise.
THE COURT: All right. Well, expressions of opinion
must be avoided, of course. I don't, as I sit here now,
remember whether the word "believe" was used, but it should not
be.
With respect to the use of the word "theory" with
respect to the Government's case, I have no objection to that.
Or to say that you don't concede anything, that's fine.
With respect to the question about what do you do when
you're a long way from town, I don't have any problem with
that.
Let's proceed with 839.
(Juror No. 839 was recalled to the stand.)
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY THE COURT:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. We're sorry to keep you waiting for a few minutes this
morning, but counsel and I had some matters to discuss first.
So you'll recall that yesterday, late in the
afternoon, you took your oath here and began to answer some

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
questions relating to your possible service as a juror in the
trial of United States against Terry Lynn Nichols, and I think
we had gone through the basics with respect to the fundamental
principles of law that are applicable to this as in any
criminal case.
And -- excuse me -- you -- I asked you about your
attendance at the University of Denver Law School, and you said
you were attending there and that you had two courses in
criminal justice or criminal procedure.
A. Yes. I've taken criminal law and criminal procedure.
Q. Well, of course, these -- I assume that these things we
talked about yesterday were covered in that course material.
A. Yes, they were.
Q. How far along are you in law school?
A. I'm an evening student, and I'm in my last year, so this is
my fourth year.
Q. And have you developed a plan as to what it is you want to
do after graduation? Do you intend to practice law?
A. I'm not sure. I've worked for probably about 15 years or
more in higher education administration, working with contracts
and grants, and I've had a full-time professional position; and
when I started law school, I thought that that would help me in
my current position. This last year, I decided to quit that
job and get some experience in a law firm to see if I might be
interested in practicing law. So I've been working part-time,

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
continuing to work with the university in contracts and grants,
but I'm also working as an intern at Hall & Evans.
Q. And that's a general -- sort of a general-service law firm
with a variety of clients, and the nature of their practice is
broad?
A. Yes. My understanding is that they specialize in
insurance, and I'm working with the environmental law group
because my particular area of interest is environmental law.
Q. So you're taking a look at whether you want to practice?
Is that the answer?
A. Yes. Maybe I'll learn more here.
Q. And of course, one of the things that I always ask of
lawyers or law students who are in your situation and possibly
about to serve as a juror, and that is if in the instructions
of the Court, you hear things that you may disagree with or
based on some work that you've had, you think that some
instruction is incorrect, you would nonetheless under your oath
follow those instructions.
A. Yes, I would.
Q. So you won't judge the Judge? Is that --
A. No. I don't think I would.
Q. Okay. Now, you have gone to a lot of different colleges
and universities in your life beginning, I guess, at Lake
Forest, Illinois. And then you were -- did they have a year
abroad or a -- is that when you went to France?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. Yes. I -- I studied all four years at Lake Forest for my
bachelor's, and I went abroad twice, once to France and once to
Greece and Turkey.
Q. And then you went to graduate school. Let's see. You got
your questionnaire -- well, I'm sure you -- you know where you
went. But if you want to look at your questionnaire, you may.
A. Okay.
Q. Where were you enrolled when you went to China?
A. I was enrolled at the University of Denver. From 1978
until 1980, I was working on a master's degree in international
relations; and in 1980, I went to China the first time to study
Chinese. And then I went directly from the master's degree
program into the Ph.D. program; and from 1982 until 1983, I
went back to China and taught international economics and
English to Chinese students. And my plan was to stay there for
two years and work on my dissertation, but I had to come back
to the United States before I completed two years; and my
dissertation is incomplete.
Q. Okay.
A. And then -- so I took a leave of absence from that program
and started working at the Auraria campus and at the University
of Denver; and then a few years ago, I decided to get my law
degree until -- I had to put my dissertation on hold until I
was able to get my two children through college because my
dissertation chair required that I do my research in China.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. In China?
A. And I wasn't able to go back to China.
Q. Now, as I understand it from what you said at page 6, you
were both in Taiwan and in the People's Republic?
A. Yes. Let's see. I have to try to remember this.
Q. Okay.
A. When I went to China in -- let's see -- in 1982, I stayed
there teaching until 1983.
Q. Where in China was that?
A. I was in Tianjin, which is the third largest city in China.
It's an industrial port city. And I taught at a university
there.
Q. And is that to Chinese students?
A. To Chinese -- actually, I was teaching Chinese teachers.
Q. In English?
A. I taught in English, but I spoke fluent Chinese; and so I
was able to also speak to them in Chinese because my classes in
international -- in international trade and economics were
difficult for them to understand in English because their
English ability wasn't very good. And then I also taught
English to these teachers. This was when China was just
beginning to start their higher education system after not
having one for so many years. So officially, I was teaching in
English, but a lot of times, it was helpful to the students to
communicate to them in Chinese. So you asked me about Taiwan.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. Taiwan, yeah.
A. So I left -- I had to come back to the United States. My
father was suddenly terminally ill with cancer. I'm sorry.
Q. I understand.
A. And I came back here for a few months, and then I went back
to Taiwan and I -- I spent the summer in 1983 in Taiwan.
And --
Q. Now, were you teaching then?
A. Actually, I was -- I taught on the side informally as a
tutor, but I also studied Chinese some more because it was
important for me to be able to read and write fluently for my
dissertation.
Q. And did you learn to write --
A. I wrote Chinese. I could read and speak Chinese very
fluently, but not anymore.
Q. That's a skill that one can lose without --
A. Very quickly.
Q. Yeah. And at that time, you were thinking of pursuing your
doctorate, I take it?
A. Yes. And I still am.
Q. And you still are. And you -- you anticipate completing
the dissertation that you started?
A. Yes. My -- my dissertation is about halfway written; and
now, of course, it'll need updating. But my plan is to finish
law school this spring, take the bar this summer, and then when

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
I finish the bar, since I've made the decision to be -- to work
part-time, I want to try to finish the dissertation next year.
And at that point, then I'll determine what I want to do as far
as a legal career or if I want to go back to the university
environment and teach.
Q. And your children are -- well, one is in college and living
at home?
A. No. She goes to school at Colgate University in New York.
Q. Okay. Well, you're looking at many paths that may be open
to you for you to pursue. And I take it this all becomes
available to you as your children are leaving home.
A. Yes.
Q. And you are divorced; right?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And how long ago were you divorced?
A. I was divorced in 1985.
Q. Okay. So -- and the children have been with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Since the divorce?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. We asked you to list here on pages 11 and 12 types of
employment with your immediate family; and on 12, you mention
farming or ranching. And I take it that's your mother --
A. Yes.
Q. -- who was raised on a farm in Nebraska?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
Q. Is your mother living?
A. Yes.
Q. And your father has passed away, has he?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And is your mother -- mother's family still have that farm?
A. No. My grandfather has passed away so they -- my mother's
family had only one son, and none of the daughters have the
farm, so -- they haven't had the farm for years.
Q. So was it sold off in the estate --
A. My --
Q. -- proceeding?
A. My grandfather never owned the farm. He was a dry-land
farmer and he leased.
Q. Oh, all right. Were there times in your growing-up years
that you went over to the farm and --
A. Yes.
Q. -- spent summers, that kind of thing?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do some work over there?
A. Well, I was pretty young, so it was -- I guess you could
call it work, but it was more like play.
Q. Play to you. Okay. Now, during the time of your marriage,
what type of work did your husband do?
A. Let's see. When we were first married, he -- we were

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
pretty young, and he -- we just graduated from college. His
first job, I think, was just working as a waiter; and he did
that for a few years, and then he got a job working at the
University of Colorado at Denver. He was teaching, and then he
was also the director of the Asian-American EOP program. And
then he did that until we were divorced, and then he -- his
family lives in Boston and he moved back to Boston, and he
currently works for the Department of Education.
Q. Did you say EOP program?
A. Yes. Educational Opportunity Program.
Q. Seeking to place Asians or Asian-Americans in --
A. It was to -- the program was to assist the Asian-American
students at the university in getting financial aid for their
education, and then he also provided counseling services to
those students if they had difficulties.
Q. Okay. Then you have worked with the University of Colorado
and particularly the Health Sciences Center?
A. I was at the University of Colorado at Denver from 1986
until this past June, and I left that position; and July 1, I
started at the Health Science Center.
Q. Now, turning back to the UCD-Denver, were you doing this
grant writing, that type of thing there?
A. I started in that position as an intern, and I worked as an
intern for just about a year; and then they -- I was -- and it
was in the office of -- at that time, it was called the Office

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
of Research Administration. And the office provides a service
to faculty where we assist them in the grant-writing process.
We actually do not write the grants, but we help them identify
funding sources and then review their proposals to make sure
that they comply with the guidelines, and then we administer
those grants. I was responsible for making sure that they
complied with regulations pertaining to the use of human
subjects or animals, compliance with conflict-of-interest
regulations or scientific misconduct.
Q. So to do that, you had to become quite familiar with the --
all of the regulations that govern the particular categories of
grants?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you kind of edited what they had prepared?
A. Somewhat. Not their scientific aspect.
Q. No. I understand.
A. Not that part. But yes, if they didn't comply with the
regulations, then we recommended changes to them, because we
wanted our proposals to be competitive and not be disqualified
because they didn't meet the guidelines.
Q. Now, is that the kind of thing you're doing for the Health
Sciences Center part-time?
A. Well, in -- when I first started at UCD, I -- we received
mostly grants, but we had a few contracts; and so I had to
become knowledgeable of contracts and the language in

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
contracts, and so I learned a lot about contracts. And the
position at the Health Science Center is one where I review
contracts, negotiate them, and I write subcontracts, and so I'm
not -- at CU Denver, I was the manager of the office, so I
supervised a staff, and I had a great deal of responsibility in
that area. But at the Health Science Center, I'm just working
part-time, and I'm basically negotiating contracts.
Q. And was your own pursuit of your work in China and Taiwan
pursuant to some grant?
A. I received a grant in order to help pay for the costs.
Q. Was that a federal government grant?
A. No. I received a research grant from Shell Oil Company.
Q. Because your field was about international marketing and
that --
A. My -- my field was political economy, and Shell Oil
provided research fellowships to the University of Denver
for -- I think they gave out one or two a year for students to
do dissertation research, and it was administered really by the
university. I don't think Shell Oil Company cared about the
topic or who was doing it. They gave the university the
freedom to determine who should receive the fellowship.
Q. Okay. So it wasn't directly from Shell to you? It came
through the intermediary of the university?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. You mention in your answers here on page 22 at

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Question 101 an incident involv -- and then also at 104 on the
next page, an incident involving your daughter when she was a
youngster.
A. Yes.
Q. And was hit by a car.
A. (Juror nods head.)
Q. Was she injured?
A. She almost died. She was run over by a car in front of our
house. She was crossing the street at a corner; and a man was
driving without a license, and he just went through the stop
sign and ran over her. And she had a broken arm, a broken leg,
her skull was crushed, and her entire body was burned.
Q. Very severe injuries?
A. Yes.
Q. And hospitalized for some time, I take it?
A. Actually, she recovered very quickly. She was in the
hospital for about two weeks. And I think she went home after
that time. Her -- she didn't really have brain damage -- I
mean, it's been an amazing recovery. So I still think there's
medical problems, but she's pretty much normal.
Q. Pretty much normal. And the police were involved in the
investigation of that event, I take it?
A. Well, I don't really think the police did anything that I
know of. They just --
Q. Well, they asked you questions, I guess. And you remember

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
that -- as far as you remember, you were in shock or --
A. Well, I'm sure I was. I mean, I think I was pretty
level-headed, but I -- you know, it was a shocking event.
Q. Well, from what you said, though, about without insurance
and the like, the driver of the car was identified?
A. Yes.
Q. And did that person take responsibility for his or her
actions?
A. This is my understanding of what happened --
Q. Okay.
A. -- is that the police came to the accident -- I went to the
hospital with my daughter.
Q. Sure.
A. So I wasn't really involved with the police. But they
took -- I think they took him down to the police station, held
him overnight, and released him the next day.
Q. Well, is it your understanding that he stopped?
A. He did stop. He did stop.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. And then with respect to all of the expenses of your
daughter's treatment and so forth, how was that handled?
A. My -- my car insurance and my health insurance covered her
expenses; and then anything they didn't cover, I covered.
Q. Where did you -- did you file a lawsuit against this

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
driver?
A. I contacted an attorney and he said that there was no use
in pursuing it because the driver was indigent.
Q. Okay. And that's -- you took that advice, I take it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there came a time, apparently, during your marriage
when there was an IRS audit of your former husband. I'm
looking at pages 19 and 20.
A. Okay.
Q. And I'm not sure this was during your marriage. I jumped
to a conclusion there. I don't --
A. It was when we were first married and my husband worked at
a restaurant. His employer was being audited and because he
did not keep accurate records, the IRS also audited all of the
employees of the restaurant. And because waiters and
waitresses are required to report their tips --
Q. Sure.
A. -- I think what the IRS determined was that a lot of cash
is exchanged, and so you don't really have documentation of how
much cash is exchanged. So they used a system where they
looked at credit receipts that went through the business and
determined kind of on an average basis what each waiter,
theoretically, should have made.
Q. Sort of a percentage rule?
A. Yes. And based on that, they determined what people should

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
have claimed for their taxes; and as a result, they determined
that my husband should have paid more taxes.
Q. All right. And your feeling from that, I take it from what
you've said here, is that that seemed a bit arbitrary and not
fair.
A. Yes. I think so. You know, I don't think it's as cut and
dried as that. I mean, most people that work in a restaurant
know -- well, and this was higher-class restaurant. And
typically, waiters that worked there a long time are given the
better tables and the better nights to work. And my husband
was a -- a newer waiter, and he had the bad tables and the bad
nights. And so I know that if you take an average, that -- and
I think he was very honest in claiming his tips -- and so if
you take an average, I think that he ended up paying more than
his share.
Q. But I -- I take it then that it was resolved by agreeing
with the assessment?
A. Yes.
Q. On -- you understand, basically, the charges in this case?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And that under the statutes charged, there is the
possibility of a defendant found guilty being sentenced to
death or to life in prison without the possibility of any
release. You understand that?
A. Yes.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. And for that reason, we asked you some questions regarding
your views as to those possible punishments without regard to
what the law is concerning them or what the procedure may be in
jury determination of punishment. And if you'll turn to page
28, we have your answers, and I'd like for you to review them
so that you have them in mind.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, before being confronted with these questions on the
questionnaire, is the death penalty something that you've
discussed somewhat and thought about?
A. I suppose I have discussed it with people from time to
time.
Q. But do you have a memory of having a particular point of
view before you answered these questions?
A. Not particularly. I mean, I don't think I have a strong
opinion or have really thought about it that much.
Q. And since September the 17th, when you gave these answers,
is there anything that has caused you to rethink any of these
answers, or would it be fair to say as you sit here this
morning, your answers would be the same if I asked you the same
questions?
A. I think they would be the same.
Q. And I don't want to try to put words in your mouth or lead
you to any statements, but to summarize what you said here, I
think you're looking at principally the threat to society that

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
would be the risk of a threat to society if the person were not
put in prison for life or put to death.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you're focussing on the protection of society? Would
that be the principal focus of your concern here?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the course of your work in law school or, for that
matter, just in the course of your life, have you ever observed
any criminal trial proceedings?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. And I think you said over here somewhere that although
you've had these courses in law school, you don't have much of
a familiarity with how things are in -- in the -- actually in
court.
A. That's right.
Q. So that your acquaintance with it is more from reading
appellate opinions and the kinds of things that people do in
law school.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, we need to talk about this at a little greater
length because you recognize that the questions that were asked
of you and the answers you gave are in the context of what do
you think without regard to what is really involved.
A. Yes.
Q. So this is a request for your opinions coming in, as it

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
were.
In the -- in the trial of criminal cases, of course,
you recognize the jury's function is to determine whether the
evidence has established the offense charged. And the Court
instructs the jury as to the elements of the particular offense
and what therefore has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,
and then the function of the jury is to decide whether the
evidence, as they have heard it and it's been received, does
prove the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
A. Yes.
Q. And of course, if there is a reasonable doubt remaining,
the defendant must obtain the benefit of that and be found not
guilty. On the other hand, if the jury does determine that the
evidence convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt that the
elements of the offense are proved, then the jury returns a
guilty verdict. And in cases not involving life in prison
without release or death, that's the end of it from the jury's
standpoint, and the matter goes back to the Court to determine
the actual sentence. I mean, you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Generally. Now, the court, though, before imposing a
particular sentence on a person found guilty by the jury
verdict, must find out a lot more about the case, both with
respect to the circumstances of the case and then a good bit
more about the defendant. And accordingly, information is

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
gathered; and when it comes to information concerning the
defendant, it's as much as can be obtained about him or her,
which includes, of course, those things that go up to make each
of us a unique human being, all about the defendant's
background, early years, family relationships, marriage
relationships, children or not, employment history, what the
person has done in life, attitudes, sort of psychological
makeup, all of these things that, as I say, describe each one
of us individually. And of course, you recognize that we are
all different, in part because of our backgrounds.
A. Yes.
Q. So there is then a hearing before the court on the question
of what sentence is just for the particular person being
sentenced. And at that hearing, that sentencing hearing,
obviously, the lawyers on both sides, the prosecution and
defense counsel, will be heard; and the judge then, after
hearing it all and considering all of these things that have
been submitted after the trial, makes a decision individual to
that person, and that becomes the sentence in that case. Now,
you understand that process?
A. Yes.
Q. In cases in Federal Court where, of course, we are, as you
recognize -- and I emphasize the federal because there are
differences among the states with respect to the jury's role in
punishment in a capital case. But in Federal Court, the law is

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
that when it comes to a question of life or death, we don't
leave that up to judges. That's a decision to be decided by
the jury and left to the jury as the 12 people who come in here
and represent the community and form, really, the conscience of
the community. And a jury finding a defendant guilty of a
capital offense then has the responsibility for determining
this punishment issue; and the choices given to the jury are
life in prison without any possibility of release, death, or
any lesser punishment, in which case it goes back to the court
to decide the particular punishment. Understood?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, before the jury can make a decision about life or
death, the jury must hear a good bit more. And we then, in
cases of that type, proceed with a penalty hearing, a second
trial, where the issue is punishment. And of course, this only
happens if there's a guilty verdict, so the jury has already
decided the evidence proves the crime. And now, the jury hears
from the prosecution more about the circumstances of the crime
and its effects on people involved, so forth, and also hears
from the defense these things that pretty much are the things
that I mentioned with respect to a sentencing court; that is,
everything about the defendant as an individual human being,
all about his background. The circumstances of his life can
include the role in the offense that the jury has found as a
result of the trial, matching that with other persons who may

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
be involved and so forth, and it is an issue of individual
sentencing. So in cases where there are more than one
defendant and more than one defendant found guilty, the
punishment of one defendant does not control the punishment of
another. You understand that's true even in judge sentencing?
A. Yes.
Q. It's an individual determination, and there certainly can
be significant differences between two or more defendants found
guilty of the same crime. You understand these things that
I've said?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, we refer to the second-stage information as, on the
one hand, aggravating factors, things that the Government is
urging supports the view that death is a deserved punishment
for this person and this crime. And on the other hand, we have
the mitigating factors, those things that are offered and
argued by the defense to support the view that despite the
crime, the defendant does not deserve to be put to death
because of, you know, who the defendant is and what he is. You
understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that at the end of trial on the evidence, the
court gives instructions about the law, the elements of proof
required for the offense and so forth. So, too, at the end of
the penalty phase trial, the court gives instructions.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Now, in those instructions, the court outlines for the
jurors, based on information that was presented in the course
of the hearing, the aggravating factors and the mitigating
factors that may be considered but -- and then tells the jury,
in essence, to consider all that they have heard. And then
ordinarily, we'll suggest a number of questions for the jurors
to ask themselves in analyzing that information, but it does
not come down to any sort of formula. There's no equation
involved here. And it's not a matter of adding and subtracting
points or anything like that. It is really, at bottom, a
question of a reasoned moral judgment, responding to all that
has been presented to the jury. And each juror is going to
have to make in such a case a moral judgment about the
defendant and whether he should live or die. Do you understand
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the question, of course, that we ask you to answer is
whether -- with this explanation in mind, do you think that
you, sitting on a jury, would be able to base your decision
about whether a defendant should be sentenced to life or death
based on not only the circumstances of the crime, but also on
his personal background and the individual characteristics that
are shown by the information provided?
A. Yes, I do.
THE COURT: All right. We have lawyers on both

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
sides -- it -- one lawyer on each side has an opportunity to
question you a bit more, so please listen to their questions
and answer to them.
Mr. Orenstein.
MR. ORENSTEIN: Thank you, Judge.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. ORENSTEIN:
Q. Good morning, ma'am.

A. Good morning.
Q. How are you this morning?
A. Fine, thanks.
Q. The Judge told you yesterday my name is Jamie Orenstein.
I'm one of the attorneys who, together with my fellow
prosecutors, will be responsible for presenting the evidence
against Mr. Nichols.
One of the things his Honor also told you yesterday is
this is not a test. And are those about the five most welcome
words a law student can hear?
A. Yes.
Q. From reading your questionnaire, it seems that you lead a
very busy life. You're a law student, as was referred to this
morning. You also have a part-time job; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I understand from your questionnaire that you're also
the editor of a legal journal.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. I'm editor-in-chief of the Water Law Review, which is a new
journal we just started, and I'm also managing editor on the
International Law Journal.
Q. Are those competitive journals at your school? The
first-year students enter some competition to be involved in
those?
A. Yes.
Q. So it looks like all that keeps you very busy. And one of
the things I noticed from your questionnaire is that you
started a novel sometime back in May when you were at an
airport and you've just been too busy to finish it. In the
months since the questionnaire was completed, have you had the
chance to finish that?
A. No. I haven't.
Q. The reason I ask, of course, is because you obviously lead
a very busy life and have a lot of demands. Do you have any
concerns about what jury service in this case lasting
potentially a cup -- a couple of months or more might do to the
various demands on your time?
A. Of course, I have concerns, and I've thought about it. I
do lead a very busy life, and it's, in fact, busier than the
things that you've identified; but I've always led a busy life.
And I'm also a very well-organized person or else I wouldn't be
able to do that. I -- and of course, serving on a jury would
be an inconvenience as far as things that I want to do and want

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
to accomplish, but I also feel that citizens have a
responsibility. And I probably could manage it.
Q. So -- so you're able to manage all the things that you've
got and fulfill your civic obligation?
A. Probably one of the reasons that it would be more
manageable than, let's say, last year is that I'm taking a
lighter load of classes. This is my last year. And I'm
only -- usually, I would take four classes. This semester, I
have just two classes. And next semester, I'll have just one
class. I have an internship that really was a summer
internship, but I wanted to finish a paper that I'm writing so
that should conclude hopefully by the end of this month if I
finish that paper. And I was hoping to have a lighter schedule
next spring so that I could start studying for the bar.
Q. You mentioned you're taking two classes this semester.
Just out of curiosity, which classes are you taking?
A. I'm taking corporations and land use.
Q. So nothing that would have any influence on your service as
a jury (sic) in a criminal case?
A. No.
Q. And is the schedule such with your evening classes that you
could be here during the day and still make your class at
night?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is one thing that piqued my interest in your

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
conversation with his Honor. You went to China for a year back
in 1980 and studied Chinese; is that right?
A. I went there -- in 1980, I was there about six months.
Q. Six months. Had you studied Chinese before?
A. I studied Chinese probably for over ten years. I started
in 1976, I think. It's very difficult to try and learn Chinese
when you live in Colorado, so I studied it in many different
ways, but --
Q. Now, having -- I'd like to go back to an area that his
Honor covered with you to some extent and ask you a few more
questions. And forgive me for discussing what is obviously a
painful subject, but I want to ask a little more about your
daughter's injuries. How old was she at the time?
A. She was five.
Q. That -- that was obviously a very traumatic incident for
you as well as for her. The reason I ask about it is because,
as I'm sure you're aware, there were a number of people,
including children, who were killed and injured in the Oklahoma
City bombing. Let me not assume. Are you aware of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any recollection of -- of the aftermath of the
bombing that you saw on --
A. As I said in here, I watch very little TV and I don't read
the paper. I'm too busy for that. But I did see -- I did see
on TV pictures of the building and people with their children.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. How did you respond -- what was your reaction when you saw
those images and heard those stories?
A. I think my response was that it was tragic. I mean, that,
you know -- probably mostly because of the children.
Q. As I'm sure you can anticipate, there will be evidence in
this case about what happened at the bombing and in the
aftermath of the bombing, testimony from people who witnessed
it and some photographs, there may be, of what the scene looked
like. How do you think you would respond to that kind of
evidence as a juror sitting on a case, given the personal
experiences that you've had to go through?
MR. TIGAR: Object to how the juror would respond to
that evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. Sustained as to the framing of the
question.
BY MR. ORENSTEIN:
Q. Do you have any concerns about if you were presented with
such testimony, how it might affect your ability to serve
fairly?
A. No.
Q. The other aspect of that incident that I wanted to pursue
with you a little bit further was you mentioned that the police
investigating your daughter's accident didn't do very much.
What did you have in mind when you said that?
A. Well, it -- it just didn't seem to me that it was right

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
that somebody would almost kill someone and not be punished.
And they -- what I was told is if she had died, then we would
have a case. That just didn't seem fair to me, because I think
he had done something wrong. And I guess I never -- you know,
I was not knowledgeable of the law and what I could do, and
I -- I suppose I would have expected the police to communicate
with me, and they never did.
And as I said, I spent all of my time in the hospital,
so I wasn't really trying to pursue anything -- I was more
concerned about my daughter living than about what this person
did. And so at a later point in time, I don't -- I think my
only recourse then -- that I thought at the time was to go to
an attorney and that an attorney would handle it for me. And I
don't think I ever went to the police directly to get any
assistance.
Q. Do you have any feelings about police or about law
enforcement authorities generally as a result of your
experience with the police in your daughter's case?
A. I don't think so, because I think I know that there's lots
of negative feelings about the things that the police do, but
I -- I realize that we have police to serve a role in society
and each individual police officer behaves differently, and
I -- I guess I don't feel that I would generalize about the
entire police system on the behavior of one individual.
Q. So if a police officer or a -- some other law enforcement

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
agent were to testify in this case, do you think that your
experiences with the police back when your daughter was a child
and she was injured would have any effect on how you would view
that person's testimony?
A. I wouldn't see it as being related.
Q. You told us earlier that you're currently working part-time
at a law firm or as an intern?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you spoken to any of the attorneys there about the
fact that you've been summoned as a juror in this case?
A. I did not say I was summoned as a juror in this case. I
said that I had to report for jury duty.
Q. Did any of the attorneys offer you any advice about how to
get out of jury service if you wanted to?
A. Every person has given me advice about how to get out of
jury service.
Q. What kind of things have you been told?
A. Basically, people say to say you're either totally against
capital punishment or totally in favor of capital punishment or
to say outright that I think that he's guilty, things like
that.
Q. So there were some discussions that you've had with others
about jury service in this case?
A. Not this case.
Q. All right.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. But generally. But I think maybe some people suspect that
it might be this case.
Q. I guess if you're going to jury service these days, people
may assume what it's for.
Have -- in your work at the firm where you're an
intern now, have you worked on anything other than
environmental type of cases?
A. I wasn't hired to work on cases. I was hired to write.
It's a writing internship, and I'm writing articles for
publication. And they have been focused on -- primarily on
liability of environmental consultants.
Q. So nothing to do with the criminal law?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned earlier that you've taken courses in criminal
law and criminal procedure. Have you also taken a course in
evidence at law school?
A. Yes.
Q. And did -- and you also mentioned, I think, in your
questionnaire that you've taken a course in constitutional law;
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did either of those courses involve the study of criminal
cases?
A. Well, yes.
Q. Naturally. As his Honor says, it isn't a test. It's just

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
a question of what your background is with this -- with this
kind of matter.
How did you like the courses to the extent that they
dealt with criminal law, you know, all of the courses that
we've been discussing?
A. How did I like the courses. My criminal law professor was
terrible, and I had no interest in the course. I took evidence
then and that professor was extremely boring, and I really
didn't like that course. And then I took criminal procedure
very reluctantly and the professor was excellent and so I felt
that course was good. And constitutional law, I think is the
best course I've had in law school.
Q. In your constitutional law course, did you study the Eighth
Amendment?
A. Pardon me?
Q. Did you study the Eighth Amendment in your constitutional
law course?
A. I studied every amendment; but if you ask me now about the
Eighth Amendment, I'm not going to remember.
Q. The amendment dealing with punishment. It's the
amendment under which a number of the death penalty cases come
up.
A. Okay. I don't think we focused on that very much.
Q. A number of courses have different ways of going about
teaching. Some are lecture courses. Some are sort of free

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
discussion among the students.
Were any of the courses in which you studied criminal
cases the kind of courses where students would participate a
lot?
A. The most participation would have been in criminal
procedure, and criminal law and evidence were more lectures.
Q. In the procedure course, did you participate much in the
classroom discussions?
A. No. I don't like to talk very much.
Q. Not a talker?
A. Only if I have to.
Q. Okay. And I know you started law school in 1994, which was
the year that the O. J. Simpson case started. And I've heard
that a number of professors around that time started using that
case as a starting point for discussion or an example. Did
that happen in any of your courses?
A. No. I think in my first year of law school, I -- I didn't
take any criminal courses and so I don't think it was relevant
to the courses I was taking. And if the case was still going
on my second year, I think I was probably too busy to focus on
that myself, and I don't think the professors really focused on
it.
Q. So that was never discussed in class?
A. In -- my criminal law professor may have mentioned
something, but I don't recall, you know, exactly what she might

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
have mentioned and it wasn't a heavy emphasis. It wasn't used
as an example. It would have been a comment occasionally.
Q. Were there any other cases that have been in the news --
and I know professors do this a lot, take something out of the
headlines and use that for classroom discussion. Any other
criminal cases over the last few years since you've been in law
school that have been the focus of a classroom discussion?
A. No. And I think mostly in the classes I've had, professors
have really focused on the case book and the cases we're
reading.
Q. Obviously, one thing that I think we're all interested in
is how you would bring your law school experience to bear on
your service as a juror. And obviously, as someone who's been
to law school, you're going to have more familiarity with legal
concepts than many of your fellow jurors. How do you think
that would, if it would, have an effect on how you would act as
a juror and how you would interact with your colleagues?
A. I am still just a student. I don't really have any
practical experience; and I think what I've learned, hopefully,
would make me more knowledgeable and able to understand more
about what my responsibilities are as a juror and how I should
look at the law and analyze facts or whatever I'm required to
do. I don't think that -- I wouldn't see myself -- even though
I -- I hopefully will know more than other jurors, I don't
think I would see myself as being any better than they are, and

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
I guess I wouldn't feel that I would impose my values on other
people.
Q. I'm not asking so much about your values, obviously.
Everyone brings their own values to bear on this process. But,
for instance, if during deliberations with fellow jurors, you
thought there was -- the conversation was proceeding in a way
that you thought was legally unsound, not factually, because
everyone has their own view of the facts -- but just as a
matter of law, you thought it would be inappropriate, how do
you think you would act in that situation?
A. I would probably express my opinion and let them know what
my perspective is and my understanding.
Q. Your perspective on the law?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I -- I'd like to turn, if I could, to the question of
punishment that his Honor discussed with you. And, you know, I
should begin by saying that, as we all recognize, that's not
something that the jury ever has to address unless and until
the Government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the jury. And you understand that, of course?
A. Yes.
Q. The -- the views that you expressed in the questionnaire --
if you would like to turn to page 28; right there, are you --
are those views that you've held for some time?
A. I think probably. I mean, as I said, it's not something I

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
really contemplate. So I don't think that I've had a recent
change in my views. I think social order is important, and
that's why I probably have these views.
Q. And using your phrase "social order," I mean, that seems to
be the -- the gist of -- of your answers, which is the death
penalty is something that can be considered to protect society.
Is that -- is that a fair statement? I don't want to put words
in your mouth.
A. I guess I would see it more as protection than punishment.
Q. As a protection. And I'm looking at your answer to Part B,
where you wrote that "the death penalty may be necessary in
some cases, but they would have to be extreme situations where
there is no other option available and the threat of this
person to" -- excuse me -- "to society would be so great that
there is no other alternative."
Is that -- is that how you see the protecting-society
part of the death penalty?
A. Do you mean do I see protection as being used only in
extreme circumstances?
Q. No. Forgive me because that was a very poorly phrased
question. I guess my question is, does the view that you
expressed there that the death penalty is appropriate where
there's no other option available spring from the idea that its
purpose is to protect -- is to protect society from those who
might harm it in the future?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. I guess -- I guess so.
Q. Short of the need to protect society from someone who could
do such harm in the future, do you see any basis for imposing
the death penalty as a general matter? Obviously, we don't
know the facts of the particular case.
A. Well, as I guess I hinted at, the only option I can think
of is if it's not to protect people, it's to punish the person
that committed the crime. And I -- I may have kind of gotten
to this idea later on, is that if -- I guess if a crime were so
horrendous and the person committing the crime expressed no
remorse or no possibility of rehabilitation, that it might be
necessary to impose the death penalty.
Q. The reason I ask this question is because, as his Honor
explained to you, the -- one of the alternatives to a death
penalty when a juror -- when a jury is faced with the question
of punishment in a capital case is life in prison without the
possibility of ever being released. So in that sense, there is
always an alternative to the death penalty that can protect
society.
Given that view, given that -- that explanation from
his Honor, I'm wondering if you ever see yourself -- you making
a moral choice to choose the sentence of death where the
realistic possibility of life in prison without ever being
released is another alternative.
A. I think so. That there might be a situation where I would

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
think that the death penalty would be a better alternative to
life in prison.
Q. And -- and can you explain what your thinking is behind
that, what might justify a death penalty where there is that
alternative?
A. I don't know. Do I have to provide an answer?
Q. Well --
THE COURT: No, you don't.
JUROR: I mean, I'm not so sure I can fabricate a
situation.
BY MR. ORENSTEIN:
Q. I'm not asking you to come up with facts. I'm wondering
what would enter into your thinking about as long as society
can be protected, what might be important to you in decid -- in
making that moral choice?
MR. TIGAR: Object, your Honor. I think this has been
covered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ORENSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor. I'll move on.
BY MR. ORENSTEIN:
Q. Finally, ma'am, if you were to deliberate with your fellow
jurors and come to the decision based on all of the facts and
the law as provided by his Honor that the correct moral choice
was to impose the death penalty, could you come into a
courtroom and announce your decision?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. Yes, I could.
MR. ORENSTEIN: Thank you for answering my questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. My name is Michael Tigar. And along with Ron Woods, we're
lawyers appointed by the United States District Court in
Oklahoma to help out Terry Nichols. And not only is this not a
test, but the Socratic method is not in operation, either.
I wasn't clear. How long did you spend in China?
A. The first time I went to China, I spent about six months.
Q. Right.
A. And then the second time I went, I was there about a year.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to study the Chinese criminal
justice system that was in operation at that time?
A. I would say that I didn't particularly study it, but I had
a first-hand experience with the Chinese criminal justice
system.
Q. What was your first-hand experience?
A. A colleague of mine and I went over to China the first time
to study Chinese, and we were both working on our
dissertations. And she was going to stay for one year, and

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
then I had to go back home and then I was going to come back
and join her the second year.
After I came back to the United States, she was
imprisoned in China for -- I can't think of the name of the
crime --
Q. In some anti-government activity of some kind or --
A. Because in the process of conducting her research, she had
access to documents that the client -- Chinese classify as
internal documents, and basically those documents would be very
innocuous documents to us. It would be what you would find in
the library. But for them, it was internal documentation.
Q. Do you remember reading any of the books about the Chinese
criminal process?
A. I know -- I know I read about --
Q. Jerome Cohen's book?
A. I have read a lot by him.
Q. The reason I ask is that if -- are you aware that in the
Chinese criminal justice system, a great emphasis is put on the
defendant getting up and testifying?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you -- you're aware that it's different in our
system?
A. Absolutely different.
Q. Okay. And can you think of a reason why an innocent person
would choose not to take the stand and testify?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. Yes. Well, can I give you a specific reason?
Q. No. No. You don't --
A. I can think of a reason, yes.
Q. And you wouldn't have any problem obeying the Court's
instruction if for some reason Mr. Nichols didn't testify? We
don't know whether that's going to happen or not. That the
jurors are not to talk about it, consider it, give it any
weight -- give that fact any weight at all?
A. I think it's his right, and it shouldn't affect the jury's
decisions at all.
Q. And I wanted to -- to then clear up another -- a related
kind of a point. A prosecutor asked you about -- a
hypothetical about jury deliberation and would you share your
views about some legal principle in the jury room, and I want
to go back to that. In your questionnaire, you said at page
37, Question 159, that you hadn't heard much, nothing really,
except that he might have been an accomplice. And I assume you
studied the law of principal and accessory, accomplices, in
that boring criminal law course?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, did they make you learn the common law crimes?
The elements of and all that kind of stuff?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, I want to use this as an example. If it
turned out that under the Judge's instructions, the definition

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
of an "accomplice" under federal law as Judge Matsch gave it to
you was different than what you learned in that boring criminal
law course where -- was the common law definition of an
"accessory," would you be able to follow Judge Matsch's
instruction as opposed to trying to convince the jurors that
you knew what the --
A. Yes.
Q. -- real rule was?
A. Yes.
Q. You can do that?
A. Very easily.
Q. Okay. And now, to take an example of a course that you did
like, you took a con law course that you did like?
A. Yes.
Q. And the professor, he or she talked about -- not too much
maybe about the -- the Eighth Amendment, but did you do the
Sixth Amendment, confrontation clause and confronting the
evidence against you, cross-examination and so on?
A. Actually, not that --
Q. Okay. All right. Well, then I won't -- I won't ask about
it.
You mention that when you talked about your jury
summons with folks, that you got a lot of advice about how to
get out of it; right? Now, did some of that advice come from
lawyers?

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. You know, I don't speak to that many lawyers; and I think
that may be because I'm involved working on the journal with
law professors, I needed to tell people about my schedule.
Q. Right.
A. So anyone that was with the legal community, I don't think
they were advising me how to get out of it. What they said is,
"You probably won't get on the jury because you're a law
student."
Q. I see.
A. "And they don't like lawyers on" --
Q. Okay. Do you feel that you're influenced by the views of
your colleagues when you have to make a decision and stick to
it, or do you pretty much stick to your guns?
A. I think that I make my own decisions, but I'm open-minded
and listen to other people's opinions, and I -- I like to get
as much information as possible and weigh that information
and -- and then I guess I feel if I've made the right decision,
then I would probably stick with it unless someone else could
convince me that it were not right.
Q. Now, did you happen to see any of the television or radio
or paper -- newspaper coverage of the press appearances by the
jurors that decided the McVeigh case?
A. I've seen nothing about that case.
Q. Okay. Now, you're aware that this case is one that's
likely to excite a lot of media attention.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. Probably.
Q. Okay. And of course, the jurors' privacy is shielded as
much as possible. But after the case is over, jurors -- their
identities may become known to the press or whatever. Would
you have any problem, however you decided the case, living with
that fact, even though your result might be criticized by
people?
A. I think I don't care too much about other people's opinions
and particularly the press.
Q. Okay. And finally, before I move off of this, your -- you
did take an evidence course; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you've seen one -- you've seen two objections today.
Would you find yourself -- because it's the duty of a lawyer to
object, and no inference should be drawn by -- by lawyers
objecting or the lawyers as to whom the question is -- the
objection is directed or the Judge's opinion. Would you be
able, as a juror, to refrain from -- from keeping track of the
balls and strikes on the objections; that is, as they were
ruled on? You know, to not second guess the Judge in
conversation with other -- other jurors?
A. Well, judging from what happened today --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- I would say that my focus is not so much on the
objections, but the content of what we're discussing or what --

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay.
A. -- is happening here. So I don't think I would be capable
of keeping track of --
Q. Okay. So you would -- if the Judge said, Okay, you know,
disregard that question, or just listen to the answer the
witness is permitted to give, that's what you would give
attention to?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You said that you had spent some time in Dijon?
A. Yes.
Q. How -- now, in addition to learning Chinese, did you learn
some other languages along the way?
A. I studied French my entire life, so I spoke French
fluently.
Q. And when you were visiting in France, did you observe
anything about the French justice system? Did you attend any
trials or read about them in the paper?
A. Yes. But that is so long ago that I don't recall much, but
I understand -- I know their system is different from ours.
Q. Their system is different and -- and again, you -- you
understood we probably do it by -- we certainly do it by
different rules than the French tribunals.
Let me turn then to some of the other things that you
talked about on your questionnaire. You had checked -- if
you'll take a look at pages 11 and 12. And the Question 53

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
starts on page 11 and then goes over to page 12. And the yes
as a yes answer for farming or ranching, that's the one you
told us about; right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, what sorts -- what kind of a farm was it? Was it
crops or livestock or -- that was in your family?
A. It was crops. Dry-land farm.
Q. Okay.
A. And which crops, I don't remember.
Q. Okay.
A. I think a lot of different crops.
Q. And newspaper, magazine, or journal, those are the journals
you've told us about; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you said, I thought, that you had -- you had
published or co-authored articles that had been published; is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that in the Colorado Bar Journal or the Water Law
Journal or --
A. No. I had published a -- I wrote a paper on forestry in
China that I published with a professor from UCD.
Q. Okay.
A. And then just recently in the law firm, we just wrote an
article that was in the Rocky Mountain News, and we're

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
currently writing one for For The Defense; but I haven't
published in any law publication.
Q. Well, I'm -- I thought I heard you say that -- that you
were doing some work on the liability of environmental
consultants.
A. Yes. That's the article that we're writing to publish in
For The Defense.
Q. Oh, I see.
A. It's not been published yet.
Q. And that deals with the liability under CERCLA or --
A. Well, I started out writing about CERCLA, but the attorney
I'm working with wants it to be very general; so we're not
focussing on CERCLA but looking at liabilities that might
exist. We're looking at negligence, breach of contract,
implied warranty --
Q. Again, it's not a test. And on the International Law
Journal, are you doing any writing with -- with that group?
A. No, I don't write. I'm an editor and I have written book
notes, but that's all.
Q. But you're the managing editor?
A. I'm the managing editor.
Q. That terrible job?
A. There are actually two managing editors. I have a
colleague, and he does most of the work. And since I'm editor
to the other journal, I'm happy about that.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
Q. That's Professor Nanda is the advisor on that?
A. Yes.
Q. What did I do with my paper?
MR. TIGAR: Excuse me, your Honor.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. You mentioned that you like to hunt.
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of hunting do you do?
A. I just hunt birds, small game.
Q. All right. So ducks or --
A. I have actually just started hunting, and I have only
hunted doves and ptarmigan and grouse and hopefully ducks,
soon.
Q. And do you own your own firearms?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, could you turn to page 32, please. You talk on --
generally, you answered some questions about gun control there.
And I don't want to go into your answers or whatever. I just
want to ask if there's evidence in this case about people who
make their living going to gun shows and selling the various
range of guns and ammunition and related things that are sold
at gun shows, would you be able to look at that with an open
mind?
A. I think so.
Q. You mentioned that among the books that you had read,

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
although it had been a while since you'd had time, or at least
owned, was something by John Grisham.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember which Grisham book or books?
A. I've read all his books.
Q. Okay. Does reading his books give you any views or have
you, from his books, taken any view about the criminal justice
system, prosecutors, defendants, how the system works or --
A. No. I look at his books as fiction, and they are just fun
to read. I haven't -- I don't -- I don't look at it in
relation to the law.
Q. And would you then please take a look at page 18, Question
84. You had checked off some organizations with which you're
familiar, and one of them was the ADL. And I wonder what your
familiarity is with the ADL.
A. I really don't know anything about it. I remember when I
was in graduate school --
Q. Okay.
A. -- perhaps doing something with them and hearing of them,
but I don't really know --
Q. Well, the reason I ask is that for -- I mean, not
something -- have you read anything from the ADL about the
Oklahoma City bombing case or --
A. I haven't ever read anything they have written.
Q. Okay. I'd like now to turn for a moment to talk about one

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
of the things that was discussed before. There will be, in
this case, evidence about, obviously, the Oklahoma City bombing
and so on. And I know this question has been asked in a
different form, but I want to just put it right out there.
Would you be able, knowing, you know -- looking at evidence
that may be very emotional, may be gut-wrenching, to
nonetheless focus on the question under the rules of law: Did
the Government prove each of the elements of each of these
offenses as to Terry Lynn Nichols?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And finally, I would like to turn to this -- to page
28, if you would, and ask some of these questions about
punishment. This is a -- this is an area that we only have one
chance to ask you about. Certainly, we do not concede that
jurors will ever have to face this issue. The Government will
present its evidence; and from the very first witness, we will
cross-examine those witnesses. And then after they rest, we
will present witnesses; but they will have the opportunity to
cross-examine. And at the end of the day, Mr. Nichols is
entitled to an acquittal, a verdict of not guilty, if there is
a reasonable doubt. So we don't concede that there will be a
penalty phase at all.
However, if there is a guilty verdict, we don't have
the opportunity to call everybody back in and then start the
dialogue. So we have to talk about it now.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
When you came in this morning, had you read or heard
anything about the execution last evening in Colorado?
A. I didn't -- I knew it was happening.
Q. The Gary Davis case?
A. But I haven't --
Q. Okay. Have you -- in forming your opinions or expressing
your views -- and on page 28, you were asked generally, you
know, if -- if you could make the law, how would you do it. In
forming that, were you thinking about any particular cases that
you have heard about or read about over time as ones in which,
you know, you -- you'd want to think that particular punishment
was appropriate?
A. I suppose the only case I can think of, if you want me to
give you a specific case --
Q. Sure.
A. -- would be like maybe the Jeffrey Dahmer case. I mean, it
would -- I think of it more as being used for psycho killer
types of people.
Q. Uh-huh. All right. And had you thought of it in the
context of war criminals, for example? I don't know if when
you were in Dijon when they were having those debates. There
were arrest warrants out for collaborators.
A. You know, when I was in Dijon, I was not thinking about
that at all.
Q. Okay. Well, I understand that.

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
A. And I wasn't involved in that --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- politically or anything. I actually have not really
thought about it. Since I've received a summons for jury duty,
I have not thought about it in the context of war criminals.
Q. Okay. Well, you heard Judge Matsch talk about the rules
that operate here, and I want to review some of those things
with you. First, did -- did you understand the court to say
that under our system, there is no such thing as an automatic
death penalty?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that is a -- that's what the judge will
instruct: That is a command of the Constitution and of the
federal statutes. And then Judge Matsch talked about that
second phase or second trial, really, that one would get to if
there was a guilty verdict; and he talked about aggravating and
mitigating factors that the jurors would hear information
about. What did you understand him to -- to mean by the
mitigating factors or the mitigating evidence?
A. I think the mitigating evidence would be factors that you
would take into consideration that would lessen the level of
punishment.
Q. Okay. And did you understand that the mitigating factors
would or could include not only things about the crime, the
different roles that different people might have played, but

Juror No. 839 - Voir Dire
also about an individual defendant, their background, what
influences were on them, whether they had ever been in touch
with the law before, but things about the defendant as an
individual?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And understanding that this is a very difficult
matter to confront, would you be able to listen to all of the
information presented and then listen carefully to Judge
Matsch's instructions -- you know, this is what the law says
how this decision is supposed to be approached -- and in the
light of that, make your own individual, reasoned, moral
response?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you be able, in doing that, to consider the full
range of options; that is to say, life without possibility of
release, death penalty, or turn it back to -- some lesser
sentence, in which case it goes back to the judge to make a
determination?
A. Yes.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you very much for visiting with us
this morning.
THE COURT: We all thank you for your cooperation in
answering all of these questions. And of course, I'm sure you
appreciate that we cannot tell you now whether you will serve
on the jury and won't be able to tell you when we can tell you,
because this process goes on. We will be talking with other
people, as I'm sure you understand.
So as you go from here -- and you are now excused --
please continue to follow the cautions that were given when you
left the auditorium building out there after completing the
questionnaire. Be careful about news, about watching
television, listening to the radio, reading newspapers,
magazines, and so forth, and in conversation with others to
avoid anything about this case or about the subject matter
that -- so that you could come back to us and do as you said
you would do here, decide with an open mind based on the law
and the evidence. You will do that, will you?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And if you have any changes, like if you
get called out of town on some unexpected trip or change of
phone number or something, please call us and let us know
immediately, because we want to stay in touch with you and
we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. You're excused for now.
I'm going to take the recess. We'll take a 20-minute
recess.
(Recess at 10:11 a.m.)
(Reconvened at 10:30 a.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
206. Is that -- okay.
Will you please raise your right hand and take the
oath from the clerk.
(Juror No. 206 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated there by the microphone.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. You recall taking that same oath earlier last month out at
the Jefferson County Fairgrounds' auditorium building?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at that time, you and other persons who had received
jury summons for the trial of United States against Terry Lynn
Nichols were present, and so was I and so were other people who
are here in front of you now. And I want to be sure you know
who is here. So let me reintroduce the people you met before.
First, for the Government -- Government's counsel in
the case, Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth Wilkinson. And
they're now joined by Mr. Patrick Ryan and Mr. James Orenstein.
You did not meet Mr. Ryan and Mr. Orenstein before.
They were not with us at that time.
A. Correct.
Q. You did, however, meet Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald
Woods, attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols was with us
as well.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
And then after those introductions, I gave some --
excuse me -- explanations regarding the case and the
background, and so forth, and then asked you to fill out a long
questionnaire, and you did.
A. Yes.
Q. And you have it there with you now.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And one of the things that I noted on page 4 is that you
have a condition affecting your hearing.
A. Yes.
Q. How is that right now? Do you have any trouble hearing?
A. Well, if it's kind of lower or monotone, softer voice and
stuff, why, then, sometimes I have a little problem; but --
Q. This is a problem in one ear?
A. My left ear, yeah. Uh-huh.
Q. We have a device that helps people with hearing. If you
have any trouble hearing as we go along this morning, we can
try that.
A. Well, as of now, so far, I haven't had any problem.
Q. I don't think you'll hear any monotones or soft voices
today, but it could happen later.
Well, you let me know if you have any trouble hearing
and we'll try that.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, I want to review with you the things that I did

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
mention to everybody out there, just so -- it isn't that you
don't remember them, but I just want to make sure we are -- all
sort of start with the same basic understandings. First of
all, as I explained, the case concerns an event in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, on April 19 of 1995, when a federal office
building was destroyed by an explosion and people in that
building were killed and injured and then charges were filed in
Oklahoma City in the Federal Court there in the form of an
indictment, which simply is a statement of charges, as it were,
and that the Government's lawyers filing those charges alleged
that a man named Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols
and other persons not named in the indictment entered into a
conspiracy or an agreement to bomb that building and to kill
and injure the people in it. And the indictment goes on to
allege that they committed offenses in carrying out that plan
and in actually bombing the building and that in these charges
there are also included eight counts or charges of first-degree
murder of the -- of law enforcement officers of the agencies of
the national government who were in the building and died in
the explosion.
And, of course, you probably were aware of that before
my explaining it --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- were you?
And then I explained about the procedural history of

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
the case, in that the case was moved from Oklahoma City, where
it was filed, to this court in Denver because of the
difficulties that may be involved or might be involved in
getting a jury in Oklahoma City where the event took place.
And then after it was moved here, I entered, as the
judge in the case, an order that separated the named defendants
for trial, so that Timothy James McVeigh and the evidence that
pertains to him would be tried separately from Terry Lynn
Nichols. And the reason for that, of course, is that there may
be considerable differences in what that evidence is and that
it would be unfair to have one jury hear both cases.
So there was an order of separation, and there has
been a trial of the evidence as it relates to Mr. McVeigh. And
I advised you and the others present that the outcome of that
case, of that trial, was that the jury found that the evidence
proved Mr. McVeigh guilty of the offenses charged and then
there was an additional trial with respect to punishment and
the jury recommended the death sentence.
And then as I explained, the outcome of that case,
both with respect to the finding of guilty and the
recommendation on sentence, cannot in any way be considered
with respect to this case involving Mr. Nichols because we
start all over with a clean slate. And to consider the --
anything about the McVeigh trial in connection with Mr. Nichols
would really violate the whole purpose of the order for

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
separate trials. You remember hearing me say that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you understand that, the reasons behind that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. So, you know, to put it in a very plain way, I was the
judge who presided in the trial of Mr. McVeigh, so I heard all
of that evidence in that trial; and I'm not considering any of
that now in beginning the trial of Mr. Nichols. And, of
course, jurors, to the extent that they may have heard or read
something about the earlier trial, have to do the same thing.
You understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I also mentioned some of the fundamental things
about our criminal justice system under the United States
Constitution, which is that any defendant charged in a criminal
case in any court in this country is presumed to be innocent of
whatever those charges are. It makes no difference who the
defendant is or what the charges are, the presumption is
innocence. And that carries throughout a trial and entitles
that person to an acquittal, a verdict of not guilty, unless a
jury of 12 fair-minded people who listen to the evidence and
are bound by the evidence and the law determine that the case
has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, that's not something that you heard the first
time when I explained it, is it?

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. No.
Q. And that no defendant in a criminal case has any burden or
duty of proving himself not guilty or indeed of proffering
anything at his trial. No defendant has to bring in any
witnesses. No defendant has to offer any exhibits, and no
defendant has to take the witness stand and answer questions
from the lawyers or give any explanation at all to the jury.
He can simply remain silent and through his lawyers challenge
all of the Government's evidence that is offered in the case by
the cross-examination of witnesses and by objections to the
relevance and admissibility of the evidence.
Do you follow me on that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And so putting it into practical application in this case,
it means that Mr. Nichols is in this room with us this morning
presumed to be innocent of these charges made against him and
he is at the end of a trial to be judged on the evidence and
to -- if the jury, after hearing all of the evidence and
following the law, decides that there is still a reasonable
doubt, they must give him the benefit of that reasonable doubt
and find him not guilty. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you accept that?
A. Not wholeheartedly.
Q. All right. Tell me what you don't accept about it.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. Well, I guess I probably operate on an assumption maybe his
association with, say, some of the people in the past got him
in this predicament, and I just think it wasn't good judgment
on his part.
Q. Well, you're assuming a lot of things.
A. True.
Q. And I don't know -- where did you hear or read about any
association that Mr. Nichols may have had? Are you talking
about an association with Mr. McVeigh?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where -- and what have you heard or read about that?
A. Well, I read and heard both that they was army buddies and
so forth.
Q. Where? Where have you heard that or read it?
A. In the newspaper.
Q. Which newspaper?
A. Basically, Rocky Mountain News.
Q. You've been following stories in the Rocky Mountain News
since -- well, tell me what your reading habits have been with
respect to the Rocky Mountain News and anything about this
case.
A. This case here, since we went to Jefferson County
Fairgrounds, I've shied away from.
Q. Sure, yes. I understand.
A. But prior --

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
Q. But before that, yes.
A. Prior to that, I just -- I mean I didn't pay close
attention to it, but I just -- I mean, you know, you'd have to
almost live in a cave not to hear about the McVeigh trial.
Q. Yeah.
A. So --
Q. And of course, we understand that and recognize that as
people get called in here for jury service, they will have
heard or read something. But what the law says is that you
must set that aside. You know, in much the same manner as I've
just described, having heard the evidence in the trial of
Timothy McVeigh, I can't consider anything that happened in
that case in any way in making rulings or approaching the trial
of this case.
Now, people have different abilities with respect to
their ability to set those things aside. And we're not asking
you to do the impossible, if it is impossible in your case.
You, individually. But what I was coming back to with these
fundamental principles of our law is that certainly Terry
Nichols, as anyone else charged with a crime, is entitled to
the benefit of the doubt and to limiting the jury -- the jury
limiting consideration of the question of guilt to the evidence
that's actually presented at trial.
Now, you understand?
A. Yes.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
Q. Conceptually, at least, you understand what the law
requires of jurors to do. And the question for you is to tell
us -- and it's your own answer that we're looking for here.
I'm not trying to talk you into anything. The question for you
is will you be able to do that in this case?
A. You mean, be able to base my decision on -- if I get picked
as a juror, base it on what I hear after the trial starts?
Q. In the trial itself, yes, without giving any attention to
what you have read about it before you came in here.
A. Well, I -- I'm sure I probably could, but it would be a
little difficult at times. I mean, you know, you would have to
do a little soul-searching as far as maybe thinking, well, who
is right.
Q. Yeah, but it isn't -- you know, it isn't who is right, it's
what's proved. That's the question; and you have to be able,
sitting here this morning, with Terry Nichols sitting here this
morning, look at him and say in your own thinking, Mr. Nichols,
you're presumed to be not guilty of these charges, the
Government is going to have to prove it.
A. Well, yeah, I mean, because I guess if I would have got
myself in the situation he's in and he was over here, I'd want
him to give me the -- where I started out with a clean slate.
Q. Now, you say, you know, having gotten himself into the
situation. He's in the situation being a defendant in this
courtroom because these lawyers filed charges against him. You

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
understand that?
A. True.
Q. Okay. So it isn't correct under our legal system to think,
well, he got himself into it, let's see if he can get himself
out, or something like that. That's not how we approach it.
Rather, we approach it that the Government has brought this
defendant into court by the filing of charges. The defendant
has said, I'm not guilty of those charges; so it is up to the
Government to try to prove it. And it's up to a jury to judge
that proof, to judge that evidence and to make a decision at
the end of the trial as to did they prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt, or not? And the "it" comes down to the
particular charges.
What happens at the end of a trial in a criminal case
is that the judge gives to the jury instructions on the law.
Among the instructions given is a statement of what has to be
proved for each crime charged, the elements of the offense, we
talk about. Understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the jury has to consider what they heard as
evidence at the trial and not anything outside of what was
heard and seen in the evidence in court at the trial and
decide, well, did they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, I want to emphasize another point, and that is no
defendant has to prove anything. No defendant has to bring in

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
any witnesses or show anybody that he's not guilty. No
defendant has to take that witness stand and answer any
questions that are asked of him by lawyers in the case, and no
defendant has to come before a jury and explain anything. What
the law says is that a person charged can simply remain silent
and challenge the evidence that the Government brings in, the
testimony of witnesses and the exhibits and objections, rulings
on, you know -- there is rules of evidence that govern what a
jury can decide a case on and cross-examining the witnesses and
so forth. But again, when it comes to the end of the trial,
the jury, 12 people, decide, well, has it been proved, or do we
still have a reasonable doubt? And if they say, We still have
a reasonable doubt, their duty is to find the defendant not
guilty.
Do you understand now these basic points?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, you know, it is possible for people not to be able to
follow the law for whatever reason. So I'm not putting you on
trial. That isn't our purpose here. And we're not asking you
whether you're a good citizen and will follow the law or
whether you're a bad citizen and disregard the law. That's not
the kind of questioning we're asking here.
What we're asking is given what you have said about
reading of newspapers, as you said you have, will you come in
here with an open mind and listen and decide only on the basis

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
of what happens at the trial?
A. Well, I mean, I would sure do my best. I mean, you know.
Q. And, you know, you said some things in response to our
questions in here, and we'll get to that -- that you do have --
you did form some opinions about Mr. Nichols and whether he's
guilty, and we read that; but we asked you to come in anyway
because we needed to explore these things with you and explain
to you exactly what's involved. And then only you can tell us
whether you can do it.
So what I have been going over with you is the law and
what I am again asking you to answer is whether you can
actually listen to the evidence and decide on the evidence and
set aside your preformed opinions.
A. Well, sir, like I say, I would just do like I've done
everything else in my life. I'd just do my best.
Q. And have you had in your life situations where, you know,
you went into a situation thinking one thing and then as a
result of whatever happened, you changed your mind?
A. Depending upon the situation. Naturally, I've had that --
some things aren't what you maybe thought they would be.
Q. And you understand that when things are reported in
newspapers or on radio or television in news, they can include
hearsay and rumor and a lot of things that never see inside of
a courtroom because it's not admissible as evidence.
A. Yes, sir.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
Q. And that's why we limit what juries can decide on as to
what is actually in evidence and on things that the defendant
has a chance to challenge. It isn't just the rules of
evidence. It's also what we talk about as the adversary
system. There are two sides to the case, just as there are --
excuse me -- at least two sides to most things. And it isn't
until something is said about a person, that person has a right
to challenge it, that we ought to rely on it. That's sort of
the fundamental idea of the law.
So tell us what you think about that.
A. I just -- like I say, I just think that -- I mean, I
would -- I would do my best, you know, to do what I thought was
right after I heard the testimony and so forth.
Q. And when you say do what was right, are you speaking about
doing what is the duty of a juror?
A. Basically, yes. I mean, relying on my own, say, beliefs
and so forth.
Q. Well, what do you mean when you say rely on your own
beliefs?
A. Well, I mean, I guess there are so many involved, you
know . . .
Q. Well, let me ask it this way: Do your beliefs include
these notions of fairness that it's easy to file a charge but
it's not so easy to prove it and we can only go on the basis of
the proof?

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. I sure believe in that.
Q. And not only believe it but actually do it in this case
where you heard some things?
A. Well, sure. I mean, even in your everyday life, you can
hear that so-and-so did this or whatever, and then after you
investigate, you find out that it was, you know -- there wasn't
any truth to it after you -- you know --
Q. Okay. Well, let's talk a little about your life and the
experiences of it. We've asked you a lot of things in this
questionnaire about that. Some of these things are quite
private and personal. We respect your privacy and will try to
honor that in all ways that we can. That's the reason that
when you answered this questionnaire, I copied the answers and
gave it to these people who are directly involved but to no one
else. And they in turn will use it only for what we're doing
here.
And as you also know, we arranged ways for you to come
and go to the courthouse without any media people being able to
photograph you or put your picture in the paper, on television,
and all that, so that we can respect your privacy. And in the
course of the questioning, we'll also attempt to do that. But
you do understand or should understand that what is said here
in open court is just that: It's open. This is a public
proceeding. You understand?
A. Yes, sir.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
Q. Now, I understand from your answers in the questionnaire
that you were born in Sterling?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you lived in that area of Colorado -- I guess your
family was on a farm for a while?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think I recorded or wrote a note that you were on a
farm from like 5 to 13 years old?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Now, was that farm up there in the valley, going into
Sterling?
A. It was northeast of Sterling.
Q. Northeast. How big a farm?
A. Well, my dad and my uncle were just sharecroppers. I mean,
they --
Q. Somebody else's land?
A. Yes, uh-huh. They had a landlord.
Q. Were they raising cattle there, too?
A. Mostly crops, alfalfa, sugar beets, corn.
Q. And you worked on the farm, I take it --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- a good deal in those years. And what kind of work did
you do? I mean, were you out there with a tractor and mowing
hay and all that?
A. Well, that was the later years. The first years was mostly

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
working in the beet fields, you know, the thinning and the
hoeing.
Q. Sure.
A. And then you helped with the hay and so forth; but I didn't
get to drive, being as I had older brothers and so forth.
Q. They got the tractor seat?
A. Yeah, they got the good jobs.
Q. Okay. Did you -- you said it was your father and your
uncle?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Did they bring in workers, field workers, when it came time
for working the beets?
A. What we couldn't do ourselves.
Q. Did they bring in migrant workers?
A. Yes.
Q. To do that from Mexico?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And regularly, every year in season?
A. Pretty much so, yeah.
Q. All right. And then you moved to Greeley, I guess.
A. That was when I came out of the service, and so forth. I
moved to Greeley when I was -- let's see -- well, I was about
low 30's. I was out of the service about 10 years when I moved
to Greeley.
Q. So when you -- before you went into the Army and came --

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
and when you came back out, still Sterling was your home?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And you did on page 13 tell us you were in the Army from
1956 to 1958?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And were your stationed at any time outside the continental
United States?
A. Yes. I was over in Korea for 15 months' tour of duty.
Q. And on page 14, you indicate here at Question 61 that you
were at one time a witness in a court-martial.
A. Yes.
Q. What was that -- what was the offense being tried?
A. He stole mail. He was the sergeant that carried the mail
from the division headquarters to our individual barracks, and
he around Christmastime -- I guess he wanted to get a little
extra spending money.
Q. So not only stole it but apparently opened it and took
money out of it.
And what was your -- you were called as a witness.
What did you testify about?
A. Well, I didn't have much to testify about, other than they
found some of the mail that my relatives had sent to me in his
apartment. That's how I got called.
Q. So you were identifying your mail --
A. Yes.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
Q. -- that you didn't get.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. And was there anything about -- you went in and
answered questions.
A. Yes, just if that was my, you know --
Q. Okay.
A. Like I say, it was around Christmastime, so it was just
Christmas cards and so forth.
Q. Okay. Now, you have -- you take the Rocky Mountain News.
You've already told us that.
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And also, the Greeley Tribune?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you read both of them every day?
A. Well -- well, like yesterday and today, I sure haven't, but
whenever --
Q. So you've been trying to follow what I told you about out
at the fairgrounds to stay away from things that could relate
to this case.
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And does that mean you also stayed away from things
relating to the execution of a death sentence in Colorado?
A. Basically.
Q. Well, you mentioned today you haven't read the paper.
A. I didn't read the papers yesterday or today because it

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
just, you know, not enough hours to do it.
Q. All right. You also, I guess, regularly watch television
news?
A. Try to.
Q. And you mentioned Channel 4 and 9 --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- in here as being the newscasts. What time of day is it
you're accustomed to watch those newscasts?
A. Usually at 10:00.
Q. At night?
A. Yes.
Q. And you switch from one to the other, or --
A. Basically watch it most of the time. I'd say 75 percent of
the time on Channel 4.
Q. Okay. We asked you some questions in here about your views
of punishment and particularly as to punishment by a sentence
to prison for life without ever being released and a sentence
to death. And you recall those questions, and I want you to
turn to page 28 for your answers. And the explanation of why
the questions were put in the way they are begins on page 27,
but you may remember that. And you realize that we had to ask
you these questions on the possibility that there may be a
guilty verdict in the case.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And that the crimes charged here including charges of

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
murder are crimes that under federal law make a punishment of
life in prison without release on parole and death
possibilities. And those are possible sentences.
So what we wanted you to tell us is what your thoughts
were about such punishment without regard to what the law is or
the procedure involved, just to give us some idea what your
thinking is on those subjects. Do you understand that's the
reason for the questions and that -- and these particular
questions?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, you said, of course, that you believe only in the more
severe crimes would such punishments be appropriate.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you include murder and rape as these types of
crimes. Is the matter of the death penalty and whether the law
should provide for a death sentence something that you've
thought very much about in your life?
A. I haven't spent much time thinking about it, but I believe
in capital punishment as far as, you know --
Q. That the law should provide for that possibility?
A. True.
Q. And you know it's a matter that is debated at some length
and that there are a lot of people with differing views. And
there are people who believe that it is wrong to take a life in
a court process and therefore there should never be the death

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
sentence imposed in court, and some of our states have laws
just like that that do not provide for death penalty.
On the other extreme, there are those who think that
the death penalty should be imposed for particular crimes
almost automatically. If there is a murder, it ought to be a
death sentence. And then there is a lot in between.
Now, what I understand here is that you're somewhere
in between. Is that right?
A. Well, I mean, I -- from -- say pertaining to murder, to me,
if it was premeditated and so forth, why, then, I would believe
in the death sentence. If it was, say, an accidental --
Q. Well, you can rule out accident because the law doesn't
provide for such a sentence in the event of accident. It has
to be a murder, a killing and an intentional killing, or there
wouldn't -- you never get this question.
Now, do you -- as you -- as you are there right now,
sitting there right now, do you have a view that if a person is
found guilty of premeditated murder, the only sentence that
should be imposed is death; that it's automatic?
A. Well, I'd say pretty much so.
Q. And would there be any cases or circumstances you think in
which the -- even though a person is found guilty of
premeditated murder, death is not a sentence that should be
imposed?
A. Well, it would have to be kind of an exceptional situation,

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
I think. I mean, you know.
Q. Well, let me explain what the law is and then see what you
think. What happens in a case in which the crimes charged are
such that these penalties of life in prison with no release and
death are possible punishments, there is first a trial on the
question of the evidence, the things that we've been talking
about at some length here earlier on: Does the evidence prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
And of course if the jury answers that question no,
the verdict is not guilty and that's the end of it. If the
jury answers that question yes and finds a defendant guilty,
then there is more to it.
Now, in cases that don't involve this type of
punishment, life or death, the question of punishment is left
to the court, the judge. You understand that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So in terms of so many years or that kind of thing, fines
and the rest, we ask a judge and leave it up to a judge to make
a decision. And before judges make decisions on sentencing,
they have to get more information than just what came to them
at the trial because this goes well beyond the evidence that's
presented at trial and involves other things. Understand?
You have to answer out loud, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And among those other things would be information about the

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
crime and its effects but also a lot of information about the
defendant, the person found guilty. This is after the trial,
you understand. This is before sentencing.
And so information is provided to the judge about the
defendant and his background, his life story, really, all that
there is to know about him: where he was born and raised, what
family relationships there have been, what he's done in life,
whether there is any other criminal record, whether he has
worked and contributed to society, whether he served in the
armed forces, you know, something about his attitudes and
beliefs, all of these things that go to make up an individual
human being and make each one different from all the others.
You do understand that there are differences among all of us?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the judge holds a hearing, a sentencing hearing at
which the prosecution lawyers speak, the defense lawyers speak,
and then the judge decides, having considered it all, this is
the sentence for this person for this crime. And not all
people get sentenced the same, even though they may commit the
same crime.
And in a case in which more than one person is
involved in exactly the same crime, they can be sentenced
differently. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when it comes to life or death as an issue in

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
punishment, we don't have judges make sentences like that or
make decisions like that. That's for a jury under federal law,
and that's where we are, under the federal system. And
therefore, we ask jurors to come in, decide the case on the
evidence; and, of course, again, if the verdict is not guilty
because it's not proved, that's the end of it. But in the
event that a defendant is found guilty of a crime that involves
capital punishment, more is yet to be done and the same jury
that heard the trial evidence now again gets presented all of
this kind of information that I have talked about that judges
get before they make sentences.
So there is a second trial, a penalty phase hearing;
and it is at that time that the lawyers for the Government
present information about the circumstances of the crime, what
happened not only in terms of the actual crime but its effects.
And then the defense presents information about the defendant;
and it can also include circumstances of the crime and, when
there is more than one person involved, something about the
role of the particular defendant, recognizing that two or more
people in the same crime might have quite different roles that
they played in connection with it, but then also a lot about
the defendant as an individual human being, these same kind of
things that I mentioned in judge sentencing, and that is things
about the life history, who the defendant is, what he's done in
his life, because what the jury is being asked to do, really,

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
is to value another life.
And then at the end of that trial, the court gives
instructions to the jury and says, Now, this is what you've
heard; and you've heard these things as aggravating factors,
things that may suggest to you that death is the deserved
punishment; and you've heard these things as mitigating
factors, those things that may suggest to you that despite the
crime, this defendant does not deserve to be put to death.
And then in connection with those instructions, the
court will suggest some questions for the jurors to ask
themselves in analyzing it. But there is no formula or
equation or anything like that. It comes down to making a
moral decision whether another human being should live or die.
That's what the jury is asked to do.
Do you follow me?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. So what I ask you and for you to tell us just what you
think, and that is with this explanation in mind and having
also in mind what you've told us about your view of capital
punishment, do you think that if you were to serve on the jury
you would be able -- and the jury found a defendant guilty --
that you would be able to base your decision about whether that
defendant should be sentenced to life or death based not only
on the circumstances of the crime, what he was found guilty of,
but also his own background and individual characteristics?

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we have some questions
from the lawyers on each side, so if you'll please listen to
them.
Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. My name is Pat Ryan. I'm the United States Attorney in
Oklahoma City; and I'm here with other prosecutors, and
together we will present the evidence we have against
Mr. Nichols.
You've heard a lot about the rules this morning of
court, the way that we do things in a courtroom. Are you going
to be able to be fair and give Mr. Nichols a fair trial?
A. Well, like I said earlier, I would just -- like I've
approached everything else in my life: I'd try to do my best
under the circumstances.
Q. Now, you know, when I was a kid growing up, my dad told me
to get up at 6:00 the next morning. If I said, I'm --
MR. TIGAR: Object.
MR. RYAN: -- I'm going to do my best.
THE COURT: There is an objection, but I'll overrule

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
it. You can go ahead.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. -- I'll do my best, he wouldn't really take that as a very
satisfactory answer. And it's important to all of us -- and I
realize that you're not in your element right now, you're not
in an environment that you're comfortable with. But we need to
have some level of assurance from you, if you can make it, that
you can give everyone here a fair trial.
A. Well, like the Judge asked me -- I'm just being honest. I
would just do my best. I mean, that's all I could say.
Q. As you sit here today, can you think of any reason why you
would not be able to afford Mr. Nichols a fair trial?
A. I didn't say that I couldn't afford him a fair trial.
Q. I'm sorry. I misstated. Is there any reason in your mind
right now that makes you think that you could not give
Mr. Nichols a fair trial?
A. Well, not really, no. I mean -- if I -- if I have to be a
juror -- I mean, put in that words, if I'm picked as a juror, I
would like -- you know, I would give him my best.
Q. You heard his Honor tell you that the law, the framework
that we're working in here in court -- the law states that
Mr. Nichols is presumed to be innocent. And you -- I know you
heard that because you made some comment to his Honor about if
you were in his position, you'd want a jury to presume you to
be innocent.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. Well, yeah. It's only -- it's only human nature.
Q. So can you accept that principle, that first principle that
his Honor talked to you about: As Mr. Nichols sits here today,
he's innocent?
A. True.
Q. Because the prosecutors, we haven't presented any evidence
at all in this case. The trial hasn't even started yet. Are
you with me?
A. Right. Correct.
Q. Now, one of the things that -- another thing that the Court
talked to you about is that the defendant, Mr. Nichols, and his
counsel don't have to present any evidence. It's not an
obligation they have. It's our obligation, the prosecution's
obligation, to prove his guilt. Can you accept that?
A. Yes.
Q. So in other words, he doesn't have to testify, you can't
hold it against him that he doesn't testify. Does that make
sense?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. It's our Constitution.
A. Right.
Q. And one of the -- one of the -- I don't think you have this
document that I have in front of me in your folder there, but
it's the original questionnaire that you sent in to the Court,
oh, maybe two months ago.

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
A. Oh, yeah. No, I don't have that.
Q. And it asked you there any reason why you might not be able
to serve. And I'm going to read to you what you wrote here at
the bottom.
A. All right.
Q. "I believe the information I have already read in the
newspapers and heard on TV makes me think that Terry Nichols is
guilty of this crime just by association with all of the other
antigovernment people in the past few years."
Did I read that correctly? Sounds like what you
wrote?
A. That's basically the way I remember it.
Q. And that's essentially the same type of information you
supplied in the written questionnaire that you have in front of
you. You made a statement: "Birds of a feather flock
together." Do you recall that?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, I think you also express the notion, if I heard you
correctly, that you've encountered experiences in life where
you went in thinking things were going to be a certain way and
after you started investigating it, learning more about it, you
found that wasn't the case.
A. I believe I can say that I'm -- been in that position.
Q. So, for example, you've heard that Mr. Nichols and
Mr. McVeigh were in the military together. That's something

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
you've read or you've seen on television.
A. Probably both.
Q. Right. But what we need for you to be able to do -- and
this is why I want to see if you can -- is to pretend and act
as if you don't know that right now, because there is no
evidence of it in this case, because we haven't started the
case. And you wait until if there is evidence of that, then
you can consider it; but if there is not, then you just have
got to take it out of your mind because it's not proven in
court. Is that something you can do?
A. Well, getting back to what I said five minutes ago, it
would be, you know -- sometimes when you've heard something, it
might take a little while to overlook it; but maybe if enough
circumstances was put forth, why, then, I could. But, you
know, like I say --
Q. Well, but we need for you to start off with a blank slate,
with a clean slate towards Mr. Nichols, as if there is no
evidence at all against him.
A. Well, I -- like -- I mean, it would be tough to do, because
you've already got this stuff circulating in your mind, so to
speak; and then I guess maybe the more information you heard to
dispute it, why, then, it -- it would be -- it would go in, you
know, say out of your mind.
Q. Have you had situations where you thought, you know, Fort
Collins -- you had heard they had a good football team; then

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
when they came over to play, you saw they weren't very good at
all?
A. Well, I'd have to say maybe they had a bad day.
Q. But both teams started with the score zero to zero.
A. Right.
Q. There is no favoritism to either side. Right?
A. True.
Q. And you wouldn't want a referee that was already thinking
before the game started, Well, I know that Fort Collins here
has got a pretty good team and maybe I need to help them a
little bit. You wouldn't want that kind of referee.
A. No, because that's not what he's getting paid to do.
Q. So are you going to start this case off favoring the
Government?
A. I hope I don't have to start it off favoring anybody, but,
you know -- I mean, sure, I -- I can start from Square 1, if I
have to, I mean.
Q. So the defense doesn't have to come in and prove --
disprove something you've got in your head. You're going to
wait until the Government proves it before you're going to
accept it as a fact you're going to consider in the case?
A. Well, let's put it this way: Maybe they would just kind of
solidify something that was already in my mind.
THE COURT: May I see counsel at the bench?
(At the bench:)

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
(Bench Conference 25B1 is not herein transcribed by court
order. It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)

Juror No. 206 - Voir Dire
(In open court:)
MR. RYAN: Thank you very much.
JUROR: You're welcome.
THE COURT: Thank you for answering all of these
questions; and I've determined that you can be excused in this
matter. Please don't consider this as a judgment against you
or that you've been tested and failed the test or anything like
that. All right? We're just -- I just reached the conclusion
here that it would be very difficult for you to sit on this
jury and set aside the things that you've heard and the
opinions that you've formed; but I'm not, you know -- don't go
away from here thinking I called you a bad person.
JUROR: No, my ego is pretty big.
THE COURT: Well, you know, I just want you to know
that we appreciate all that you've done in cooperating with us
here and going through this process and you're openness with
your answers.
JUROR: Well, that's the way I was raised, I mean, you
know.
THE COURT: I know. So thank you very much. We do
ask you not to talk about this with other people. Will you do
that?
JUROR: I sure will.
THE COURT: All right. We appreciate your time with
us, and you're now excused.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
No. 35.
Will you raise your right hand and take the oath from
the clerk, please.
(Juror No. 35 affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Please be seated. You can make yourself
comfortable there and move that chair around as you see fit.
You don't have to talk right into the microphone. Anywhere
near will pick you up.
JUROR: Thank you.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. And you understand that "the case now on trial" referring
to -- referred to in this oath is the case of United States
against Terry Lynn Nichols.
A. I do.
Q. And you got a jury summons a while back notifying you that
you were among those who by chance selection process have been
called for possible service on this jury.
A. I'm aware, yes.
Q. And that you then filled out a little questionnaire and
sent it back to us and then got notice to come out to the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds last September 17 and answer some

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
more questions. And you and others did that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you remember that I was there and spoke to all of you
about the background of the case and what the trial was going
to be about and some of the procedural history of the case and
also introduced some people to you who were there with me. And
they're here again now, so I want to introduce them again so
you know who is here in the room with us.
And I introduced Mr. Lawrence Mackey and Ms. Beth
Wilkinson as lawyers for the Government. They're right here at
this first table. They're joined now by Mr. Patrick Ryan and
Mr. James Orenstein. They were not there when you were
introduced to the Government lawyers before, but they've joined
us now.
Also, you met Mr. Michael Tigar and Mr. Ronald Woods,
attorneys for Terry Nichols; and Mr. Nichols, of course, was
also there.
And then you answered a questionnaire, answered a lot
of questions in writing, and we took those answers and made
copies of them for purposes of what we're doing now, giving
them out to the lawyers here with us but not to anybody else.
And we at all times recognize that you have some privacy
interests, and we try to protect your privacy as much as we
can. It is for that reason that we are not referring to you by
name here but assigned a number to you and also arranged for

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
going and coming to the courthouse so that you can't be
photographed by newspapers or television or whatever and have
those pictures published.
Now you know that we're in court, and this is an open
proceeding now in open court; so what is said here is public.
You understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And if there is anything asked of you that you want
to make private at your request, we can make some arrangements
to do that.
A. I would appreciate that, sir.
Q. All right. Now, we're going to ask you some questions; but
first -- and we're not going to go over the whole questionnaire
again. Don't worry about that. You've given us a lot of
answers. We're going to follow up on some of these things, and
we'll have some additional questions; but before starting the
questions -- and I'll be asking you some questions and then a
lawyer on each side will do it. And I know you were with us
all day yesterday waiting to come in here.
A. Yes.
Q. So we've already taken a lot of your time, and we
appreciate that that's inconvenient for you, but we need to
take a little more time.
A. It's understandable.
Q. And before I start with any questions, though, I want to go

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
back and review some of the things that I said because they are
important to us here and go back to an explanation that I gave
that this case.
And the reason we're here arises out of an event that
took place in Oklahoma City on April 19 of 1995, on which day a
federal office building in Oklahoma City was exploded and
people in it were injured and killed and that later, charges
were filed in Oklahoma City in the Federal Court there by way
of an indictment, a paper that outlines the charges made by
lawyers for the Government, Department of Justice, and that in
that indictment it is charged, alleged, that a man named
Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols -- and the
indictment says "other persons not named" -- were in a
conspiracy or a criminal agreement to bomb that building and to
kill and injure the people in it; that in the language of the
indictment, paraphrased here, they went ahead and did it and
committed crimes in connection with it; and the crimes include
eight allegations of first-degree murder of eight law
enforcement agents of the United States government agencies who
were in the building and died in the explosion and that after
those charges were filed, Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols entered
pleas of not guilty, thereby disputing everything that was
alleged in the indictment and creating the issues for trial;
that the case was then moved from Oklahoma City here to Denver
for trial because of a concern about the ability for people in

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
Oklahoma City to judge the case as jurors, since the event
happened in their midst, and that after the case came here, I
ordered separate trials, saying that it would not be fair for
Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols to be tried in the same trial and
be judged by the same jury because of differences between them.
And accordingly, I said there would be a trial of the
evidence as it relates to Mr. McVeigh and another trial of the
evidence as it may relate to Mr. Nichols. A trial of Timothy
McVeigh has been held. A jury hearing that evidence determined
that it satisfied them that he was guilty of the crimes
charged. There was then another hearing or second trial, at
which the jury determined that based on all that they had heard
and seen in that -- those two trials, they came in with a
recommendation of a death sentence.
Now, you're aware of those things?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. And here we are now selecting a jury for the trial of
Mr. Nichols and to determine the evidence as it relates to him.
Nothing that happened in the trial of Mr. McVeigh can be
considered here in the trial that will be held as to
Mr. Nichols. To do so would violate the very reason for
separate trials. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Okay. And just to make it clear, you know, I -- I was the
judge at the trial of Timothy McVeigh. I heard that evidence;

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
but I'm not considering that in any way as I start this trial
with respect to Mr. Nichols. We start with a clean slate. And
no one should assume that what was heard as evidence in
Mr. McVeigh's trial would be heard in this case.
Now, you recall that I discussed some fundamental
concepts, principles of our Constitution in the criminal
justice system, saying that any person charged with any crime
in the United States is presumed to be innocent of the charge.
You're aware of that?
A. Yes, sir, I believe I'm aware.
Q. And that this presumption of innocence carries throughout
the trial, entitles that person to an acquittal, a verdict of
not guilty, unless everybody serving on the jury considering
the evidence that was presented in the course of the trial
determines that the case has been proved and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. You've heard those words before; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that no person who is charged in a criminal court has
any burden or duty of proving himself to be not guilty. In
fact, they have no burden or duty of calling any witnesses or
introducing any evidence. The Government brings the charges.
It's up to the Government lawyers to bring in the witnesses and
the exhibits, things upon which they rely to show to the jury
what they claim to support the charges.
And a defendant on trial doesn't have to bring in any

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
witnesses and does not himself have to be a witness. No
defendant has to get onto that witness stand and answer any
questions from lawyers or explain anything to the jury. He can
simply remain silent and require the Government to prove it and
challenge that evidence that the Government does bring in by
objections to its admissibility and also by cross-examination
of the witnesses relied on.
You're aware of these things?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. And accordingly, you understand that Mr. Nichols is sitting
with us here in this room this morning presumed to be innocent
of the charges in this case?
A. Sir, would you repeat that, please.
Q. Yes. That because of these principles of law, Mr. Terry
Nichols sits here with us in this room now presumed to be
innocent of these charges that have been made against him?
A. I do understand, yes.
Q. And that unless 12 jurors being fair-minded, open-minded,
and considering only the evidence that's been presented at the
trial -- unless they find that that convinces them beyond a
reasonable doubt that he's guilty, he's entitled to a verdict
of not guilty. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Do you accept these points?
A. Yes, I do accept these points.

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
Q. And are you willing to follow them as the rules of law that
would apply in this case?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Now, you were on a jury once before, as I understand it.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I know on page 26 of your questionnaire, you tell us
something about that experience. About how long ago was that?
A. If I'm not mistaken, it was possibly about five or six
years ago.
Q. Five or six. And the way I understand it from what you
wrote, the jury never had to reach a verdict because there was
a plea bargain reached.
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, did you start the trial?
A. We were actually held in a holding room, I guess it would
be, and --
Q. Did you go through a process like this where you were asked
questions about whether you could be a fair juror, if you
remember?
A. I believe I did, yes, sir, if I'm not mistaken. We were --
I was in a room with other people, and I do believe we were all
asked if we could --
Q. And then you were told something about a plea bargain?

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
What were you told?
A. We were told that we were dismissed and that as such that
there was a plea bargain that has been come to.
Q. Were you in a courtroom actually? Did you ever get into
the courtroom?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Okay. So this process that we're talking about is still
new to you. You haven't --
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. -- gone through it as a juror?
A. This is true, sir.
Q. Now, a little about your background. My understanding is
from what you've told us that you were born in Tennessee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Raised in Texas?
A. This is correct, sir.
Q. And Denison, Texas, in particular?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Now -- and also, you spent some time in Clovis, New Mexico?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was -- what were you doing when you were in Clovis?
A. At the time, I was married. My wife at the time was in the
Air Force, and I was there with her.
Q. She was assigned to the Air Force base there?
A. Yes, sir.

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
Q. And you're now divorced?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you and she had two children? They live with her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Tell me -- pardon me.
A. My children are with my second wife.
Q. Second wife. Okay. And -- excuse me. You're separated?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. From the second wife.
A. Yes.
Q. And the children are with her. Am I right?
A. One child. My son is with her.
Q. And the daughter?
A. My daughter is -- she's I guess -- she's an adult now.
She's on her own.
Q. On her own. Okay. Now, you mentioned that at one time
your father had some land and raised cattle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that?
A. In Denison, Texas.
Q. And did he raise the cattle there where you lived, or did
he have that -- have them out on some other land?
A. It was on a separate -- separate land, yes.
Q. So did you live in town?
A. Yes, we lived -- yes, lived in town.

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
Q. Okay. And he had -- did he own the land that the cattle
were on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much land was it?
A. Approximately 10 acres, if I'm not mistaken.
Q. And how old were you when he had this livestock operation?
A. From ages of -- from about 5 to about 15 or 16 or so, I
believe.
Q. Did you go out there and do some work with these cattle?
A. Yes, sir, yes.
Q. A lot?
A. Quite a bit, yes.
Q. Okay. How far out of town was the land?
A. It was relatively close in town. It was within the city
limits, I guess it would be, approximately 10 blocks away from
our home, our family home.
Q. But so you could walk over there?
A. Basically, yes, sir.
Q. And what happened to that land? Does your father still
have it?
A. I'm not actually sure, sir. My father has passed on now.
I'm not sure.
Q. You don't know what happened to it?
A. I -- no, I don't, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about it, whether he sold it or --

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
A. I'm not aware of that, sir.
Q. And your father had been in the Air Force. Is that right?
A. This is correct, sir, yes.
Q. While you were growing up?
A. This is before I was born.
Q. Before you were born. Now, you've had some experience with
the court system in that you had a lawsuit, I guess. Page 22
is where I'm looking. You had a lawsuit about, what, losing a
job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long ago was that?
A. Approximately -- about five -- about four or five years
ago.
Q. And what kind of a job did you have there?
A. I was doing maintenance, Department of Maintenance.
Q. And was it your claim that you were -- you lost that job
because of discrimination?
A. That's -- yes. From my understanding, speaking with the
lawyer, that was the approach that was to be taken, I guess it
was. My understanding also was I was unlawfully let go.
Q. So did it go to court?
A. No, sir. I -- afterwards, I spoke with lawyers and I was
told that I basically didn't have a case based on
discrimination.
Q. But do you feel today that you did have a case and it

Juror No. 35 - Voir Dire
should have gone forward? Do you have any feeling like that?
A. To a point, yes, I do; but under the laws as they are, I
understand I don't.
Q. Okay. Well, do you feel that that was an injustice; that
you we