IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
 Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
     Plaintiff,
 vs.
 TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,
     Defendant.
 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
                      REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
                 (Trial to Jury - Volume 151)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
         Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 3:20 p.m., on the 13th day of June,
1997, in Chambers C-234, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.







 Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
  Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
    P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
                          APPEARANCES
         PATRICK M. RYAN, United States Attorney for the
Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
         JOSEPH H. HARTZLER, SEAN CONNELLY, LARRY A. MACKEY,
BETH WILKINSON, SCOTT MENDELOFF, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, AITAN
GOELMAN, and VICKI BEHENNA, Special Attorneys to the U.S.
Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver,
Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
         STEPHEN JONES, ROBERT NIGH, JR., ROBERT WYATT, MICHAEL
ROBERTS, RICHARD BURR, RANDALL COYNE, AMBER McLAUGHLIN, STEVEN
ENGLAND, and ROBERT WARREN, Attorneys at Law, Jones, Wyatt &
Roberts, 999 18th Street, Suite 2460, Denver, Colorado, 80202;
JERALYN MERRITT, 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 400, Denver,
Colorado, 80203; MANDY WELCH, Attorney at Law, 412 Main, Suite
1150, Houston, Texas, 77002; CHERYL A. RAMSEY, Attorney at Law,
Szlichta and Ramsey, 8 Main Place, Post Office Box 1206,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74076, and CHRISTOPHER L. TRITICO,
Attorney at Law, Essmyer, Tritico & Clary, 4300 Scotland,
Houston, Texas, 77007, and MAURIE A. LEVIN, P.O. Box 280,
Austin, Texas, 78767-0280, appearing for Defendant McVeigh.
                         *  *  *  *  *
                          PROCEEDINGS
    (In open court at 3:20 p.m.)
         THE COURT:  Please be seated.
         The jury has informed that they have arrived at their
findings and recommendation.  I caution all present to avoid
any reaction to these findings and the recommendation, either
audibly or visibly.  And if anyone violates that, we'll have to
remove them.
         Obviously, it will take some time to read these
findings, and the recommendation is the last thing read; so
please be careful and comply with this request.
         We'll return the jury.
    (Jury in at 3:22 p.m.)
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, have you arrived at
your special findings and recommendation?
         JURORS:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  If the foreman will please hand that to
Mr. Manspeaker, who will hand it to me.
         Members of the jury, you will please listen to the
reading of your Special Findings Form A.  These findings apply
to all 11 counts.
         Under Section I, Intent to Cause Death:
         Question (1) The defendant intentionally killed the
victims.  Answer:  Yes.
         (2) The defendant intentionally inflicted serious body
injury that resulted in the death of the victims.  Answer:
Yes.
         (3) The defendant intentionally participated in an
act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or
intending that lethal force would be used against a person, and
the victims died as a result of that act.  Answer:  Yes.
         (4) The defendant intentionally and specifically
engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the act created a
grave risk of death to a person, other than a participant in
the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a
reckless disregard for human life and the victims died as a
direct result of the act.  Answer:  Yes.
         Section II, Statutory Aggravating Factors:
         (1) The deaths or injuries resulting in death occurred
during the commission of an offense under 18 United States Code
Section 844(d), transportation of explosives in interstate
commerce for certain purposes.  Answer:  Yes.
         (2) The defendant, in the commission of the offenses,
knowingly created a grave risk of death to one or more persons
in addition to the victims of the offense.  Answer:  Yes.
         (3) The defendant committed the offenses after
substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of
one or more persons and to commit an act of terrorism.  Answer:
Yes.
         (4) The defendant committed the offenses against one
or more federal law enforcement officers because of such
victims' status as federal law enforcement officers.  Answer:
Yes.
         Third section, Non-statutory Aggravating Factors:
         (1) The offenses committed by the defendant resulted
in the deaths of 168 persons.  Answer:  Yes.
         (2) In committing the offenses, the defendant caused
serious physical and emotional injury, including maiming,
disfigurement, and permanent disability to numerous
individuals.  Answer:  Yes.
         (3) That by committing the offenses, the defendant
caused severe injuries and losses suffered by the victims'
families.  Answer:  Yes.
         Mitigating factors in Section IV:
         (1) Timothy McVeigh believed deeply in the ideals upon
which the United States was founded.  Number of jurors who so
find:  Zero.
         (2) Timothy McVeigh believed that the ATF and FBI were
responsible for the deaths of everyone who lost their lives at
Mt. Carmel, near Waco, Texas, between February 28 and April 19,
1993.  Number of jurors who so find:  12.
         Excuse me.
         (3) Timothy McVeigh believed that federal law
enforcement agents murdered Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver near
Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August, 1992.  Number of jurors who so
find:  12.
         (4) Timothy McVeigh believed that the increasing use
of military-style force and tactics by federal law enforcement
agencies against American citizens threatened an approaching
police state.  Number of jurors who so find:  12.
         (5) Timothy McVeigh's belief that federal law
enforcement agencies failed to take responsibilities for their
actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco and failed to punish those
persons responsible added to his growing concerns regarding the
existence of a police state and a loss of constitutional
liberties.  Number of jurors who so find:  12.
         (6) Timothy McVeigh served honorably and with great
distinction in the United States Army from May, 1988, until
December, 1991.  Number of jurors who so find:  10.
         (7) Timothy McVeigh received the Army's Bronze Star
for his heroic service in operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and
Iraq.  Number of jurors who so find:  12.
         (8) Timothy McVeigh is a reliable and dependable
person in work and in his personal affairs and relations with
others.  Number of jurors who so find:  2.
         (9) Timothy McVeigh is a person who deals honestly
with others in interpersonal relations.  Number of jurors who
so find:  1.
         (10) Timothy McVeigh is a patient and effective
teacher when he is working in a supervisory role.  Number of
jurors who so find:  12.
         11, Timothy McVeigh is a good and loyal friend.
Number of jurors who so find.  Zero.
         (12) Over the course of his life, Timothy McVeigh has
done good deeds for and helped others, including a number of
strangers who needed assistance.  Number of jurors who so find:
4.
         (13) Timothy McVeigh has no prior criminal record.
Number of jurors who so find:  12.
         With respect to the provision of extra spaces to write
in additional mitigating factors, if any, found by any one or
more jurors, the jury has answered none with respect to both of
those and stricken them out.
         Recommendation, V:
         The jury has considered whether the aggravating
factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh any mitigating
factor or factors found to exist, or in the absence of any
mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors are
themselves sufficient to justify a sentence of death.  Based
upon this consideration, the jury recommends by unanimous vote
that the following sentence be imposed:
         The defendant, Timothy James McVeigh, shall be
sentenced to death.
         The Special Findings appear to be signed by all jurors
and dated June 13, 1997.
         VI.  Certification:
         By signing below, each juror certifies that
consideration of the race, color, religious beliefs, national
origin, or sex of the defendant or the victims was not involved
in reaching his or her individual decision and that the
individual juror would have made the same recommendation
regarding a sentence for the crimes in question no matter what
the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, or sex of
the defendant or the victims.
         Apparently signed by all jurors and also dated
June 13, 1997.
         Mr. Foreman, was this and -- were these and are these
the jury's special findings and recommendation?
         JURY FOREMAN:  Yes, they are.
         THE COURT:  And so say you all?
         JURORS:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  I will poll the jury on these
recommendations as I did with the verdict.
         So the juror seated in Chair No. 1:  Were these and
are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 1:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  Juror seated in Chair No. 2:  Were these
and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 2:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 3:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 3:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 4:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendations?
         JUROR NO. 4:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  Juror seated in Chair No. 5:  Were these
and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 5:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 6:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 6:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 7:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 7:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 8:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 8:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in chair No. 9:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 9:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  Juror seated in Chair No. 10:  Were these
and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 10:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 11:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 11:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  The juror seated in Chair No. 12:  Were
these and are these your special findings and recommendation?
         JUROR NO. 12:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, the Court will, as I
instructed you in the instructions, sentence in accordance with
your recommendation, sentencing the defendant to death.  The
sentence will be imposed at a hearing at a later time.
         Mr. McVeigh may be excused from the courtroom.
    (Defendant leaves at 3:31 p.m.)
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, you have now
discharged your duty in this case, having rendered first of all
your verdict with respect to the charges and then, of course,
these findings and recommendation with respect to the sentence.
         Before excusing you from the courtroom, however, there
are some things that I want to say to you and do wish to say
them publicly.
         First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of all of
the people of the United States.  You have served your country
and you have served the system, as we've so often referred to

it; but the system is really the democratic system that is our
form of government, wherein people are brought together from
all walks of life and background and given the responsibility
for making the decision.  And you have done that.
         Now, it may be a matter for you now or at some later
time to wonder:  Did we do the right thing?
         The answer to that question is yes, you did the right
thing, not because I believe it one way or the other but
because you did it.  And that is what we rely upon, 12 people
coming together, hearing the evidence, following the law, and
reaching the decision.
         So therefore, it is done.  And you, as the jurors, are
the final authority.  You are not answerable to anyone for your
verdict and your sentencing decision.  No one of you can change
it or undermine it or impeach it by anything that you may say
or do after this.  The decision is final.
         Now, obviously, this decision will be commented upon,
both your verdict and your recommendation.  And that, as you
well know, is a part of living in a free society.  People are
free to comment whether they know anything about it or not,
including people who have not sat here as you have, heard all
of the evidence, heard the law, and deliberated.
         What you said to each other in that jury room when you
deliberated for the several days before you arrived at a
verdict and as you have deliberated for hours before you have
reached this recommendation for sentence is a matter that, I
suggest to you, should be kept among you.
         Now, you know, as a part of that, we have a local rule
in this court that provides that no attorney shall communicate
with you to ask you any questions with respect to your
deliberations or your decision; and that rule is imposed.  The
lawyers are not permitted to question you.
         But, of course, there are others who will feel free to
question you or to contact you and ask you a number of things.
I have throughout the course of this trial taken what some
believe to be extraordinary and some believe to be
unconstitutional measures to protect your privacy as you have
served on this jury.  I can no longer do so; and I believe that
it -- well, as a matter of fact, there has been a motion filed
on behalf of counsel for the co-defendant, Terry Nichols, that
indicates that he has information that the media people have
obtained identification of you -- through computers, I guess;
but a lot of sources are available, you see.
         Now, to be frank with you and open and honest with
you, as I've tried to be throughout, you may very well find
people at your doorstep when you get home, wanting to talk to
you or people calling you on the phone.  You can expect that.
         And I suggest only this to you:  I cannot -- they have
a constitutional right to try to talk with you.  You have a
constitutional right to decide to whom you wish to talk; but as
you each make that decision for yourselves, I suggest that you
consider certain things.
         First of all, Terry Nichols:  He's named as a
co-defendant in this indictment, as you well know.  His name
came up in the course of the trial in the evidence that was
presented.  This has not been a trial about Terry Nichols.  You
have not been asked to decide the charges made with respect to
Terry Nichols.  Indeed, I separated the defendants for trial
and ordered that there be two separate trials because I
concluded that there could not be a fair trial with both
defendants tried at the same time; that it would not be fair as
to either one of them.
         As you can well appreciate, there are matters that
relate to him that had no relationship to Mr. McVeigh.  His
lawyers, Mr. Nichols' lawyers, have not been here during the
trial.  They have not had any opportunity to cross-examine any
of the witnesses who said anything that could implicate Terry
Nichols.  They have not had any opportunity to present any
witnesses to you with respect to Terry Nichols; and indeed, the
only evidence that you've heard with respect to Mr. Nichols are
those things that related more particularly to Timothy McVeigh
and some of their conversations and that sort of thing.
         It is likely that some people will be asking of you,
Well, what do you think about Terry Nichols?  Do you think he's
guilty?
         Now, I suggest to you the only honest answer that you
can give to that is you don't know, because you haven't tried
him, you haven't heard him, he hasn't had a fair trial in front
of you.
         And think of the importance of that trial, which will
be conducted next.  And of course, just as we went through the
jury selection process in selecting you folks for this case, so
will we be doing that for the charges against Terry Nichols.
         And so people will be answering questionnaires, people
will be going through the same process that you went through,
so that we can find the people who will fairly and impartially
consider the case with respect to him.
         So, you know -- you know what it's like to have gone
through that.  Think about that before you express any opinions
with respect to that.
         And think also about what I've said with respect to
this case.  You've decided this as a group of 12.  No one of
you can change it.  And therefore, you know, you don't have to
explain it to anybody, either.
         Now, the -- it is common in matters that generate a
lot of public interest to ask, Well, what went on in the jury
room and how many votes did you take and who was the principal
spokesperson and all that sort of thing.  Well, again, I can't
order you not to talk about that; but, of course, I think that
all of you have respect for each other.  And I suggest that you
think about that before you answer any questions or volunteer
any statements about how you worked together in performing your
duty in this case and meeting the heavy responsibilities that
were placed upon you and that were placed upon you by chance.
         You're here -- you were selected from a number of
people; but at bottom, you're here because your name came up in
the draw, and it was a matter of chance that brought you here.
And that's really a part of the genius of this system; that
people not selected by anybody come together and function as a
jury.
         So you have done your duty, and you have done it well.
And all of us involved -- and as I said, it's my privilege to
speak for all the people of the United States, to compliment
you on a job well done and service well performed.
         So with that, members of the jury, different from
every other time that I've excused you from the courtroom, you
may now leave, talk about the case as you see fit, with anybody
and everybody.  And you can refuse to talk to everybody and
anybody as well.
         Thank you very much.  You're now excused.
    (Jury out at 3:42 p.m.)
         THE COURT:  I've previously set the time for the
filing of motions to be on or before July 7; and that time, of
course, stands.
         I will -- I believe that we should determine a date
for sentencing that will correspond with the motions so that it
is all done at one time and there is no confusion with respect
to the time for the filing of a notice of appeal.
         With respect to what I've just said to the jury, I
will also vacate the order prohibiting out-of-court comments
that was entered April 16, 1997, thereby permitting those
persons who were enjoined in that order from making public
comments.  You may now make them; although, of course, I expect
that counsel will have in mind that another case is to be tried
and another defendant's rights are involved.
         I do also remind counsel of that which I said to the
jurors:  That you are by local rule prohibited from
communicating with the jurors.
         Do either counsel -- counsel for either side have
anything further at this time?
         MR. JONES:  No, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Mr. Hartzler?
         MR. HARTZLER:  No.  Thank you, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Well, I wish to say publicly that I
compliment and commend counsel for their conduct in this case.
People have commented upon the manner in which this trial has
proceeded without delays and in a time that some people thought
was much more efficient and faster than other persons
contemplated who were not involved in the case.
         That was accomplished because of the professionalism
of the lawyers in this case on both sides.  And I appreciate
working with you in this matter.
         Court is in recess.
    (Recess at 3:44 p.m.)
                         *  *  *  *  *



                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
    I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.  Dated
at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of June, 1997.
 
                                 _______________________________
                                         Paul A. Zuckerman