Introduction
Timothy McVeigh was a former American who was convicted after detonating a bomb that destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing many people. The attack occurred on April 19, 1995 and it was the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. More than 168 people lost their lives after the attack and many more were seriously injured. Subsequently, McVeigh was arrested, charged for the crime and sentenced to death by the District Court in Colorado. This paper will describe facts associated with the McVeigh case detailing when, where and how the trial took place and other important factors that are related to the trial.
Discussion
Timothy McVeigh’s case remains one of the most memorable cases the country has ever witnessed. The defendant, who had previously served in the army, was accused by the prosecution of masterminding and executing a deadly bomb attack in Oklahoma. From the onset, prosecution attorneys insisted that they wanted a death sentence due to the severe nature of crimes committed by the defendant. The case was first heard in Oklahoma before being transferred to the District Court in Colorado, where the trial proceedings were heard. The court felt that high levels of media publicity in Oklahoma State would deny the defendant a fair trial as enshrined in the constitution. One of the peculiar features of the case is that McVeigh was only charged with the murder of eight federal officers because the State of Oklahoma was unable to file additional charges against him (Castagnera 41). After their deliberations, members of the jury advised the court to sentence McVeigh to death after having reached a guilty verdict which showed that the defendant was responsible for the attack.
Soon after the District Court’s ruling, McVeigh filed an urgent appeal on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecution team. He also claimed that the jury was already prejudiced by negative publicity due to the wide media coverage which the case had received. As a result, he argued that they were not likely to be impartial because they had been influenced to opt for a guilty charge against McVeigh. In addition, they criticized testimonies made by Michael Fortier, McVeigh’s roommate, when he was still an army officer, and his wife Lori against the defendant (Castagnera 43). The couple revealed damaging information against the accused which was heavily disputed by defense attorneys who argued that the two were drug users who could not be relied upon to provide credible witness testimony in the trial.
The defense attorney relied on a strategy of creating doubts towards the validity of accusations made by the prosecution and its witnesses regarding McVeigh’s involvement in the bombing. However, the main challenge the defense team faced was the inability to find an alibi that would testify in favor of McVeigh to help him get a more lenient sentence. In their closing arguments, the prosecution team insisted that there was irrefutable evidence which showed the accused had hired the Ryder truck that exploded at the scene of the crime (Herman 67). They also referred to the testimonies of several witnesses who narrated how the accused informed them of his intentions to carry out a bomb to get back at the government. Before the incident, McVeigh had adopted a radical militant stance and the prosecutions used some of McVeigh’s previous writings to show that he had premeditated the incident before carrying out the explosion in the city.
Before his sentence was read out by the judge, McVeigh had claimed that the government taught its people by example. Defense attorneys, Stephen Jones and Robert Nigh Jr. insisted that the federal government was only interested in apportioning blame for the incident on McVeigh to cover up for the FBI’s incompetence. They accused the FBI for not being objective in their investigations which made them charge their client for a crime that had not been proven satisfactorily. They also insisted that the forensics team did not conduct a thorough analysis of specimen obtained from the crime scene, and this disadvantaged their client from getting a fair trial (Michel and Herbeck 58). One of the key issues they raised regarding the court procedures related to the manner in which witnesses gave their testimonies before the court. Defense attorneys insisted that some witnesses had given out contradicting statements during the trial and this showed that they were not sure about McVeigh’s involvement in the crime.
Conclusion
The high levels of publicity which Timothy McVeigh’s case received showed that cases that have an element of public interest attract a lot of attention. Even though the case generated a lot of controversies, Timothy McVeigh was convicted and sentenced to death by the District Court in Colorado for the crime. The case revealed difficulties the criminal justice system faces when deliberating high-profile cases that are given a lot of media and public attention in the country.
Works Cited
Castagnera, James O. Counter-Terrorism Issues: Case Studies in the Courtroom. Washington, DC: CRC Press, 2013. Print.
Herman, Susan N. The Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print.
Michel, Lou, and Dan Herbeck. American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. New York: Regan Book, 2001. Print.