The truck bomb that exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City April 19, 1995, killed 168 people and injured more than 500 others.
This tragedy left behind a group of victims, made up of survivors and relatives of the dead, that is among the largest in American history.
Even before the trial of bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh began March 31 (suspect Terry Nichols will be tried later), this group clashed with the American criminal justice system. What happened? Why?
Last year in February, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, who is hearing both McVeigh’s and Nichols’ trials, moved the trials from Oklahoma City to Denver. He felt it would be impossible to find an impartial jury in Oklahoma City, where so many had been touched by the bombing. (Opening arguments began last week.)
Then, months after the February ruling, Matsch ruled that victim-witnesses scheduled to testify at either trial could be in the courtroom only to testify. He also banned from the courtroom any victims who wanted to testify at a possible sentencing hearing. Matsch worried that victims’ testimony might be influenced by what they heard or saw in court.
Although Matsch’s decisions might seem unfair to bombing victims, they were based on American criminal law. It’s a system that’s grounded in the Constitution, says Mark Kappelhoff, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “It was our founding fathers’ undying concern that the individual be protected against the power of the government. That’s primarily what the Bill of Rights is about.”
Since criminal legal proceedings can result in a person’s freedom being taken away, he says, it’s not surprising that the individual protections found in the Bill of Rights are reflected in the criminal justice system.
So when Matsch moved the trials to Denver and banned victim-witnesses from the courtroom, Kappelhoff says, he was simply upholding the law. He did the first to protect the defendants’ right to a fair trial; he did the second to keep the testimony by victim-witnesses untainted.
But bombing victims claimed that Matsch’s decisions trampled on their rights. To see the trial, they would be forced to travel 600 miles to Denver; and victim-witnesses would be forced to choose between attending the trial or testifying.
Unable to persuade the judge to change his mind, they turned to Congress. Congress responded by passing an emergency measure that allowed a closed-circuit TV in the courtroom so the victims could watch the trial from Oklahoma City. Then, just weeks before McVeigh’s trial, it passed a bill allowing all bombing victims to attend both trials.
In signing the bill into law, President Clinton said, “When someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.”
0ver the last 10 years, most states have passed victims’-rights legislation that allows victims to be part of criminal proceedings. And a 1990 federal law offers the same rights. But in many cases, when the rights of victims and defendants clash, a judge will decide the defendant’s rights are more important. (Victims’-rights advocates are trying to get a constitutional amendment passed that guarantees victims’ rights.)
The problem is that victims’ rights are often neglected in the court’s efforts to guarantee a defendant’s rights, says John Stein of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA).
Stein says the Oklahoma bombing victims — because there are so many of them and because of the nature of their losses — are an exception to the rule. “The crime committed against them horrified an entire nation.”
Stein doesn’t think what the bombing victims accomplished will extend to other crime victims. He does believe, however, that they “have reawakened peoples’ concerns about victims.”
Paul Robinson, a law professor at Northwestern University, says the victims’ courtroom victories probably won’t alter the outcome of the trial. He says their real value is in providing closure to victims. “If they feel they’ve had a hand in (the criminal proceedings), then it’s easier to move on.”
WHO IS INCOURTROOM
The defense:
Timothy McVeigh has 14 attorneys and Terry Nichols has eight; all are being paid for by taxpayers. Experts estimate the total cost of both trials at around $50 million.
Seats for the defendants’ families have been reserved in the Denver courtroom, which seats about 100.
The prosecution:
The prosecution, representing the federal government and bombing victims, is backed by the almost unlimited resources of the federal government — and also paid for by taxpayers.
No seats have been reserved in the courtroom for victims. Those who wish to attend the trial will have to wait in line with other spectators for a handful of seats. Most will watch the trial on closed-circuit TV from a 330-seat auditorium in Oklahoma City.
