United States v. McVeigh
153 F.3d 1166 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Prejudice from pretrial publicity is presumed only in extreme situations where media coverage is so pervasive and inflammatory that it creates a circus-like atmosphere, displacing the judicial process. Absent presumed prejudice, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by finding no actual prejudice when it employs procedural safeguards like a change of venue and conducts a thorough voir dire where jurors affirm they can be impartial.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1994, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols acquired materials to construct a large bomb, including 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and stolen explosives.
- McVeigh informed his friends, Michael and Lori Fortier, of his plan to blow up a federal building on the anniversary of the 1993 Waco siege to incite a general uprising against the federal government.
- McVeigh identified the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City as the target, citing its U-shape and glass front as making it vulnerable.
- On April 19, 1995, a Ryder truck containing a massive bomb exploded in front of the Murrah Building, killing 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center.
- The rear axle of the Ryder truck, found at the blast site, was traced to a vehicle McVeigh had rented two days prior under the alias 'Robert King'.
- Approximately 77 minutes after the explosion, Oklahoma State Trooper Charles Hanger stopped McVeigh about 78 miles north of Oklahoma City for driving a car without a license plate.
- Hanger arrested McVeigh after discovering he was carrying a concealed, loaded firearm.
- While McVeigh was in custody on the state gun charge, federal authorities identified him as the primary suspect in the bombing; subsequent tests found explosives residue on his clothing and earplugs.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury returned an eleven-count indictment against Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
- The government filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for a change of venue, transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- The district court granted a motion for severance, ordering that McVeigh’s trial would proceed first.
- McVeigh filed a motion to postpone the trial due to publicity surrounding an alleged confession, which the district court denied.
- After a trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all eleven counts.
- Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury recommended that McVeigh be sentenced to death, and the district court imposed the sentence.
- McVeigh filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does extensive, negative pretrial publicity, including media reports of a defendant's alleged confession, violate a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial by creating presumed or actual prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge.
No, the pretrial publicity did not violate McVeigh's constitutional rights to a fair trial. The court reasoned that prejudice should not be presumed because this case did not rise to the level of an extreme situation, such as those in Sheppard v. Maxwell or Rideau v. Louisiana, where media influence pervasively corrupted the proceedings. The court distinguished this case by noting several key factors: 1) the trial court granted a change of venue from Oklahoma to Denver, a large metropolitan area, mitigating local passion; 2) the reports of McVeigh's confession were unattributed hearsay, not a broadcast of an actual confession as in Rideau; 3) McVeigh's own lawyers publicly disputed the confession's accuracy, creating public doubt; and 4) the trial court repeatedly admonished the jury pool to avoid media reports. Regarding actual prejudice, the court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The voir dire process was thorough and extensive, and each seated juror affirmed his or her ability to be impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence presented in court. The appellate court gives deference to the trial court's firsthand evaluation of jurors' credibility and their declarations of impartiality.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely high standard for a defendant to prove presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity, even in a case of unprecedented national attention. It underscores the judiciary's confidence in procedural safeguards, primarily change of venue and thorough voir dire, to ensure a fair trial in the face of intense media coverage. The ruling establishes that even reports of a defendant's confession are not sufficient to presume prejudice if they are hearsay, their accuracy is publicly disputed, and the trial court takes strong measures to vet the jury for actual bias. The case serves as a major modern precedent on how courts balance First Amendment press freedoms with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. McVeigh