United States v. McVeigh
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (defendants) were indicted in connection with an Oklahoma City explosion that killed or injured hundreds of people and destroyed the federal office building. The court found that obtaining an impartial jury in Oklahoma City would be difficult and designated Lawton, Oklahoma, as the place for trial. McVeigh and Nichols moved for a venue change because of the extensive news coverage of the explosion and arrests. The parties submitted the results of opinion surveys and voluminous publicity showing that media coverage continued in Oklahoma in the weeks after the explosion. Television stations focused on the victims and the impact of their loss on families. Teddy bears and angels were displayed throughout Oklahoma symbolizing the deaths of the infants and young children in the federal building. Public sympathy for the victims was demonstrated through T-shirts and license plates. Videotape and photographs of the arrests were shown on television. Broadcasts suggested McVeigh and Nichols were associated with right-wing militia groups. Interviews of citizens emphasized the need for certainty in a guilty verdict. There was a citizens’ movement in Oklahoma to support legislation limiting the reviewability of death sentences.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matsch, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
