Death Penalty Opposed in Bombing Case

Attorneys for the alleged conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombing argued Monday that their clients should not face the death penalty for the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, telling a federal judge that top officials in Washington, including President Clinton, prejudged the case against them even before they were arrested.

In addition, lawyers for Terry L. Nichols contended that he was a family man trying to start a new business when he surrendered last April, and that his relationship with co-conspirator Timothy J. McVeigh was unraveling in the weeks before the blast that killed 169 people and injured 600 others.

There was a significant falling out between the two men, attorney Michael E. Tigar said, and “by the spring of 1995, Terry Nichols’ and Timothy McVeigh’s relationship was in definite decline.”

In a separate court filing, lawyers for McVeigh attacked the death penalty as inhumane and unconstitutional.

“It is simply wrong and immoral to kill people in an effort to teach people that it is wrong and immoral to kill people,” said attorney Stephen Jones.

Jones and Tigar are asking a federal judge here to eliminate the death penalty as a possible punishment for the two defendants, should they be convicted at trial. They stressed that the decision by the Department of Justice in Washington to seek the death penalty for the bombing was made even before McVeigh or Nichols had been identified as suspects.

They noted that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno announced in Washington shortly after the bombing that the government “would seek the death penalty against those responsible.”

And they recalled Clinton’s similar statement on April 21 reacting to the news that McVeigh had just been arrested: “As I said on Wednesday, [April 19, the day of the bombing] justice for these killers will be certain, swift and severe. We will find them. We will convict them. And we will seek the death penalty for them.”

But while Jones attacked the death penalty statute on mostly legal grounds, Tigar argued that Nichols should be spared the ultimate punishment because he is innocent and because he voluntarily turned himself in on the day McVeigh was arrested in the bombing.

“Terry Nichols’ actions after the bombing are not those of a terrorist, a murderer, or criminal of any sort,” Tigar said.

Rather, he said, they were the actions “of an innocent, responsible, decent and law-abiding man working hard to create a home and a livelihood for his wife, Marife, their daughter, Nichole, and their new baby yet to come.”

Tigar said Nichols moved to central Kansas earlier this year to start a new business selling military supplies and to one day become an organic farmer. He denied that his client sought to hide himself in the middle of the country, as the government has alleged, to help McVeigh plan and build the truck bomb.

Tigar said that McVeigh “introduced” Nichols to the gun-show circuit, and that for awhile the two former Army buddies traveled together selling military-style items. But later, the lawyer said, they parted ways.

“He [Nichols] reduced the proportion of his business devoted to guns, dreading the future hassles created by new gun restrictions,” Tigar said. “This decision created distance between [him] and Timothy McVeigh in a business as well as a personal context.

“Any conduct by Terry Nichols was minor, unknowing and without criminal intent,” Tigar said.