Judge Refuses to Remove Wall Shielding Bombing Jury

The judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case refused Saturday to tear down a custom-built wall that partially obscures the jury from courtroom spectators. He also refused news media bids for more information on the jurors, but delayed ruling on challenges to a strict gag order on lawyers.

The motions were presented by media attorney Kelli Sager, representing more than 70 news organizations.

U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch refused to tear down the wall or to unseal juror numbers and transcripts of closed-door arguments to dismiss jurors for legal cause.

“People who come in to serve on a jury do not consent to a strip search of their psyche,” Matsch said at a hearing. “And the press doesn’t have any warrant for it.”

Matsch said he had the wall built to keep jurors from being distracted or intimidated by a closed-circuit television camera that lets victims and survivors of the bombing watch the trial in Oklahoma City.

He also said he was concerned about the jury’s safety.

“I know this because of some communications sent to me. It’s fair to characterize them as something considerably different from messages of friendly persuasion,” he said, adding there was no reason to connect them with defendant Timothy J. McVeigh or any of his associates.

The longest argument of the hearing was over the gag order that prevents lawyers from talking to reporters about the case. News organizations and Stephen Jones, the lead attorney for McVeigh, argued for a looser order that would allow lawyers to discuss parts of the case outside court.

“I don’t seek relief from the court’s order in order to become a media star,” Jones said, adding that he simply wanted the right to reply to things raised in the media.

“There is no one else that speaks for Mr. McVeigh but me,” Jones said.

Although Matsch expressed reservations about lifting the gag order, he seemed willing to consider a modified version.

“The court of public opinion is closed and the real court is open,” Matsch said.

Sager argued that the judge was turning the Constitution “on its head.”

“There is a constitutional right to receive information,” she said.

When Sager pressed the media’s case, Matsch thundered down at her, saying lawyers in other cases had become “spin artists” and that he has a right to control what the public thinks of the case.

“What we ought to be trying to do is try to get people to be trusting [of the legal system] rather than cynical,” Matsch said heatedly.