ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, May 2, 1996 TAG: 9605020073
SECTION: NATL/INTL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: DENVER
SOURCE: The Washington Post
Defense attorneys for Oklahoma City bombing suspects Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols asked the court Wednesday to throw out the government's decision to seek the death penalty in the case, charging that Attorney General Janet Reno ignored her own procedures by publicly calling for the tough sentence before the men were even identified as suspects.
McVeigh and Nichols have been charged with blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people, including eight law enforcement officers. The government is seeking to execute the former Army buddies under a relatively new federal statute covering a wide range of crimes involving murder. Three months before the bombing, Reno had issued new procedures for seeking the death sentence that allow defense counsel to present any unique or mitigating factors before the Justice Department decides whether to pursue the death penalty.
Stephen Jones, McVeigh's attorney, and Michael Tigar, Nichols' attorney, claimed Wednesday that because Reno, within hours of the bombing, vowed to execute those responsible, the government had in fact ``prejudged'' the matter. ``The government simply cannot ignore its own rules in determining who lives and who dies,'' said Jones in the hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in Denver. The trial was moved here after Matsch ruled the accused could not get a fair trial in Oklahoma.
Tigar argued that both defendants received identical letters about the government's plans, indicating that prosecutors did not consider their individual circumstances.
The defense asked the court to strike the government's request for the death penalty, disqualify Reno on the matter, and reassign it to Solicitor General Drew Days for reconsideration. Defense attorneys also challenged the overall constitutionality of the 1994 death penalty statute, saying it is too broad and vague. Prosecutor Sean Connelly responded that the government's policy was merely an internal guideline, affording McVeigh and Nichols ``no substantive or procedural rights.''
He later added, ``If the death penalty is not appropriate to this case, it's hard to imagine a case where it would be.''
Congress in 1988 established a federal death penalty for drug-related murders, and then added many more crimes subject to capital punishment to the 1994 crime bill. Among them are some of the offenses with which McVeigh and Nichols are charged: murder during the bombing of a federal building, using a weapon of mass destruction with death resulting, and the killing of law enforcement officers. Since 1990, the federal death penalty has been authorized against 65 defendants, seven of whom are on death row. The statute has not been tested at the Supreme Court.
Matsch is not expected to rule on the matter for several weeks.
In other developments, the government and Tigar asked Matsch to discontinue his longtime practice of making audiotapes of proceedings available, saying broadcast material may influence potential witnesses and encourage court theatrics.
Prosecutors on Tuesday accused defense attorneys - particularly Jones - and prejudicial information to the press. Prosecutor Joseph Hartzler asked Matsch to bar attorneys from further disclosures. Jones, who has been the most accessible attorney in this case, said he would formally respond to what he called ``prosecutorial McCarthyism.''
LENGTH: Medium: 66 linesby CNB