'U' community satisfied with bombing verdict

By Jason Stoffer
and Christine M. Paik
Daily Staff Reporters

Despite strict orders against all outbursts, Judge Richard Matsch delivered before he read the jury's decision in the Oklahoma City bombing trial, a sense of jubilation filled the Denver courtroom on Monday as Timothy McVeigh was found guilty on 11 counts of murder and conspiracy.

The jury's decision was based solely on circumstantial evidence, because the prosecution was unable to definitely place McVeigh in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing.

John Zitko, a third-year Law student, has mixed feelings toward the verdict.

In terms of direct evidence, McVeigh's involvement is questionable, Zitko said.

"He didn't speak up for himself, nor stand up for himself from the beginning," Zitko said. "I think there's some question as to whether he really is guilty or not."

However, Robert Precht, a defense attorney in the World Trade Center bombing and director of the Office of Public Service at the University's Law School, said the prosecution's use of indirect evidence is no cause for worry.

"The concern McVeigh was convicted on circumstantial evidence is misplaced," Precht said. "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

Matsch, a 1953 University Law School graduate, received praise for the manner in which he conducted the trial.

Richard Rohr, a Detroit lawyer, who worked with Matsch on the University Law Review, said Matsch's personality helped keep the trial in proper bounds.

"Matsch is not one to put up with nonsense," he said. "I thought his rulings were good and he kept things from becoming a circus."

"Dick was a very highly respected person in law school and he continues to be," Rohr said. "It is nice to see such a superior intelligence at work on the bench."

The jury's decision was not made without an emotional toll. Two jurors held tissues near their eyes as the verdict was read, coming close to tears.

Andrea Lyon, an assistant clinical Law professor, said that "the length of time it took to deliberate indicates some jurors had doubts.

"My guess is that the two jurors who were crying were emotionally attacked and pressured into a guilty verdict," she said.

Lyon was not surprised by the outcome of the trial.

"(The defense) almost always loses death penalty cases because of the horrible crime, weeping families and a lack of political diversity on the jury," Lyon said. "The odds of prosecution not winning are 100 to one."

LSA senior Kevin Cox said that McVeigh was tried fairly, and the guilty verdict fit the crime.

"Granted, they didn't see him actually in Oklahoma City, but a lot of the evidence definitely did point to him," Cox said. "He was given a fair trial."

Although the jury returned a guilty verdict, their work is not complete - they now must decide McVeigh's penalty.

"If the death penalty was ever fit for anybody, it would be Timothy McVeigh," Cox added.

Precht warns the jury not to let emotions affect their decision.

"I hope all sides will reduce emotionalism in the case and concentrate on the facts because emotionalism causes unreliable results," said Precht.

Lyon said there is a strong possibility that juror's fears of backlash could affect the trial's outcome.

However, she said "the jury was not 100 percent sure of guilt. If this is true, they may not impose the death penalty."

06-04-97