| COURTROOM ARRANGEMENT |
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, UNDER SEAL v. TERRY LYNN NICHOLS, Defendant. COURTROOM ARRANGEMENT Terry Lynn Nichols, through counsel, requests that this court alter the counsel table designations. Currently, the prosecutors sit at counsel tables situated directly in front of the jury box, and defense counsel at tables along the opposite side wall of the well of the courtroom. Counsel for Mr. Nichols request that the Court allow he and his counsel to occupy the tables nearest the jury in his upcoming trial for the following reasons: Government lawyers’ inability to control emotions during victim testimony. During Timothy McVeigh’s trial, certain government counsel cried and made inappropriate facial expressions during victim witness testimony. However inappropriate this behavior may be, it is only exacerbated by the fact that such prosecutors were exhibiting such emotion only inches from jurors. As the Court is aware, Mr. Patrick Ryan, one of the prosecutors unable to control his emotions during the McVeigh trial, will participate in Mr. Nichols trial in what seems to be an ever-increasing capacity. As the Court is also aware, Mr. Ryan stated in a recent hearing on Mr. Nichols’ motion to disqualify him, that "…I won’t pretend to tell your Honor that there won’t be times in trial that will be difficult, because there will be. All I can do is promise to your Honor to do my utmost to maintain the proper decorum in the courtroom." (transc. at 25) There is no guarantee that Mr. Ryan will be able to contain his emotions in Mr. Nichols’ trial. However, if such behavior should occur by Mr. Ryan or any other prosecutor, putting some distance between it and the jurors may decrease the prejudicial effects. 2. The current courtroom setup does not allow all jurors to see Mr. Nichols and vice versa. With Mr. Nichols and defense counsel seated opposite the jury, the large monitor placed in front of the jurors blocks the view of Mr. Nichols of some jurors. Likewise, Mr. Nichols’ view of some jurors is obstructed. If Mr. Nichols is seated at the table nearest the jury, a clear line of vision between he and each of the jurors is more easily accomplished. Counsel requests that the Court allow the above changes in the courtroom. In the alternative, we suggest that the two seats closest to the jury at the government counsel tables are left vacant throughout the trial of Mr. Nichols. However, if the Court chooses to accept this alternative, counsel requests that the large monitor in front of the jurors be moved to a position that does not obstruct the jurors’ view of Mr. Nichols’ and his view of them. Respectfully submitted, Ronald G. Woods Adam Thurschwell (303) 831-4059 Counsel for Terry Lynn Nichols |