*1 TITLE: United States of America, Plaintiff v. Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols, Defendants.

TOPIC: TERRY LYNN NICHOLS' MEMORANDUM CONCERNING RESERVED SEATING

DOCKET-NUMBER: 96-CR-68-M

VENUE: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

YEAR: Filed: June 25, 1996

JUDGE: Hon. Richard P. Matsch, Chief District Judge

ATTORNEY(S): Michael E. Tigar, Esq., Denver, Ronald G. Woods, Esq., Houston, N. Reid Neureiter Esq., Adam Thurschwell, Esq., Denver, For the Defendant Terry Lynn Nichols.

TEXT:

Terry Lynn Nichols, by undersigned counsel, files this response to the government's motion concerning reserved seating at court sessions.

As the Court noted in its order of June 21, 1996, denying reserved seating, the government is fulfilling its obligations under 42 U.S.C. s 10606, to use its "best efforts" to see that certain persons are accorded the right to be present at court proceedings. The Court notes, however, that to grant the government's motion would require the Court to "make a judicial declaration that victims occupy a preferred position in the criminal justice system." For all the reasons stated in our earlier memoranda, we do not believe that such a holding is either prudent or authorized.

However, we recognize that the intense interest in these proceedings should be dealt with in a way that respects the rights of all litigants. In addition, we believe that the Court should not have the burden of making these sorts of decisions on a day-to-day or detailed basis. The statute cited by the government imposes a duty not upon the Court, but simply upon the Justice Department.

Therefore, we propose that the Court direct that a fair number of seats be set aside (as is now the practice) for the media, and that each party be given a certain number of passes, which it can use in its discretion to see that persons identified with its interests have access to court proceedings. This is the sort of order that might be made in any case, criminal or civil.

We suggest that the government be allowed ten such passes, and that each defense team be allowed five such passes. In the event of a severance, each side at each of the separate trials would be awarded ten passes. The details of this system could be worked out with the Clerk and Marshal.

Our proposal recognizes the various interests at stake, while not according any litigant, nor any group, the sort of preference to which the Court referred in its June 21, 1996, order.

Dated: June .., 1996.