Oklahoma City bombing

===Timothy McVeigh===
{{Main|Timothy McVeigh}}
Opening statements in McVeigh's trial began on April 24, 1997. The [[Federal government of the United States|United States]] was represented by a team of prosecutors led by Joseph Hartzler. In his opening statement Hartzler outlined McVeigh's motivations, and the evidence against him. McVeigh, he said, had developed a hatred of the government during his time in the army, after reading ''[[The Turner Diaries]]''. His beliefs were supported by what he saw as the militia's ideological opposition to increases in taxes and the passage of the [[Brady Bill]], and were further reinforced by the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents.<ref name="Sympathizers"/> The prosecution called 137&nbsp;witnesses, including Michael Fortier and his wife Lori, and McVeigh's sister, Jennifer McVeigh, all of whom testified to confirm McVeigh's hatred of the government and his desire to take militant action against it.<ref name="Wright10">{{cite book|title=Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing|last=Wright|first=Stuart|page=10|isbn=978-0-521-69419-3|date=June 11, 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref> Both Fortiers testified that McVeigh had told them of his plans to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Michael Fortier revealed that McVeigh had chosen the date, and Lori Fortier testified that she had created the false identification card McVeigh used to rent the Ryder truck.<ref name="TMT">{{cite web|url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighaccount.html |title=The Oklahoma City Bombing & The Trial of Timothy McVeigh |last=Linder |first=Douglas O. |year=2006 |work=Famous Trials: Oklahoma City Bombing Trial |publisher=[[University of Missouri–Kansas City]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110223000407/http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighaccount.html |archive-date=February 23, 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

McVeigh was represented by a team of six principal attorneys, led by [[Stephen Jones (attorney)|Stephen Jones]].<ref name="Petition">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/threat/mcveigh/front.htm |title=Petition for Writ of Mandamus of Petitioner-Defendant, Timothy James McVeigh and Brief in Support |work=Case No. 96-CR-68-M |date=March 25, 1997 |publisher=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120811035049/http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mcveigh/front.htm |archive-date=August 11, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> According to law professor [[Doug Linder|Douglas O. Linder]], McVeigh wanted Jones to present a "necessity defense"&nbsp;– which would argue that he was in "imminent danger" from the government (that his bombing was intended to prevent future crimes by the government, such as the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents).<ref name="TMT"/> McVeigh argued that "imminent" does not mean "immediate": "If a comet is hurtling toward the earth, and it's out past the orbit of Pluto, it's not an immediate threat to Earth, but it is an imminent threat."{{sfnp|Michel|Herbeck|2001|pp=285–286}} Despite McVeigh's wishes, Jones attempted to discredit the prosecution's case in an attempt to instill reasonable doubt. Jones also believed that McVeigh was part of a larger conspiracy, and sought to present him as "the designated patsy",<ref name="TMT"/> but McVeigh disagreed with Jones arguing that rationale for his defense. After a hearing, Judge Matsch independently ruled the evidence concerning a larger conspiracy to be too insubstantial to be admissible.<ref name="TMT"/> In addition to arguing that the bombing could not have been carried out by two men alone, Jones also attempted to create reasonable doubt by arguing that no one had seen McVeigh near the scene of the crime, and that the investigation into the bombing had lasted only two weeks.<ref name="TMT"/> Jones presented 25 witnesses, including [[Frederic Whitehurst]], over a one-week period. Although Whitehurst described the FBI's sloppy investigation of the bombing site and its handling of other key evidence, he was unable to point to any direct evidence that he knew to be contaminated.<ref name="TMT"/>

A key point of contention in the case was the unmatched left leg found after the bombing. Although it was initially believed to be from a male, it was later determined to belong to Lakesha Levy, a female member of the Air Force who was killed in the bombing.<ref name="LakeshaLeg">{{cite news|last=Johnston |first=David |title=Leg in the Oklahoma City Rubble Was That of a Black Woman |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/31/us/leg-in-the-oklahoma-city-rubble-was-that-of-a-black-woman.html |date=August 31, 1995 |work=[[The New York Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090627135820/http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/31/us/leg-in-the-oklahoma-city-rubble-was-that-of-a-black-woman.html |archive-date=June 27, 2009 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Levy's coffin had to be re-opened so that her leg could replace another unmatched leg that had previously been buried with her remains. The unmatched leg had been embalmed, which prevented authorities from being able to extract DNA to determine its owner.<ref name="LeftLeg"/> Jones argued that the leg could have belonged to another bomber, possibly John Doe No. 2.<ref name="LeftLeg"/> The prosecution disputed the claim, saying that the leg could have belonged to any one of eight victims who had been buried without a left leg.<ref name="WritingEnd100"/>

Numerous damaging leaks, which appeared to originate from conversations between McVeigh and his defense attorneys, emerged. They included a confession said to have been inadvertently included on a computer disk that was given to the press, which McVeigh believed seriously compromised his chances of getting a fair trial.<ref name="TMT"/> A [[gag order]] was imposed during the trial, prohibiting attorneys on either side from commenting to the press on the evidence, proceedings, or opinions regarding the trial proceedings. The defense was allowed to enter into evidence six pages of a 517-page Justice Department report criticizing the FBI crime laboratory and David Williams, one of the agency's explosives experts, for reaching unscientific and biased conclusions. The report claimed that Williams had worked backward in the investigation rather than basing his determinations on forensic evidence.{{sfnp|Michel|Herbeck|2001|p=315–317}}

The jury deliberated for 23&nbsp;hours. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on 11&nbsp;counts of murder and conspiracy.<ref name="OSCN">{{cite web|title=U.S. v. McVeigh |url=http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=151372 |publisher=Oklahoma State Courts Network |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081227064229/http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=151372 |archive-date=December 27, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="1997-06-03 Denver Post">{{cite news |last1=Eddy |first1=Mark |last2=Lane |first2=George |last3=Pankratz |first3=Howard |last4=Wilmsen |first4=Steven |date=1997-06-03 |title=Guilty on every count |url=https://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/bombv1.htm |url-status=live |work=[[The Denver Post]] |language=en |issn=1930-2193 |oclc=8789877 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231018204239/https://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/bombv1.htm |archive-date=2023-10-18 |access-date=2024-01-12}}</ref> Although the defense argued for a reduced sentence of life imprisonment, McVeigh was sentenced to death.<ref name="Time">{{cite magazine|last=Pellegrini |first=Frank |title=McVeigh Given Death Penalty |url=http://www.time.com/time/reports/mcveigh/home.html |magazine=Time |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090115160903/http://www.time.com/time/reports/mcveigh/home.html |archive-date=January 15, 2009 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In May 2001, the Justice Department announced that the FBI had mistakenly failed to provide over 3,000 documents to McVeigh's defense counsel.<ref name="CNN3000">{{cite news |last=Bierbauer |first=Charles |author2=Susan Candiotti |author3=Gina London |author4=Terry Frieden |title=McVeigh execution rescheduled for June&nbsp;11 |url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/11/mcveigh.evidence.05/index.html |publisher=CNN |date=May 11, 2001 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120928220930/http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-11/justice/mcveigh.evidence.05_1_timothy-mcveigh-mcveigh-plan-mcveigh-execution?_s=PM:LAW |archive-date=September 28, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The Justice Department also announced that the execution would be postponed for one month for the defense to review the documents. On June 6, federal judge [[Richard Paul Matsch]] ruled the documents would not prove McVeigh innocent and ordered the execution to proceed.<ref name="WPProceed">{{cite news|agency=Associated Press |title=Judge Won't Delay McVeigh Execution |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010606/aponline140014_000.htm |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=June 6, 2001 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325115212/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010606/aponline140014_000.htm |archive-date=March 25, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> McVeigh invited conductor [[David Woodard]] to perform pre-requiem [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] music on the eve of his execution; while reproachful of McVeigh's capital wrongdoing, Woodard consented.<ref>Siletti, M. J., [https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/102495/SILETTI-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ''Sounding the last mile: Music and capital punishment in the United States since 1976''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200601010605/https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/102495/SILETTI-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |date=June 1, 2020 }}, doctoral dissertation under the tutelage of Prof. J. Magee, [[University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign]], 2018, pp. 240–241.</ref>{{rp|240–241}} After President [[George W. Bush]] approved the execution (McVeigh was a federal inmate and federal law dictates that the president must approve the execution of federal prisoners), he was executed by [[lethal injection]] at the [[Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute]] in [[Terre Haute, Indiana]], on June 11, 2001.<ref name="CNNPrez">{{cite news |last=Mears |first=Bill |title=Bush approves execution of Army private |url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/military.execution/index.html |publisher=CNN |date=July 28, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331111324/http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-28/justice/military.execution_1_execution-date-death-row-military-justice?_s=PM:CRIME |archive-date=March 31, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="CNN3">{{cite news |title=McVeigh Execution: A "completion of justice" |url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.02/index.html |publisher=CNN |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727172352/http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-11/justice/mcveigh.02_1_kathleen-treanor-timothy-mcveigh-mcveigh-execution?_s=PM:LAW |archive-date=July 27, 2011 |date=June 11, 2001 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36557081 |work=NBC News Report |title=Day of Reckoning (execution of Timothy McVeigh) |date=June 11, 2001 |format=Video}}</ref> The execution was transmitted on [[closed-circuit television]] so that the relatives of the victims could witness his death.<ref name="CTVN">{{cite news |last=Frieden |first=Terry |title=Okla. families can watch McVeigh execution on TV |url=http://articles.cnn.com/2001-04-12/justice/ashcroft.mcveigh.02_1_mcveigh-execution-timothy-mcveigh-closed-circuit-television-feed?_s=PM:LAW |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120122110556/http://articles.cnn.com/2001-04-12/justice/ashcroft.mcveigh.02_1_mcveigh-execution-timothy-mcveigh-closed-circuit-television-feed?_s=PM:LAW |archive-date=January 22, 2012 |publisher=CNN |date=April 12, 2001 |url-status=dead}}</ref> McVeigh's execution was the first [[Capital punishment by the United States federal government|federal execution]] in 38 years.<ref name="Wright17">{{cite book|title=Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing|last=Wright|first=Stuart|page=17|isbn=978-0-521-69419-3|date=June 11, 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref>