Tales from the 10th

A podcast about the rich history, culture and contributions of the Tenth Circuit Courts. Brought to you by the Tenth Circuit Historical Society and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

All Episodes

Tales from the 10th

Tales from the 10th: Judge Matsch Podcast Part 2: Oklahoma City Bombing Trials

September 23, 2024 • 10th Circuit Historical Society • Season 2024 • Episode 2

Judge Richard P. Matsch (1930-2019) served as a United States District Judge for the District of Colorado from 1974 to 2019. He is best known for his service as the trial judge in charge of the criminal trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were convicted in 1997 for their roles in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Second podcast episode:

In the second podcast episode, Judge Matsch discussed his work overseeing the United States v. McVeigh and United States v. Nichols criminal cases. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were charged with orchestrating the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Matsch sought to hold fair trials that respected both the interest of the people in Oklahoma harmed by the bombing of the federal building and also the rights of the criminal defendants.

Part of protecting the defendants’ rights included providing significant financial support for the defense teams. Matsch famously told participants: “This is not theater; this is a trial.”

McVeigh was convicted in 1997, sentenced to death, and executed in 2001 after an appeal of his conviction. Nichols was convicted in 1997 and sentenced to life in prison.

Judge Matsch explained how he dealt with public interest in the trial:

I stressed to everybody, this case is not about me. When I was first notified of this, the press got it; there was a demand that there be an opportunity to talk to me about it. So I stood out on the courthouse steps on that afternoon and answered a few questions, but that was the last time I ever met with the press. It was important to recognize, all right, this is a trial. We have a lot of trials. We're doing this as much as possible. It's just another trial.

When it comes to the trial itself, of course, the fundamental question is fairness and the ability to see the defendant sitting at defense table as a human being and not objectify this person as someone who has done some terrible crime.

But he also explained how he dealt at trial with the emotionally powerful evidence:

So in the Oklahoma City trials, I had the difficult problem of very emotional testimony from people in the building and relatives. That was heartbreaking. One of the most emotional parts of that case was that right there in the front of that building was a nursery, a daycare center, and all those children were killed, including babies. And we had, of course, a lot of visualization of the scene. We had as evidence the initial response. All of this was relevant to the size of the explosive device and what it, what the principal components were. Because the connection--one of the connections here, and particularly Terry Nichols, was the ammonium phosphate fertilizer, as being the major component of the bomb, which was, a series of barrels connected with ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, and other. So, I took the position that the impact, the nature of the building, and all that was relevant to the structure of the bomb.

Tales from the 10th:

Judge Matsch Podcast Part 2: Oklahoma City Bombing Trials

Music 00:00

Leah C. Schwartz 00:13

Hello and welcome to Tales from the 10th, a podcast about the rich history culture and contributions of the 10th Circuit. Brought to you by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the 10th Circuit Historical Society. I'm your host, Leah Schwartz, and I'm producer Tina Howell.

Leah C. Schwartz 00:31

This episode is our second devoted to the oral history of District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch. Judge Matsch presided over the criminal trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols related to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Then the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in United States history. This episode excerpts the portion of Judge Matsch's oral history in which he describes that trial. In this recording, Judge Matsch is interviewed by Judge Bruce Campbell.

Bruce Campbell 01:03

In the Oklahoma City bombing trials, some felt you were tasked with upholding due process and restoring public confidence in the trial process itself, following circus like trials in then recent cases of intense national attention, specifically the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases, the conduct of which had shaken the American public's faith in the quality and integrity of the American judicial process. Did you sense that the American trial process was itself on trial when that case was assigned to Colorado, and more specifically, to you?

Richard P. Matsch 01:50

I didn't think about that.

Bruce Campbell 01:51

Or was it just another day of the office.

Richard P. Matsch 01:54

That's what I tried to tried to instill in everybody involved in the court side. Remember that the case was filed in Oklahoma City, and that it was first assigned to a judge in Oklahoma City, who, early on, decided that the trial would be held at Fort Sill.

Bruce Campbell 02:18

Just a change of venue within the district.

Richard P. Matsch 02:21

The place of trial should be Fort Sill, because of security concerns, well, and other things that happened. And of course, the end result was the 10th Circuit disqualifying all of the judges in the Western District of Oklahoma, in fact the whole, all three districts in Oklahoma.

Bruce Campbell 02:22

As my recollection was, because all of them were closely acquainted to people who had been injured or killed.

Richard P. Matsch 02:47

Of course. The courthouse was just not far away and was itself--the windows blown out as a part of the same blast. But at any rate, and the case began, my assignment began in Oklahoma City. So I was in the early days holding hearings down there. But I fortunately had a great clerk of court, Jim Manspeaker, and he kept me away from the press. And when I first went down to Oklahoma City and came off the airplane, I had one of these press groups following--not following me, but preceding me, asking me questions as I got off the airplane and going to the hotel. So, and there was great hostility that this Denver judge was going to take our case, including the governor and others very upset about it.

Richard P. Matsch 03:49

But I stressed to everybody, this case is not about me. When I was first notified of this, the press got it; there was a demand that there be an opportunity to talk to me about it. So I stood out on the courthouse steps on that afternoon and answered a few questions, but that was the last time I ever met with the press. It was important to recognize, all right, this is a trial. We have a lot of trials. We're doing this as much as possible. It's just another trial.

Bruce Campbell 04:27

I'm not sure it was the first day of the trial, but there is a quote that stuck with me: "This is not theater; this is a trial."

Richard P. Matsch 04:38

Yes.

Bruce Campbell 04:38

Do you know who said that?

Richard P. Matsch 04:39

Yes. But you know, and of course, there was a lot of press coverage. And CBS, Dan Rather.

Richard P. Matsch 04:50

Took up residence over here in the nearby building. But he wrote to me a letter he had at that time a program called 48 Hours. And he wanted me to be on that 48 Hours program as what would be 48 Hours in the life of a trial judge in a prominent trial.

Bruce Campbell 04:52

Dan Rather.

Bruce Campbell 05:14

This was your chance for 15 minutes in the sun.

Richard P. Matsch 05:18

Yeah. And of course, I respectfully declined the invitation. But I tried to keep everything in perspective. There were things that changed. Of course, Congress required that I, passed certain statutes requiring that I transmit the trial to, by closed-circuit television to Oklahoma City, which I did. And the thing about that that didn't get well recognized, I think anywhere was, Gaspar Perricone my friend who was retired from the bench in Jefferson County.

Bruce Campbell 05:53

Right, and who had been a practitioner before you as a referee, when you were a referee.

Richard P. Matsch 05:59

And he was one of the trustees in bankruptcy. So I knew him well. He accepted my request that he go down there and sit on a bench in the FAA, in a Federal Aviation Administration, auditorium and where the trial was on the screen. I had a fixed camera with a fixed position, so they couldn't move around and nobody could see the jury. But I was on camera, and the lawyers were on camera and the witness. But he presided down there when they were like 350 was the capacity. He wore a robe. He sat there and maintained order in that room, and also explained what was happening to people.

Bruce Campbell 06:51

That was a long assignment because the trial...

Richard P. Matsch 06:53

Right two trials. So and he did not ask for any money to do that, except for expenses.

Bruce Campbell 07:02

I know myself of what you speak because the courtroom in which you tried the case still has, that courtroom has been largely

Richard P. Matsch 07:12

Destroyed.

Bruce Campbell 07:13

Well, left alone, as the district judges have moved to the Arraj building. But the camera pod and the block off of the jury is still there when the bankruptcy courts were renovated with TARP money, when it became available, they moved the bankruptcy judges back into Rogers for a year and a half, and I presided in that very courtroom that still has the infrastructure that was built specially for what you just described.

Bruce Campbell 07:51

They walled up where it was, where the camera was in the far back, very high up.

Richard P. Matsch 07:51

I thought they tore that out.

Richard P. Matsch 08:00

The main thing about that case is that I provided the defense counsel in both cases with all the resources they asked for, because my experience has been in the criminal trials that it is very one-sided when it comes to resources available for investigation, the government has such an advantage. There's no budget. They can do as they choose, and of course, they expended a lot of resources in the investigation. And I decided that the primary defense here was somebody else did it, and that there were others involved. So, I provided defense, the defense team, and ended up with maybe 15 lawyers on the defense team. So they had the opportunity to go to the Philippines, they had the opportunity to go to Israel, they

Bruce Campbell 09:06

These were experienced, able defense counsel.

Richard P. Matsch 09:11

Out of Oklahoma. As the district attorney was out of Oklahoma. But all the other lawyers in the case for the prosecution were from DOJ, but--and they did a great job. But I spent, I don't know, at least $15 million to support the defense in that case. And I think you know, my main problem with the justice system, the criminal justice system, is it's so one-sided for resources they can investigate and defense counsel has limited resources, and as a result of that, perhaps there are now budgets on capital cases required of judges.

Bruce Campbell 09:51

There's another dimension of the Oklahoma City bombing trial of interest. You ran into an avalanche, a victims' rights avalanche, literally hundreds of victims who wanted their rights respected in the middle of this critical challenge that you faced, i.e., seeing that McVeigh and Nichols got fair trials, got due process. I won't ask you about the trial itself. In this regard; the record does speak for itself, but I would like for you to address the subject of victims' rights.

Bruce Campbell 10:32

I should explain frankly I don't understand victims' rights in this context. I am concerned about victims of crimes. Perhaps they need and deserve medical help. Perhaps they need and deserve economic assistance. Perhaps they need and deserve emotional or mental help. But aren't these simply questions of allocation of other scarce resources, tax dollars, apart from the judicial process? Some folks, including me, don't grasp where does this have relevance in the criminal judicial process.

Bruce Campbell 11:08

Stated otherwise, if I murder a homeless person with unattractive acquaintances, should I be in less trouble than if I murder a well-heeled, successful professional with sympathetic family and friends? You have said all ideas are equal before the First Amendment. Aren't all people, including unattractive victims, equal before the law when it comes to sentencing?

Richard P. Matsch 11:36

Well, there are a couple of things tied up here. When it comes to the trial itself, of course, the fundamental question is fairness and the ability to see the defendant sitting at defense table as a human being and not objectify this person as someone who has done some terrible crime. This first became an issue for me in the Alan Berg trial. His ex wife, who had dinner with him the night he was murdered, was a witness for the prosecution, setting the scene for having the dinner, and then when Alan Berg went home to his apartment, when he was killed, getting out of his Volkswagen. She testified at the trial. She showed up at closing argument to listen. I excluded her from the courtroom. That became controversial. She, of course, was outraged. A lot of people were outraged, I learned. But to me, she was there as an exhibit, of the victim, while the jury was listening to closing arguments.

Richard P. Matsch 12:57

Richard P. Matsch 14:14

Well, the 10th Circuit opinion, I think was well done in describing this problem of the emotional impact of victim testimony on a jury determining guilt or not reasonable doubt in the case. And I struggled with trying to maintain a balance between letting these people talk and due process. Now, when it came to the sentencing hearing--

Bruce Campbell 14:47

Right.

Richard P. Matsch 14:47

--I had a lot more leeway to let these people behold because this goes to whether this person should live or die. And I think there is an appropriate role for some level of victim testimony in that because it shows the consequences of criminal conduct. I don't you know. I've been told of a recent trial in New York with allowing a number of women to testify. I can't remember the details, but to my mind, it went too far. But this, well there's this piece that was written in The New Yorker about the role of victims. You know, if you want to look at it historically, we had hangings. That's a victim's rights in the extreme where a community is outraged. I'm not talking about lynchings. I'm talking about--

Bruce Campbell 15:52

Right.

Richard P. Matsch 15:52

-- the good old days of the ranchers.

Bruce Campbell 15:54

Public hangings.

Richard P. Matsch 15:56

Yeah, and then also when I was living in Burlington, Iowa, close down the river toward Madison. It was the penitentiary, and there, actually--in those days, the method of execution was hanging. And there was a large courtyard in that prison and a bluff behind it, and people went down there on that bluff and observed hangings. Victims' rights have to be considered as vengeance. And there's an element of vengeance in the system of justice. It isn't just that we're going to isolate this person from the rest of society because he's considered dangerous, but it's also punishment. You deserve it. There's an eye-for-an-eye aspect to that. Although carried to the logical extreme, you would kill this person the same way he killed someone else. Which, of course, we have now so sanitized the process of execution, the procedures and the delays that by the time someone is executed in these-- as a patient, and we even are concerned about what kind of drugs are used, the sympathy goes to the person being executed. People don't even remember what the crime was.

Richard P. Matsch 17:28

There is a measure of vengeance involved in sentencing and in the process, but you have to have this delicate balance between, well, do we really have the right person? Is he really guilty?

Bruce Campbell 17:42

I understand that not only deterrence, but both punishment, vengeance and protection of all are elements of what's the function of the criminal law. What I understand less, you have what the people through the legislature have defined as a crime and what the people through the legislature have defined as the parameters of punishment. What I don't understand is the relevance of the victim statements, impact statements, that certainly apart from guilt or innocence and due process and arriving there, and assigning the prescribed punishment once there's been a determination of guilt. Not that the victims don't matter, but why do they matter in deciding what the punishment should be, and does that mean that that criminals, perpetrators who have more persuasive, more attractive friends and relatives should get more vengeance than somebody who isn't particularly attractive and has been convicted of the same crime but has nobody to step forward to deliver a sympathetic victim impact statement?

Richard P. Matsch 19:08

Well, of great importance is that the public trusts the judicial system and that it accepts the outcome of the trial process. There is a natural human tendency to identify with the victim. After all, this is not one to one, like a civil case. This is, by definition, a crime against the community. Colorado has it as the people --

Richard P. Matsch 19:40

--versus John Doe, we have it as the United States against John Doe. But it is that the fabric of our society has been ripped apart by this crime. And to maintain or obtain trust in this process, the people have to have some sense of satisfaction that the result is just. You know, I don't like the use of the word justice ever, because I don't think it relates to what we do. And my view, is, however you define justice it comes down in this system to there's been a fair hearing, the process has been fair, and the result is fair. So it's fairness.

Bruce Campbell 19:40

Sure.

Richard P. Matsch 20:36

So, I think that, you know the victim, you've got to remember the role of the-- I don't want to say the press any more, but the public reaction. And now it's just not what's on news, the television or what's on radio or what's in newspapers. What are the people saying out on the blogs; what social media. That's the real reaction that you have to be concerned about.

Richard P. Matsch 21:06

In the end, one wonders if the people would have as much satisfaction, I think, with the outcome of the McVeigh trial if he hadn't been put to death. You'd have to say one thing, for McVeigh, he accepted the punishment and did not prolong the appeal.

Leah C. Schwartz 21:34

This episode was produced and edited by Tina Howell. Subscribe and download at the Historical Society's website, 10th Circuithistory.org, or at Apple podcast, Spotify or Stitcher. Special, thanks to Greg Kerwin, Brent Cohen, Stacy Guillon and Diane Bauersfeld.

Leah C. Schwartz 21:52

Thanks so much for listening.