Opinion ID: 160511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: michael fortier

Text: Mr. Nichols identifies several sheets which he says contain information that could have been used to impeach Mr. Fortier. In one lead sheet, a witness claims a customs agent said she had seen Mr. Fortier inside the Murrah Building with Mr. McVeigh (Mr. Fortier admitted to the trip in question but maintained he and Mr. McVeigh remained in the car.). In a second, the same story is offered by a man who claims his wife saw Mr. - 10 - McVeigh in the building. Another lead sheet involved a witness claiming he had a friend who had an acquaintance who knew Mr. Fortier well, and the acquaintance said Mr. Fortier once worked for a company that experienced a theft of explosives after which Mr. Fortier did not return to work. A different sheet is an inter-agent account of Mr. Fortier’s own assertion someone had told him Mr. McVeigh had purchased racing fuel at a track in the Kingman area. Finally, others concern: the stresses in Mr. Fortier’s family after the bombing, his having had Mr. McVeigh as his best man, and his involvement with illegal drugs. Several of these sheets contain information well known to Mr. Nichols because it was contained in other materials handed over by the prosecution, notably the information on Mr. Fortier’s family situation, his closeness with Mr. McVeigh, and his prior drug involvement. Withholding these sheets then presents no Brady issue. On the question of Mr. Fortier’s trip inside the Murrah Building, Mr. Nichols never had the hearsay reports, however, the prosecution did hand over two FBI interviews with the actual witness. In these interviews, the witness positively identified one man as Mr. McVeigh, but was unsure whether the other was Mr. Fortier. While Mr. Nichols claims the positive identification contained in the lead sheets would have made a difference, the argument becomes problematical when the evidence shows the witness could not make such an identification. Moreover, the hearsay account that places Mr. McVeigh in the building is redundant with the actual witness’s account and does little to further Mr. Nichols’ case. - 11 - Although the tale of the explosive theft is intriguing, its probative value is insignificant because it is third or fourth-hand hearsay. Even if true, the story casts little doubt on Mr. Nichols’ participation in the activities of which he was accused, nor does it add to the extensive impeachment Mr. Fortier underwent at trial. Finally, the information Mr. McVeigh may have purchased some amount of racing fuel at a racetrack does not cast doubt on Mr. Nichols’ activities, nor does it impeach Mr. Fortier. The trial court correctly observed the follow-up investigation revealed no racetrack in the area sold fuel. Taken as a whole, none of the information about Mr. Fortier could have added significantly to the impeachment he underwent at trial.3