NEWS

Complications arise in Charleston church shooting trial

Tonya Maxwell
tmaxwell@citizen-times.com

CHARLESTON, S.C. – The self-described white supremacist who dismissed his nationally recognized defense team cannot rely on them as co-counselors as he faces trial in the killing of nine black parishioners, the federal judge overseeing the case made clear Tuesday.

Within hours of a Monday court ruling allowing Dylann Roof to serve as his own attorney, communication complications arose in the death penalty case, some as basic as shuttling paperwork to a defendant who doesn’t have access to email.

Attorneys David Bruck of the Washington & Lee School of Law and Kimberly Stevens, a federal public defender based in Asheville, continue to sit at a table with Roof, but their capital defense expertise has been sharply curtailed by Roof's decision to represent himself.

In deciding to act as his own attorney, Roof enjoys some practical benefits, but also is subject to disadvantages, said U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel, stressing that the defendant cannot lean on his former defense team as co-counselors.

“I do not want the people he dismissed making the decisions. I do not want this to be an issue later,” Gergel said. “We’ve got a lot of balls in the air in this case, and this is a new one.”

Roof is accused of killing nine people in a June 2015 shooting at a Wednesday night Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston.

Of the 33 charges levied against Roof, several stem from the federal Hate Crime Act, while others address homicide while a victim is exercising a religious belief.

Before court convened Tuesday, lead federal prosecutor Jay Richardson handed Roof three paper documents, files that would typically be emailed to defense attorneys.

Defense lawyer Bruck, who remains in a “standby attorney” role for Roof, requested that he and the defense team continue to receive such documents electronically.

Richardson agreed to email documents to attorneys, but also complained in Monday’s proceedings that Bruck was too loudly urging Roof to object to a prospective juror.

“Mr. Roof is in charge. If he doesn’t like the way Mr. Bruck is talking to him, he can tell him that,” Gergel said. “I’m not going to get in the middle of that relationship.”

The judge, however, did tell Roof to lodge his own objections in court, rather than allow Bruck to speak for him.

Later, in another brief discussion after a lunch break, Gergel again became frustrated as Bruck addressed him, asking that the court ask more in depth questions of prospective jurors.

“It becomes complicated when the defense speaks with two voices,” Gergel said, with Bruck later explaining that Roof “feels great time pressure” in the moments after a juror is questioned by the judge and leaves the room, allowing attorneys to raise follow up questions or objections.

Gergel ordered Bruck to sit down and Roof to stand, telling the defendant he would be happy to accommodate any time he needs.

“Sometimes it takes me a minute to figure it out,” Roof said.

Roof, at 22 years old, has not yet reached the age when most young attorneys graduate from law school, though he appeared to remain engaged in the process, becoming more comfortable with speaking up as the day wore on.

He appeared to sometimes consult with defense attorneys, but did not seem to take notes.

At one point, Roof told the judge he was concerned if a prospective panelist “would feel comfortable stating her own opinions to members of the jury and members who might not agree with her.”

Gergel brought the woman back to the courtroom for clarification on that point.

At another, he told Gergel, “I don’t think it’s an impossible task to give mitigating factors because other people have,” regarding a woman who could not name reasons like mental health issues or a violent upbringing that might serve as reasons why the capital punishment should not be imposed.

On Tuesday, the court qualified 20 prospective panelists for possible service, bringing the total to 27 with Monday’s selections. Of that group, 19 are women and eight are men.

One of the three selected black women, one said she once worked as a paralegal and a Spanish interpreter in a law office.

“Death may be warranted, however so much more must go into the thought process,” she said.

Another black woman was disqualified after she said the death penalty always should be imposed in racially motivated murders and those that claim multiple victims.

As dictated by federal law, the court is seeking people who will weigh life without parole and the death penalty, and will not default to one or the other based on a strong pro- or anti-capital punishment stance.

Another man, also qualified, cited earlier media stories that Roof would be willing to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole.

“We all know he’s guilty, it’s just a matter of life or death,” he had written on a questionnaire.

Gergel will continue questioning the existing jury pool until 70 people are qualified for service. From that lot, 12 jurors and six alternates will be selected by Roof and prosecutors. The court has summoned 28 prospective jurors to appear Wednesday.

Roof to represent himself in Charleston church shootings