NEWS

Roof to represent himself in Charleston church shootings

Tonya Maxwell
tmaxwell@citizen-times.com

CHARLESTON – Against the advice of a federal judge, accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Storm Roof will represent himself in a death penalty trial that began Monday with jury selection.

Three court-appointed attorneys for the 22-year-old self-described white supremacist filed a motion Sunday stating that “Dylann Roof hereby moves under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that the Court discharge his court-appointed attorneys, and permit him to represent himself at his trial.”

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel granted that motion moments before jury selection began Monday, though he called Roof’s decision “strategically unwise.”

In a series of questions from Gergel, Roof acknowledged he understood the gravity of the 33 charges against him stemming from the June 2015 shooting deaths of nine black worshippers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston.

Questioning from Gergel lasted less than 10 minutes, with Roof usually providing one word answers – a “yes” when asked if he understood he would be performing in a federal courtroom, a “no” when asked if he had been coerced.

Self-representation in criminal cases, particularly high-stakes matters, is widely viewed as an exercise in poor judgment. Defendants are typically not versed in the many rules governing criminal cases, such as challenging a court venue or items that may have been seized illegally, said Eric Muller, a law professor at UNC Chapel Hill.

“Then there are complex rules that come into effect when the trial starts, such as the rules that govern the selection of juries,” Muller said. “And there are of course rules that come into effect during the trial, including the rules of evidence.

“A layperson typically knows none of these crucial things and is therefore in a terrible position to protect himself.”

One well-known example of a defendant serving as his own attorney is Colin Ferguson, who killed six people in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island railroad, Muller added.

The proceedings were marked by Ferguson’s bizarre lines of questioning and he was sentenced to multiple terms that ensure he will not leave prison. 

In acting as his own counsel, Roof can directly cross-examine witnesses and, should they take the stand, the three survivors of the attack, one of them a girl was who 11 at the time.

“The trial judge will have discretion to shape the way in which Roof would handle himself on cross-examination, but there’s no way to prevent the fact (and traumatizing spectacle) of an alleged shooter interrogating his victims,” Muller wrote in an email.

In questions and comments, Gergel noted attorneys representing the defendant are experienced capital defenders who have “superior knowledge and expertise in capital litigation” that would benefit Roof, but ruled that Roof can represent himself.

“I think it is wise for you to be represented by counsel and to get the benefit of that experience,” Gergel said to Roof, who stood before him wearing the striped white and blue-gray jumpsuit of the Charleston County jail. “You know I think that. You and I have talked about it.”

Gergel said that in conversations with Roof and interacting with him in court, that he believed Roof has the capacity to represent himself.

“I do find the defendant has made a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel,” Gergel said.

The judge further ordered that Roof’s existing defense team act as standby counsel, and then asked the defendant if he would like those attorneys to sit at the defense table or on courtroom benches behind him.

Roof paused for a moment, raising his left hand to his temple in a gesture of thought, then said, “Umm, at the table.”

With that, Gergel asked attorney David Bruck, one of the nation’s premiere capital defenders and former lead counsel for Roof to shift one seat to his left, ceding the first chair to Roof.

A panel of 10 potential jurors entered the courtroom minutes later. All were white and most appeared to be middle-aged. Eight were women.

Gergel addressed the group briefly, telling them he would be delving in to a questionnaire they filled out and might be asking them to elaborate on opinions on the death penalty.

He asked that they answer honestly, and stressed that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

All but one – a woman who is a schoolteacher – was asked to leave before being questioned by Gergel.

The woman had noted on her questionnaire that a sentence of life imprisonment can sometimes be worse than the death penalty. Gergel asked her to elaborate.

“I mean, all your freedoms are gone,” she said. “I mean, you’re a number and you always have to look behind your back.”

By the lunch recess, the teacher and two other women were qualified as jurors. Seven others were struck for cause, most of them for their unwavering feelings on the death penalty.

Along with capital punishment, Gergel also asked several jurors if race might impact their decision to be fair and impartial.

After the lunch break, four more jurors were qualified, three of them white women and one a white man.

Roof typically said little, but weighed in after one prospective panelist was questioned, a black man who was the only African American summoned for the day’s proceedings.

The man indicated he believed the death penalty should always be imposed in homicide cases, an overly strong position that the judge said should disqualify him for jury service after asking him to step out of the courtroom.

Prosecutors asked that the man be further questioned. Roof asked that the man be disqualified.

“I have no additional questions, but at this point I think he should be struck,” Roof said.

Another woman, who said her “core belief” is that she doesn’t believe in the death penalty, was disqualified after reading in a newspaper that Roof offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole.

Prospective jurors have been ordered to avoid news coverage, but the woman said that despite her anti-death penalty stance, the story swayed her toward capital punishment in the case.

“To me, any of the sentences are horrific,” she said. “Whatever he wants, to me, that is the opposite of what he should have.”

The court is scheduled to question 24 prospective jurors Tuesday – a dozen in the morning and 12 more in the afternoon from a remaining pool of 495 people drawn from a local federal district that includes Charleston County and eight counties surrounding it.

Questioning will continue until the court qualifies 70 people as prospective panelists. From that group, prosecutors and defense attorneys will select 12 jurors and six alternates.

This jury selection phase was initially set to begin Nov. 7, but was postponed after Gergel ordered that Roof undergo psychiatric evaluation based on a defense motion filed that morning.

The issue that sparked the last-minute examination has not been disclosed.

Following a hearing on the matter, one that was closed to the public, Gergel ruled Roof was competent to stand trial.

Dylann Roof found competent to stand trial in church shootings

Jury selection in the trial of Dylann Roof, accused of shooting nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in June 2015, began Nov. 11, 2016 at the federal courthouse in Charleston, South Carolina, pictured here.