« Reviewing the state and future of lethal injection as execution method | Main | DOJ Inspector General report details (impressively?) rare cases of untimely release of federal prisoners »
May 24, 2016
Federal prosecutors (FINALLY!) decide to pursue death penalty for Charleston mass murderer Dylann Roof
Almost a year after Dylann Roof committed one of the worst mass murder hate crimes in modern US history, federal prosecutors have offically decided to make his federal prosecution a capital one. Here are excerpts from this CNN report about this (too-long-in-development) decision:
Federal prosecutors will seek the death penalty for Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine people at a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina, in July 2015.
Roof, who is white, is charged with 33 federal offenses, including hate crime charges for allegedly targeting his victims on the basis of their race and religion. A judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf in July 2015. "The nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said.
Roof, 22, is accused of shooting participants of a Bible study class at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, known as Mother Emanuel, in downtown Charleston on June 17, 2015. Among the victims was the church's pastor, the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who also was a state senator.
South Carolina has charged Roof with murder. Charleston County Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said last year that she will seek the death penalty in the state's case, which is scheduled to go to trial in January.
There is no date yet for his federal trial. Attempts to reach Roof's attorneys for comment were not immediately successful.
Roof, a high school dropout not known for violence, was captured in North Carolina the day after the shootings. He confessed in interviews with the Charleston police and FBI, two law enforcement officials told CNN. He also told investigators he wanted to start a race war, one of those officials said.
Three federal inmates have been executed in the United States since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988 after a 16-year moratorium. They were Timothy McVeigh, Juan Raul Garza and Louis Jones. Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is one of the most recent people to be sentenced to death by a federal judge. There are about 60 people on federal death row.
I fully share the Attorney General's view that the "nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision," and that is why I have been critical in prior posts about it taking so long to make this decision. A well-functioning criminal justice system surely ought to be able to prosecute and sentence a mass murderer in the span of a year in a case like this one in which there is no doubt about guilt. But, remarkably, it seems it now takes a year just to decide whether the death penalty should be even sought. Sigh.
A few prior related posts:
- Should it be the state or feds (or both!?!) that capitally prosecute racist mass murderer Dylann Storm Roof?
- Thanks to death penalty, one of worst racist mass murderers gets one of best defense lawyers
- South Carolina prosecutors begin pursuit of death penalty again Charleston church mass murderer
- Attorney for Dylann Roof, Charleston church mass murderer, suggests plea to avoid death sentence
- Just why is DOJ still uncertain about seeking death penalty against Charleston mass murderer Dylann Roof?
- "Why Dylann Roof is a Terrorist Under Federal Law, and Why it Matters"
May 24, 2016 at 07:20 PM | Permalink
Comments
It is my understanding that various family members of the people killed forgave him & apparently are not supportive of the death penalty. But, that isn't the only thing involved in making these decisions.
The NYT article said there was some talk of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. The state is also seeking the death penalty. This would complicate things some. The state trial is scheduled for January. The lag time in the federal announcement is notable but given the state trial is starting in January, not really that surprising. Is there really a reason for the feds to accelerate the announcement?
I can see the federal hook -- race/religion hate crimes -- but if the state prosecutes (the professor has voiced support of the feds alone handling these cases), not sure just how useful a second trial really is. I know the law there but it also has some double jeopardy implications in my opinion.
Posted by: Joe | May 25, 2016 12:01:52 AM
You wrote: "A well-functioning criminal justice system surely ought to be able to prosecute and sentence a mass murderer in the span of a year in a case like this one in which there is no doubt about guilt."
I'm astonished by your comment. Do you understand the scale of the work that goes into doing a capital mitigation investigation, especially in a high-profile case like this? Do you think that should just get knocked out in a quick couple weeks? Do you really think our justice system would function better if the prosecution made its capital charging decision without knowing about the strength of the mitigation evidence, including evidence about mental illness or intellectual disability? Do you think it would function better if, as in many states, the trial defense did a half-assed mitigation investigation and the full investigation doesn't happen until the post-conviction penalty IAC claim?
I don't.
Posted by: Matt Stiegler | May 25, 2016 11:41:19 AM
Quick couple of weeks ... span of a year. Middle ground?
Posted by: Joe | May 25, 2016 1:25:44 PM
"it also has some double jeopardy implications in my opinion."
Um, what double jeopardy implications? Some states have DJ statutes to deal with other sovereigns prosecuting something, but the feds don't, to my knowledge.
Posted by: federalist | May 25, 2016 1:30:32 PM
How can the feds kill him after the state kills him?
Posted by: BarkinDog | May 25, 2016 1:56:14 PM
full quote:
"I know the law there but it also has some double jeopardy implications in my opinion."
The "law" is that different sovereigns are allowed to prosecute "but" think there are "implications" of double jeopardy when two sovereigns try the person for the same murders. See, e.g., dissenting opinion, Bartkus v. Illinois.
It isn't "the law" but I said that upfront. OTOH, it might still influence how a discretionary prosecution judgment is made; cf. if South Carolina was not itself seeking the death penalty (no two bits at the apple). I don't think it would happen, but Koons v. U.S. also suggests if S.C. acquits, it might be something to take into consideration.
Posted by: Joe | May 25, 2016 4:32:13 PM
"How can the feds kill him after the state kills him?"
The feds will be satisfied. Pursuing the death penalty itself serves a purpose even if the feds don't execute or even take him into federal custody. There is always a chance the state's case will falter in some way or I guess even decide to shift him to federal custody (if that is allowed -- NY once shifted a murderer to a capital punishment state & the person was executed there).
Posted by: Joe | May 25, 2016 4:37:53 PM
