David Bruck the now former lead attorney for Roof.
Bruck is adamantly anti-death penalty. Which is a good thing to my thinking. I am as well. But read the article, Bruck is no pro-white power defendant lawyer. He takes high-profile death penalty cases to prevent the death penalty. Whether a client is guilty or innocent, Bruck wants due process that is fair and unbiased, free of corruption. He also does not want the death penalty imposed.
My thinking - Roof was deemed
competent to stand trial.
The prosecution is seeking the death penalty. Both state and federal. Currently, it is the federal hate crimes trial in play. The state has also ruled Roof competent to stand trial for when it is their turn.
Dylann Roof, Charleston Church Shooting Suspect, Can Act as His Own Attorney
Dylann Roof's request came against his lawyers' advice, and U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel said he would reluctantly accept the 22-year-old's "unwise" decision.
The judge delayed the process of narrowing the jury pool
when Roof's lawyers suggested that their client either didn't understand the charges against him or couldn't properly help with his defense. The lawyers didn't say what led them to question Roof's fitness for trial.
The decision came after Gergel wrapped up a hastily called two-day hearing to determine if Roof is mentally fit to stand trial, hearing testimony from psychologist James Ballenger and four other unnamed witnesses and reviewed sworn statements from three others.
I want Roof to go to prison for a long, long time. Let me get that out of the way before some knee-jerk decides I'm defending his actions in any way. However, I do not support the death penalty.
Yes, it does say Roof wanting to be his own counsel is against his lawyers' wishes, but duh. It is important to state that, especially considering they said Roof wasn't able to assist in his own defense. If he isn't able to assist in his defense, how can he be able to defend himself?
But if Roof, acting as his own lawyer, begins to display erratic behavior for all to see - especially the jury - then how competent is he really? Yes, he has already been ruled competent but his behavior as his own lawyer could cast reasonable doubt about the expertise & veracity of those who say Roof is competent. It could be a game changer, however unlikely.
See what I'm saying?
Roof ends up in a mental institution instead of prison. Prison would be better, actually. The horror stories from mental hospitals make regular prison sound far superior - unless you are under penalty of death - as Roof is, both federal and state.
Roof could also be found guilty but not get the death penalty. But I think the odds are he will get the death penalty - especially at the state level - which would prompt a new strategy - if you're a defense attorney who is vehemently against the death penalty. Sure, it's a "Hail Mary" play - but it might work.
He could get a guilty but mentally ill verdict, but once deemed mentally fit again, he'd still have to complete his prison sentence, which could still include the death penalty.
I could be wrong, of course. (and I most likely am wrong)
This was all brought on because I have a hard time believing Bruck wouldn't fight against allowing Roof to be his own counsel unless something else was in play. The man truly despises the death penalty.
Any lawyers on DU wanting to help me understand things better, please do.
Of course, it could be that Roof thinks he can defend himself, keeping Bruck as help. It could be that simple, and Bruck will now have to do his best to mitigate any damage. Bruck's goal isn't to keep Roof out of prison, but to keep him from being killed by the state.
= new reply since forum marked as read