Newly unsealed psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tions and court tran­scripts in the case of Dylann Roof (pic­tured) — sen­tenced to death for the racial­ly moti­vat­ed killing of nine black church­go­ers in Charleston, South Carolina—raise addi­tion­al ques­tions as to whether Roof was com­pe­tent to waive rep­re­sen­ta­tion in his death penal­ty pro­ceed­ings and to forego pre­sent­ing men­tal health evi­dence in his defense. 

The doc­u­ments con­firm that Roof rep­re­sent­ed him­self in jury selec­tion and in the penal­ty stage of his fed­er­al cap­i­tal tri­al out of anx­i­ety that his defense attor­neys would present evi­dence that he was men­tal­ly ill. In his jour­nals, Roof wrote, ​“I want state that I am moral­ly opposed to psy­chol­o­gy,” which he called ​“a Jewish inven­tion [that] does noth­ing but invent dis­eases and tell peo­ple they have prob­lems when they dont [sic].”

The new­ly released doc­u­ments show that Roof became irate when he real­ized his lawyers want­ed to present a men­tal health defense that involved intro­duc­ing evi­dence that he suf­fered from delu­sions, a crip­pling anx­i­ety dis­or­der, depres­sion, and autism. The unsealed tran­scripts reveal that defense coun­sel, David Bruck, told the court that Roof ​“firm­ly believes that there will be a white nation­al­ist takeover of the United States with­in rough­ly six, sev­en, eight years, and when that hap­pens, he will be par­doned. He also believes it prob­a­ble, although not cer­tain, that he will be giv­en a high posi­tion, such as the gov­er­nor­ship of South Carolina.” 

At a pre­tri­al hear­ing, Roof told U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, ​“If they say I have autism, it’s like they are try­ing to dis­cred­it me. It dis­cred­its the rea­son why I did the crime.” He also told the judge he believed being labeled autis­tic would be worse than receiv­ing a death sen­tence, ​“Because once you’ve got that label, there is no point in liv­ing any­way.” Dr. James Ballenger, a clin­i­cal psy­chi­a­trist who eval­u­at­ed Roof, wrote, ​“The only thing that is impor­tant to him is to pro­tect his reputation.” 

Bruck argued to the court that Roof was not com­pe­tent to rep­re­sent him­self, say­ing, ​“If he is inca­pable of coop­er­at­ing with coun­sel, if the deci­sions that he is mak­ing are affect­ed by delu­sions, by fixed false beliefs, if they are the prod­uct of men­tal ill­ness … the mere fact that he has fig­ured out how to sab­o­tage his defense does­n’t mean that he’s com­pe­tent. It is an illus­tra­tion of why it is so ter­ri­ble to try an incompetent defendant.” 

Roof was ulti­mate­ly found com­pe­tent to stand tri­al and rep­re­sent him­self. He was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death on January 10, 2017.

Tags
Citation Guide
Sources

J. B. Hawes and G. Smith, ​“Newly released doc­u­ments say Dylann Roof saw his rep­u­ta­tion — not his crimes — as ​‘the most impor­tant issue’,” The Post and Courier, May 10, 2017; J. Jarvie, ​“Dylan Roof told judge he would rather die than be labeled autis­tic or men­tal­ly ill,” Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2017; K. Sack and A. Blinder, ​“Dylann Roof Himself Rejects Best Defense Against Execution,” New York Times, January 1, 2017.

See Mental Illness and Federal Death Penalty.