Citing Mental Incompetency From Racist Delusions, Appeal Lawyers Argue Trial Court Should Not Have Permitted Dylann Roof to Represent Himself

Lawyers for fed­er­al death row pris­on­er Dylann Roof argued to a fed­er­al appeals court that the avowed white supremacist’s con­vic­tions and death sen­tences in his tri­al for the 2015 mur­ders of nine Black church­go­ers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina should be over­turned because the judge pre­sid­ing over his case uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly per­mit­ted Roof to rep­re­sent him­self while mentally incompetent. 

In oral argu­ment on May 25, 2021 before a spe­cial­ly con­sti­tut­ed pan­el of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Roof’s appeal lawyers said that Roof suf­fered from racist delu­sions that pre­vent­ed him from ratio­nal­ly deter­min­ing whether to be rep­re­sent­ed by coun­sel at tri­al and in sen­tenc­ing. Roof was ​“clear­ly delu­sion­al,” appeal coun­sel Sapna Mirchandani told the court.

At his 2017 tri­al, Roof told tri­al judge Richard Gergel that he would rather be sen­tenced to death than be labeled autis­tic or schiz­o­phrenic. Mirchandani said Roof believed his crime would spark a race war, that he would be res­cued from prison at the end of that war, and that allow­ing his lawyers to present evi­dence of his men­tal ill­ness would ​“thwart his res­cue by white nation­al­ists.” Mirchandani said Roof ​“emphat­i­cal­ly believed he would be res­cued after the race war,” but when Roof real­ized short­ly before tri­al that his lawyers intend­ed to present evi­dence that he was men­tal­ly ill, ​“at that point he start­ed cov­er­ing up all the delu­sions he had pre­vi­ous­ly spoken about.” 

Roof’s legal team asked the judges to vacate his death sen­tence and order a ret­ro­spec­tive competency hearing.

One mem­ber of the appeal pan­el asked Mirchandani whether Roof’s beliefs meant he was incom­pe­tent to stand tri­al or just ​“hor­ri­bly moti­vat­ed.” ​“Is hav­ing despi­ca­ble opin­ions and fore­casts the same thing as incom­pe­ten­cy in the legal sense to stand tri­al?,” the judge asked. ​“It is not his opin­ion. It is a delu­sion,” Mirchandani explained. ​“A delu­sion by def­i­n­i­tion is a fixed false belief that can­not be moved by objec­tive contrary evidence.”

Federal pros­e­cu­tor Ann O’Connell Adams argued against remand­ing the case for a new com­pe­ten­cy hear­ing, telling the court that there was ​“ample evi­dence” that ​“Roof had a ratio­nal and fac­tu­al under­stand­ing of the nature and con­se­quences of the pro­ceed­ings against him.” ​“The dis­trict court not­ed his high I.Q., his abil­i­ty to describe the pro­ceed­ings in detail and .… under­stand the pro­ceed­ings,” she said.

Roof’s lawyers argued that Judge Gergel had com­mit­ted an ​“abuse of dis­cre­tion” by fail­ing to con­duct an appro­pri­ate inquiry into Roof’s men­tal sta­tus, improp­er­ly pre­vent­ing defense lawyers from pre­sent­ing men­tal health evi­dence they believed would have shown Roof’s incom­pe­tence, and forc­ing Roof to make a false choice between keep­ing his lawyers and allow­ing them to present men­tal health evi­dence or rep­re­sent­ing him­self to avoid the pre­sen­ta­tion of that evi­dence. Defense lawyer Alexandra Yates told to the pan­el, ​”A defen­dant need not for­go the assis­tance of expe­ri­enced attor­neys in order to remain mas­ter of his own defense, with the right to choose the objec­tive of that defense

The court also heard argu­ment on Roof’s claim that his sen­tenc­ing jury had been mis­led that he would present a future dan­ger if sen­tenced to life in prison. Prosecutors insist­ed to the jury that Roof could incite vio­lence by writ­ing let­ters while impris­oned. However, Yates told the appeal pan­el, the jury was nev­er informed that Roof’s mail was screened and no objec­tion­al let­ters would be released from the max­i­mum-secu­ri­ty facil­i­ty in which he was incarcerated. 

That omis­sion, Yates said, was prej­u­di­cial, point­ing out that the jury then sub­mit­ted two ques­tions to the court, which Judge Gergel declined to answer, regard­ing whether Roof pre­sent­ed a future dan­ger. ​“The judge refused to clear away this con­fu­sion,” Yates said, ​“depriv[ing] Mr. Roof of a fair penalty phase.” 

Roof was pros­e­cut­ed in fed­er­al dis­trict court in South Carolina by then assis­tant U.S. attor­ney Julius N. Richardson, whom President Donald Trump appoint­ed in 2018 to serve as an appeals judge on the Fourth Circuit. To avoid any appear­ance of bias from decid­ing a case involv­ing a col­league on the court, the entire Fourth Circuit bench recused itself and argu­ment was con­duct­ed in front of a three-judge pan­el import­ed from oth­er fed­er­al appellate circuits.

In addi­tion to his fed­er­al death sen­tence, Roof was sen­tenced to nine con­sec­u­tive sen­tences of life with­out parole in South Carolina after plead­ing guilty in state court.