This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/dylann-roof-trial.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Dylann Roof Jurors Hear Condemnation, and a Plea for Mercy | Dylann Roof Jurors Hear Condemnation, and a Plea for Mercy |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| CHARLESTON, S.C. — As Dylann S. Roof sat expressionless, a federal prosecutor used a stirring closing argument on Thursday morning to tell jurors that “cowardice” and “a vast hatred” had driven the self-radicalized white supremacist to kill nine parishioners at this city’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in June 2015. | CHARLESTON, S.C. — As Dylann S. Roof sat expressionless, a federal prosecutor used a stirring closing argument on Thursday morning to tell jurors that “cowardice” and “a vast hatred” had driven the self-radicalized white supremacist to kill nine parishioners at this city’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in June 2015. |
| Mr. Roof’s lawyer, while acknowledging his client’s guilt, then did his best to persuade jurors to consider the gunman’s mental state, peppering his own closing argument with words like “irrationality,” “delusional” and “obsession.” | Mr. Roof’s lawyer, while acknowledging his client’s guilt, then did his best to persuade jurors to consider the gunman’s mental state, peppering his own closing argument with words like “irrationality,” “delusional” and “obsession.” |
| Because Mr. Roof has said he will represent himself during the expected penalty phase of his trial, his lawyer, David I. Bruck, was grasping his only certain opportunity to address jurors before they must decide whether to sentence Mr. Roof to death. He asked them to “look beyond the surface.” | Because Mr. Roof has said he will represent himself during the expected penalty phase of his trial, his lawyer, David I. Bruck, was grasping his only certain opportunity to address jurors before they must decide whether to sentence Mr. Roof to death. He asked them to “look beyond the surface.” |
| The prosecution, in a final crack at the jurors, called Mr. Bruck’s request “nothing more than a distraction” and asked that they keep their focus on the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Roof committed the killings with intense premeditation to advance his racist beliefs. | The prosecution, in a final crack at the jurors, called Mr. Bruck’s request “nothing more than a distraction” and asked that they keep their focus on the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Roof committed the killings with intense premeditation to advance his racist beliefs. |
| Jurors were expected to begin their deliberations later on Thursday, when they will be charged with settling Mr. Roof’s guilt or innocence on 33 counts, including hate crimes resulting in death. If he is convicted, Mr. Roof faces either the death penalty or a sentence of life in prison without parole. | |
| Mr. Bruck, and Mr. Roof himself, have left little doubt about his responsibility for the attack at the end of a Bible study class in the church fellowship hall on June 17, 2015. Mr. Roof confessed to the assault soon after his arrest in Shelby, N.C., and the defense called no witnesses before it rested on Wednesday. | Mr. Bruck, and Mr. Roof himself, have left little doubt about his responsibility for the attack at the end of a Bible study class in the church fellowship hall on June 17, 2015. Mr. Roof confessed to the assault soon after his arrest in Shelby, N.C., and the defense called no witnesses before it rested on Wednesday. |
| On Thursday, it fell to an assistant United States attorney, Nathan S. Williams, to summarize a gruesome case that shocked the United States: “Hatred had no place in that sanctuary, and hatred had no place at those Bible study tables,” said Mr. Williams, his voice sometimes rising to a shout. “A hatred came to those tables just the same.” | |
| Mr. Roof, he said, embarked on his rampage after taking a seat among the people who would become his victims. He first shot the church’s pastor, the Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, and then eight more people. The killings, the prosecutor told the jury, were done in the service of white supremacy. | Mr. Roof, he said, embarked on his rampage after taking a seat among the people who would become his victims. He first shot the church’s pastor, the Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, and then eight more people. The killings, the prosecutor told the jury, were done in the service of white supremacy. |
| “This defendant’s hatred was overwhelming,” Mr. Williams said, citing evidence that included a journal and an online manifesto detailing Mr. Roof’s sense of racial superiority. “It was planned. It was thought through. And it was horrifically violent.” | “This defendant’s hatred was overwhelming,” Mr. Williams said, citing evidence that included a journal and an online manifesto detailing Mr. Roof’s sense of racial superiority. “It was planned. It was thought through. And it was horrifically violent.” |
| Mr. Roof, dressed in a blue sweater, never lifted his gaze from the defense table. | Mr. Roof, dressed in a blue sweater, never lifted his gaze from the defense table. |
| The defendant fired more than 70 shots that night, investigators said, striking the parishioners more than 60 times. Three people survived the massacre, including Polly Sheppard, who testified on Wednesday that Mr. Roof said he had spared her life “to tell the story.” | The defendant fired more than 70 shots that night, investigators said, striking the parishioners more than 60 times. Three people survived the massacre, including Polly Sheppard, who testified on Wednesday that Mr. Roof said he had spared her life “to tell the story.” |
| In his closing argument, Mr. Bruck made an indirect appeal to jurors that they spare Mr. Roof, who was 21 at the time of the killings. “Reaching a conclusion about what these crimes were and who committed them is pretty straightforward,” Mr. Bruck said. “The issue in this case, from the beginning, and it continues to be, is, ‘Why?’” | In his closing argument, Mr. Bruck made an indirect appeal to jurors that they spare Mr. Roof, who was 21 at the time of the killings. “Reaching a conclusion about what these crimes were and who committed them is pretty straightforward,” Mr. Bruck said. “The issue in this case, from the beginning, and it continues to be, is, ‘Why?’” |
| He said that Mr. Roof had been radicalized online and that a review of his social history — he had few friends, for instance, and no accomplices — suggested a certain element of loneliness and instability. Mr. Bruck also argued that Mr. Roof was not an innovator when it came to racist principles; instead, the lawyer said, he was “simply regurgitating old paradigms.” | He said that Mr. Roof had been radicalized online and that a review of his social history — he had few friends, for instance, and no accomplices — suggested a certain element of loneliness and instability. Mr. Bruck also argued that Mr. Roof was not an innovator when it came to racist principles; instead, the lawyer said, he was “simply regurgitating old paradigms.” |
| But each time that Mr. Bruck wandered too close to a direct assertion that Mr. Roof was unstable, and thus perhaps not responsible for his own actions, prosecutors objected and Judge Richard M. Gergel of Federal District Court quickly declared “sustained.” | |
| Mr. Bruck told the jury: “It will be my job until I can no longer speak for him to ask you to look beyond the surface, to ask you to look again, to ask you, ‘Does that make sense?’” | Mr. Bruck told the jury: “It will be my job until I can no longer speak for him to ask you to look beyond the surface, to ask you to look again, to ask you, ‘Does that make sense?’” |