Dylann Roof asks for new trial in Charleston shooting

His attorneys are asking for a new trial, claiming that federal courts don't have jurisdiction. They made this same argument during trial, where it was overruled.

Reuters/File
Convicted Charleston shooter Dylann Roof in a file photo from June.

Convicted Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof has asked for a new federal trial, saying prosecutors didn't have jurisdiction to bring their case against him.

Roof's attorneys made that request Friday, claiming the government failed to prove his use of the internet, highways and a gun manufactured out of state were sufficient enough links to allow religious obstruction charges.

Roof, 22, was sentenced to die earlier this year for killing nine black members of Charleston's Emanuel AME Church in June 2015. In a videotaped confession to FBI agents, Roof admitted to his role in the killings and told jurors in his closing argument that he still felt compelled to commit them.

In the motion, Roof's attorneys argued his case happened entirely in South Carolina and involved only "incidental and everyday use" of areas affected by the commerce clause, like the internet or purchases from another state. The argument mirrors ones made by Roof's attorneys during his trial.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel overruled those challenges and allowed all of the charges against Roof to stand.

Roof had attorneys during his trial but fired them during the sentencing phase, avoiding potential evidence about his mental state that he didn't want made public at trial.

Roof remains in custody in the Charleston County jail, where he awaits a death penalty trial in state court. That case, which had been set to begin last month, was postponed while his federal trial was still ongoing and has not been rescheduled.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.