Attorneys for Dylann Roof file death penalty challenge

Roof’s defense team argues that the death penalty itself is too “arbitrary” for two reasons: (1) The Federal Death Penalty Act’s standards are too vague in defining what crimes are worthy of the death penalty and which ones are more fitting for a life sentence; (2) Juries and courts don’t possess a uniform, unbiased way of interpreting these standards.

According to Reuters, while Roof faces several federal charges, he is also facing charges of murder and attempted murder by state prosecutors in SC.

The federal government rejected Roof’s offer to plead guilty and accept multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel requested that prosecutors submit a “bill of particulars”, detailing 12 of the 33 charges brought against Dylan Roof following his June 2015 massacre at Mother Emanuel AME Church. According to Roof’s lawyers, they are asking the judge to declare the death penalty to be unconstitutional for violating human rights.

In an earlier court filing, federal prosecutors cited a number of factors for seeking the death penalty, saying Roof singled out victims who were black and elderly, and showed no remorse.

Roof faces federal hate crime charges in connection with the killings too – he had appeared in photos waving Confederate flags and burning or desecrating United States flags.

Federal death sentences are very rare-the only federal inmate to be sentenced to death in the past year was Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Almost a year later, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that, in light of Roof’s crimes, the Department of Justice would pursue the death penalty.

While the law provides that all citizens have an opportunity to sit on juries, juries willing to impose a death penalty don’t represent a cross-section of the community, a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the filing said.

“Mr. Roof will withdraw this motion and plead guilty as charged to all counts in the indictment”, Roof’s lawyers added.

Roof’s attorneys described the facts of the case as “indisputably grave” in its motion to challenge the death penalty.

The lawyers also argue that the penalty is arbitrary in how it is dispensed and specifically in how jurors who object to the death penalty are dismissed in the jury selection process.

All the information concerning this trial already looks like a description of a very clever attempt to set the mass murderer free.