Charleston, S.C., shooting suspect Dylann Storm Roof is escorted from the Cleveland County Courthouse in Shelby, N.C., Thursday, June 18, 2015. Roof is a suspect in the shooting of several people Wednesday night at the historic The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)
Friday, June 19, 2015
By: Bob McGovern
Jurisdiction can be the difference between life and death.
And that may be the dilemma facing authorities now deciding where to prosecute accused racist mass-murderer Dylann Storm Roof.
If South Carolina - which has the death penalty but no hate crime law - tries Roof, he could get the needle. However, if he is convicted of hate crimes under federal law, the route to the death penalty is a lot more convoluted.
That leads to the big question: Is it more important to prosecute the case as a hate crime, or does a death sentence send a stronger message?
"I suspect that … there's a debate going on about that right now," said Brad Bailey, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "The death penalty doesn't apply in federal court here per se, and so that has to be something the decision makers are thinking about and talking about."
Under the federal hate crime law, committing murder as an act of racial bigotry alone doesn't carry the death penalty. But religious bigotry does. Prosecutors would have to prove Roof damaged religious property or, by force, attempted to prevent someone from enjoying their religious beliefs, to make him eligible for the death penalty.
Basically, prosecutors would have to package race and religion together to execute Roof.
"If they find that there was just evidence that he wanted to interfere with black people, wherever they would be found, and they just wanted to proceed with race as a component, then the state could take over," said Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. "The death penalty would be off the table if it was based solely on race and they couldn't connect it to where they were actually killed."
If state prosecutors take the case, there will be no hate-crime charge. It would be a straight murder prosecution, which does carry the death penalty there. It would require evidence of malice aforethought in the guilt phase, and evidence of aggravation in the penalty phase.
And as strongly as people may feel about sending a hate-crime message, perhaps it's best for the feds to step aside and let the state of South Carolina dole out justice as it sees fit.
"Prosecutors at the state level could certainly obtain a conviction without the hate-crime legislation. You have what you need to prove. You have a suspect, eyewitnesses, motivation and intent seems to be quite clear," Coates said. "In a state where there's already a death penalty, the hate crime legislation is superfluous, but it does ease minds and validate community concerns."
Original story available in full at Boston Herald.
Friday, June 19, 2015
By: Bob McGovern
Jurisdiction can be the difference between life and death.
And that may be the dilemma facing authorities now deciding where to prosecute accused racist mass-murderer Dylann Storm Roof.
If South Carolina - which has the death penalty but no hate crime law - tries Roof, he could get the needle. However, if he is convicted of hate crimes under federal law, the route to the death penalty is a lot more convoluted.
That leads to the big question: Is it more important to prosecute the case as a hate crime, or does a death sentence send a stronger message?
"I suspect that … there's a debate going on about that right now," said Brad Bailey, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "The death penalty doesn't apply in federal court here per se, and so that has to be something the decision makers are thinking about and talking about."
Under the federal hate crime law, committing murder as an act of racial bigotry alone doesn't carry the death penalty. But religious bigotry does. Prosecutors would have to prove Roof damaged religious property or, by force, attempted to prevent someone from enjoying their religious beliefs, to make him eligible for the death penalty.
Basically, prosecutors would have to package race and religion together to execute Roof.
"If they find that there was just evidence that he wanted to interfere with black people, wherever they would be found, and they just wanted to proceed with race as a component, then the state could take over," said Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. "The death penalty would be off the table if it was based solely on race and they couldn't connect it to where they were actually killed."
If state prosecutors take the case, there will be no hate-crime charge. It would be a straight murder prosecution, which does carry the death penalty there. It would require evidence of malice aforethought in the guilt phase, and evidence of aggravation in the penalty phase.
And as strongly as people may feel about sending a hate-crime message, perhaps it's best for the feds to step aside and let the state of South Carolina dole out justice as it sees fit.
"Prosecutors at the state level could certainly obtain a conviction without the hate-crime legislation. You have what you need to prove. You have a suspect, eyewitnesses, motivation and intent seems to be quite clear," Coates said. "In a state where there's already a death penalty, the hate crime legislation is superfluous, but it does ease minds and validate community concerns."
Original story available in full at Boston Herald.
Jurisdiction can be the difference between life and death.
And that may be the dilemma facing authorities now deciding where to prosecute accused racist mass-murderer Dylann Storm Roof.
If South Carolina - which has the death penalty but no hate crime law - tries Roof, he could get the needle. However, if he is convicted of hate crimes under federal law, the route to the death penalty is a lot more convoluted.
That leads to the big question: Is it more important to prosecute the case as a hate crime, or does a death sentence send a stronger message?
"I suspect that … there's a debate going on about that right now," said Brad Bailey, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "The death penalty doesn't apply in federal court here per se, and so that has to be something the decision makers are thinking about and talking about."
Under the federal hate crime law, committing murder as an act of racial bigotry alone doesn't carry the death penalty. But religious bigotry does. Prosecutors would have to prove Roof damaged religious property or, by force, attempted to prevent someone from enjoying their religious beliefs, to make him eligible for the death penalty.
Basically, prosecutors would have to package race and religion together to execute Roof.
"If they find that there was just evidence that he wanted to interfere with black people, wherever they would be found, and they just wanted to proceed with race as a component, then the state could take over," said Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. "The death penalty would be off the table if it was based solely on race and they couldn't connect it to where they were actually killed."
If state prosecutors take the case, there will be no hate-crime charge. It would be a straight murder prosecution, which does carry the death penalty there. It would require evidence of malice aforethought in the guilt phase, and evidence of aggravation in the penalty phase.
And as strongly as people may feel about sending a hate-crime message, perhaps it's best for the feds to step aside and let the state of South Carolina dole out justice as it sees fit.
"Prosecutors at the state level could certainly obtain a conviction without the hate-crime legislation. You have what you need to prove. You have a suspect, eyewitnesses, motivation and intent seems to be quite clear," Coates said. "In a state where there's already a death penalty, the hate crime legislation is superfluous, but it does ease minds and validate community concerns."
Original story available in full at Boston Herald.
If you have this type of case contact Brad Bailey one of the top criminal defense lawyers in Boston.