Herman: Dylann Roof Is Asking for Death Penalty and ‘He’s Going to Get the Death Penalty’

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
HOST: “Next month a jury will wrestle with whether or not to sentence dylann roof to death for killing nine worshippers at the church in South Carolina. It took them two hours to convict him on charges of trargting his victims -- it will begin January 3rd. Roof says he wants to represent himself in that part of the case. Joining me is lich arrested her man, a New York criminal defense attorney and law professor and former prosecutor Jackson. Richard start with you. He says he intends to represent himself, that's -- is that a good idea? He is asking for the death penalty?” 
HERMAN: “Yes, he is. That is what he is doing, exactly. He had a hearing before the judge, the judge found him competent to represent himself and you know, Boris and Joe, in a case like this when there were 70 casings on the floor of hollow tip 45 caliber rounds where he slaughtered people in a church and admitted this was his intent to kill these people because black people are rapinw white people, he set himself up for this. He wants the death penalty. He will not argue. Lawyers spent years and years studying death penalty cases, he doesn't have any of that going for him right now. He runs into this phase of the case, he wants the death penalty, he was prepared to take his life if he got caught by the police after the shooting. He is going to take his life now. There is nothing that is it going to save him.” 
HOST: “Joey, at this point, it could get ugly, if he defends himself he has to present his case. For him to have that kind of soapbox if you will with some of the victims' family members in the courtroom that presents an ugly situation. Is there anything to be done to avoid that?”
JACKSON: “ I think this is how it will play out. From a prosecutors perspective they will present their case and it will be compelling. The key to this is present enough aggravating factors to allow for and otherwise have the jury consider and move toward the issue of sentencing him to death. I think how the government will do that is they will lay out of course the cruel and heinous nature of the acts, they will lay out the vulnerability of the victims, substantial preparation and of course the dicey part of to your questions comes when the victims give their victim impact evidence. In the event he of course represents himself, let's be clear he changed his mind before in the guilt phase he said I want to represent myself, the judge said you know what, you should reconsider. He did. And his lawyers represented him. There is still time and the judge is giving him until the 3rd to change his mind again. The then question becomes, Boris, in the event that the victim impact evidence is there, could he or should he be permitted cross-examine. On the one hand I have the tendency to believe the government certainly wants to protect those victims and not let that happen. The judge doesn't want to make a mockery of that court system and permit it to happen and the government doesn't need to to happen to prove his case. If you don't allow him to ask any other questions, does it otherwise impact any other grounds for appeal he may have. So it's a very dicey scenario in which you could be in a situation where he does confront them and that would be the most unfortunate thing of all.”
HERMAN: “Certainly. Richard, he absolutely will be confronting them at this part of the case. Let's get it clear, his attorney wanted to put forth some sort of mental deficiency argument to try to save his life. Dylann roof rejected that. He rejected it. So any statements made by his lawyer have been stricken from the record in the penalty -- in the guilt phase of the case. So now we move into the penalty phase, there is no evidence of a mental disorder or anything to suggest compassion or forgiveness or some reason, a family, some reason to save his life. There is nothing there. Dylann roof does not know how to put that into evidence. Joey, he is going down. This is not an issue, a moral discussion on death penalty, they have it in this state, it's rarely used by the feds, it was used in this case and he is going to get the death penalty.”
HOST: “Do you agree?”
JACKSON: “You know, I think that if ever there would be a compelling case to be made, Boris, for the death penalty, to really be used and apply, it would be this case. What is really trouble some is the fact you had people who were so compassionate and welcoming of him and handing him a bible and handing him scripture and then when they were the most vulnerable and closing their eyes to pray he guns them down. Even the whole issues of his hatred and manifesto, I think it's compelling that a jury very well may be moved in this instance to apply the death penalty and I don't think many people would be surprised in the event that that occurred.”
HOST: “Now, Richard –“ 
HERMAN: “The irony is that a church, which stands for compassion and forgiveness and understanding, these are the principles he will be looking for or should be looking for in this phase of the trial. He is not going to do it. This jury, if you think a flash verdict came on the guilt phase, watch how fast they come back on death penalty.”
JACKSON: “I will say one other thing, that is this, he said that he wanted to do this to start a race war. And you know, I think all of us should take notice of how that community, just the opposite, has come together. And been compassionate and have prayed and have for given and understood and so the reality is that at the end of the day, the race war did nothing of the sort. It brought that community together and really created a lot of love.”
HOST: “ Right. Joey and Richard, thank you for joining us this weekend. We will see you again soon, I'm sure.”