The Case That Sparked National Debate
The eight-year sentence handed down to Nicholas Roske for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has ignited fierce debate about political violence, mental health, and appropriate sentencing. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the government would appeal the sentence, calling it far too short. The prosecution had sought 30 years to life, while defense attorneys requested no more than 96 months, arguing their client voluntarily abandoned the plan and turned themselves in.
Beyond the headlines and social media outrage, the actual facts of the case reveal a complex story of months of planning, disturbing internet searches, and a last-minute decision to call 911. Brian examines the court documents to understand what actually happened and why this case has become so controversial.
Understanding the Defendant
Nicholas Roske, who was transitioning from male to female and went by the name Sophie Roske, was 26 years old at the time of arrest. Court documents refer to the defendant by different pronouns depending on whether they were filed by the prosecution or defense, with the legal charging documents using the birth name Nicholas Roske.
Roske lived in California and pleaded guilty in April to attempting to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh. The defendant turned themselves in outside the justice's home, telling authorities they were suicidal and had planned to kill the judge.
The Government's Case: Months of Meticulous Planning
According to the United States Attorney's sentencing memo, Roske's actions were far from impulsive. In spring 2022, the defendant meticulously researched, planned, and attempted to assassinate at least one sitting Supreme Court justice, with stated intentions to target three. The government's explicit claim was that the defendant's objective was to single-handedly alter the constitutional order for ideological ends.
The evidence presented by prosecutors painted a disturbing picture of preparation:
- A map saved in Roske's Google account contained location pins marking what the defendant believed to be the residential addresses of four sitting Supreme Court justices
- In the month leading up to June 8, 2022, Roske conducted internet searches for the homes of these four justices, including images
- In the two weeks before June 8, 2022, the defendant purchased a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a rail-mounted tactical light with laser sight, tactical gloves, non-slip grip socks, cable ties, pepper spray, a lock pick set, a screwdriver, and a wrecking bar
- Two days before June 8, 2022, Roske searched "Windows how to wipe down a drive" and submitted a request to permanently delete the Discord account where statements such as "people have killed judges before" had been made
The Discord Messages: "I'm Shooting for Three"
Discord, the same platform that came into play with other recent cases of political violence, featured prominently in the evidence against Roske. On March 18, 2022, the defendant told another Discord user: "My mental health is too poor for me to fear death, but prison sounds worse to be monitored to the point where you can't even kill yourself. So if I did kill someone, I would definitely try to get away with it."
In May 2022, when a leaked draft majority opinion showed the court was about to overturn Roe v. Wade, Roske searched for it on the computer. The defendant then spent the next two weeks searching terms relating to combat and body armor at least 28 times. Within a month, firearms-related terms were searched over 90 times.
Perhaps most chilling was a May 27, 2022 Discord message in which Roske stated an intent to remove multiple Supreme Court justices through murder. When asked "What you trying to do?" Roske responded: "Remove some people from the Supreme Court." The conversation continued: "Yeah, but I could at least get one, which would change the votes for decades to come, and I'm shooting for three."
The Extensive Internet Search History
The government cataloged months of disturbing internet searches that demonstrated, in their view, extensive premeditation. Examples from the search history included:
- "Quietest semi-auto rifle"
- "Best silencers for Glock 17"
- "Can you bring a gun in your luggage?"
- "How long does it take for cops to respond to shots fired?"
- "Homemade silencers"
- "Do snipers aim for the head or chest"
- "Best caliber for 200 yards"
- "Does the Secret Service protect Supreme Court justices?"
- "Easiest way to open a locked door"
- "How to break glass quietly"
- "How to remain undetectable"
- "Most reliable way to pick locks"
- "Best way to break into a house"
- "How to make shoes quieter"
- "How to make handcuffs with zip ties"
In the month leading up to June 8th, Roske searched Supreme Court and general searches about its cases 12 times, searched for Justice Brett Kavanaugh extensively 27 times, and searched for two other justices 16 times. The defendant also searched for the justices' home addresses.
Researching Methods of Murder
On June 4, 2022, Roske visited and viewed over 30 websites showing head and neck anatomy and graphics depicting knives in the body, especially in the neck. Some websites had graphic photographs of neck wounds and some showed a knife lodged in a person's neck.
Search terms from this period included:
- "How to quietly knock someone out"
- "How far into the neck is the trachea?"
- "How far into the neck is the throat?"
- "What is the best length of knife for stabbing?"
- "How much force do you need to stab someone's neck?"
- "Carotid artery"
- "Most effective way to silently kill someone"
- "Does twisting or dragging a knife cause more damage?"
- "Neck injury with highest mortality rate"
Roske also researched serial killers and murderers who were careful not to leave evidence, posting on Reddit: "Which serial killer was the most careful? By most careful I mean planned things out very conscious of leaving evidence purposefully trying to avoid having a pattern etc. I'm trying to write a killer who is very methodical, calm, patient, etc. Not theatrical but practical. I was curious what length someone like that would go to in order to avoid leaving evidence."
Planning the Escape
Simultaneous to researching specific targets and methods of killing, Roske researched how to evade prosecution by fleeing to foreign countries without extradition agreements with the United States. Search terms included:
- "Countries that don't extradite to the US"
- "Does Iceland extradite to the US?"
- "Does Sweden extradite to the US?"
- "How to get a passport in California?"
- "Countries least likely to extradite to the US"
The defendant also searched for potential legal defenses, including "insanity defense," "defense by reason of insanity," "what happens if you are suicidal in prison," and "if you are hospitalized after a crime, what happens."
The Journey to Maryland
On June 6, 2022, Roske attempted to fly from Los Angeles to Washington Dulles Airport but arrived at the airport too late to check a bag. The flight was rescheduled for the next day. On June 3, 2022, Roske had visited a shooting range to practice pistol shooting.
On June 8, 2022, Roske made the cross-country flight from Los Angeles to Washington. Upon arriving at Washington Dulles Airport, the defendant took a taxi to Justice Kavanaugh's address in Montgomery County, Maryland, arriving around 1:06 a.m.
The suitcase Roske brought contained:
- The purchased Glock 17 pistol
- Two loaded magazines and additional ammunition
- A chest rig (a harness to carry tactical gear)
- A knife
- Lockpicks
- A hammer
- Screwdriver
- Nail punch
- Crowbar
- Duct tape
- Hiking boots with padding affixed to the bottom of the soles
- Pepper spray
What Happened Outside Kavanaugh's Home: Two Different Accounts
The government and defense accounts of what happened next diverge substantially.
According to the government, two deputy marshals who were guarding Justice Kavanaugh's residence from separate vehicles stationed outside saw the taxi arrive and stop in the street directly in front of the residence. They watched Roske get out of the taxi and retrieve a suitcase from the trunk. One of the deputy United States Marshals was positioned to be able to get out of her car, cracking open her car door and illuminating the interior of her vehicle.
Upon seeing law enforcement's presence, the defendant decided to walk past the front of the house and directly past the deputy United States Marshal. In Roske's own words: "I noticed immediately that there were people sitting outside, and this was a very like empty neighborhood. So I was like, 'Okay, they're keeping a lookout.'"
The government argued it was only after observing a visible law enforcement presence protecting the residence that the defendant walked past the associate justice's home, received a phone call from a sister, and after speaking for approximately 20 minutes, called 911. The prosecution's position was clear: Roske only abandoned the plan after seeing the security detail, not out of voluntary remorse.
The Defense Version: Voluntary Abandonment
The defense presented a different narrative. According to their version, even before the taxi arrived, Roske realized the plan could not be carried through. They argued that while still in the taxi arriving in the justice's neighborhood, their client realized they could not go through with the plan.
The defense further argued that even if the court credited the government's assertion that it was the presence of the deputy US marshals that caused Roske to change course and walk past the house, it was abundantly clear that the presence of the security detail did nothing to provoke Roske to call 911 thirty minutes later from a nearby street. The security detail did not interact with Roske, let alone confront or pursue them, nor did they alert other law enforcement to Roske's presence or initiate any sort of investigation.
The 911 Call
At 1:39 a.m., Montgomery County 911 dispatch received a call from Nicholas Roske stating they were having thoughts of harming themselves or others. Roske stated they had flown from California with an unloaded firearm that was locked in a case, and that the case was inside a zip-tied shut suitcase. They added that they had a backpack that did not contain any weapons.
When asked if they needed medical attention, Roske stated they needed psychiatric help. Roske stated they had other weapons also inside the zip-tied suitcase, but none were in their possession.
The dispatcher instructed Roske on how to act when officers arrived, including placing the suitcase and backpack away from where Roske was standing and making sure they had nothing in their possession except clothing and cell phone. At one point, Roske asked if they should move further away from the bags. When the dispatcher said yes, Roske stated they had done so and moved about 20 yards away from the suitcase.
While sitting on the curb waiting for emergency responders to arrive, Roske continued to answer all the dispatcher's questions. When the dispatcher asked, "Okay, and why were you coming to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house? Just to hurt yourself and him or what was going to be the plan?" Roske responded, "Correct."
As Roske stated they saw police coming, the dispatcher reminded them of the importance of following the officer's commands. Several Montgomery County police officers were dispatched to the area. Officer GD instructed Roske to put down the phone, stand up, and turn around. Roske complied. As officers approached, they could see that Roske had followed the dispatcher's instructions and moved away from the bags.
The Arrest and Interview
The defendant was apparently quite calm when arrested at the scene and at all times after the arrest. Roske's demeanor was calm, responsive, not verbally or physically agitated, and appeared to be resting on multiple occasions—at the scene, in an officer's car while being transported to the district station, while in a holding cell, and when approached in the interview room.
During the interview, Roske told the detective that after being dropped off by the taxi, they noticed immediately that there were people sitting outside and this was a very empty neighborhood, so they thought, "Okay, they're keeping a lookout." Then they went around the house on the other side. Soon after, Roske's sister called, and after that conversation, Roske called 911.
Roske told the detective that the burglary tools were purchased online and that they had conducted research for about a month for what they described as a "project" using the computer. In response to the detective asking what Roske planned to do with the duct tape, Roske stated, "Covering windows when I break them." About plans for the zip ties, Roske stated, "In case I wanted to restrain someone."
The Defense Argument: Mental Health and Internet Addiction
The defense built their case around Roske's deteriorating mental health and the argument that internet searches do not equate to criminal intent. They argued that basing a case on a defendant's internet search history, which included things the defendant thought about but did not do, was problematic.
According to the defense, a user's internet content is voluminous, intensely personal, and can easily be taken out of context. In a case about an attempt, they argued, it is especially important to distinguish what Roske intended and took substantial steps to do from what they merely thought about during a period of severe depression but never acted upon.
The defense emphasized that Roske's depression was worsening significantly in 2021 and 2022. Family members and friends observed withdrawal from people and things they used to love as they increasingly spent more and more time online. The defense cited research establishing a bidirectional relationship between poor psychological well-being, including depression and loneliness, and compulsive internet usage.
They argued that people with depression and loneliness are susceptible to developing compulsive patterns of internet use, and that compulsive internet use can negatively affect psychological well-being. Additionally, they cited neuroscience research finding that compulsive internet use interacts with the same parts of the brain as drugs and alcohol, resulting in dopamine hits that create addictive cycles.
The defense claimed that Roske's depression made them more susceptible to the pull of internet rabbit holes, and that many of the searches the government deemed nefarious had innocent explanations. They argued that searching for information about mass shootings does not mean someone aspires to commit one, but rather is consistent with someone concerned about the epidemic of gun violence. Similarly, searching for information about serial killers does not mean someone aspires to be one, but rather is consistent with someone who has partaken in the national obsession with true crime.
The defense noted that the investigation's memos included only those search terms deemed relevant to the offense conduct or otherwise nefarious, but did not include the many innocent terms Roske searched for, such as movies, TV shows, video games, information relating to filing taxes, news stories, and other random things.
No Plan to Escape or Evade Justice
The defense contested the government's argument that Roske researched potential escapes and defenses. While acknowledging searches for terms like "does Iceland extradite to the US" and "insanity defense," they pointed out that Roske did not take a single step in furtherance of either escaping the country or invoking a defense.
Roske did not have a passport or international travel plans. During the interview, they said nothing suggesting they were trying to invoke a defense or feigning insanity. They did not minimize or obfuscate their conduct in any way. Instead, Roske called 911, reported their thoughts and intentions, revealed their location, disclosed what weapons they had, remained in place as police arrived to arrest them, and freely admitted to investigators the details of their conduct—not because they were pursued by police or caught red-handed, but because they chose to abandon their plan and ask for help.
The Sentencing Arguments
The government sought a sentence of 30 years to life followed by lifetime supervised release. They argued that the defendant's sentencing guidelines range accurately reflected the severity of the crime, and that a guideline sentence of no fewer than 30 years to life was the necessary and just sentence given all the aggravating factors.
The prosecution emphasized that the attempted assassination of a justice of the United States Supreme Court required extensive premeditation. Roske researched, planned, procured the tools for the planned killings, traveled across the entirety of the country, had a gun, and attempted to delete online evidence of motive and intent. The defendant's objective to target and kill judges to seek to alter a court's ruling, they argued, is an abhorrent form of terrorism and strikes at the core of the United States Constitution and the prescribed system of government.
Roske's lawyers asked for a sentence of no more than 96 months (8 years), arguing that their client had called 911 to surrender and had voluntarily abandoned the plan. They emphasized Roske's history of self-disclosure when seeking treatment and the fact that in the deepest states of depression beginning at age 19, Roske had talked about suicidal thoughts and violent thoughts.
The Sentence and Appeal
Ultimately, the court sentenced Roske to 8 years—exactly what the defense requested, and far short of the 30 years to life sought by prosecutors. The sentence sparked immediate controversy, with Attorney General Pam Bondi calling it far too short and announcing plans to appeal.
At sentencing, Roske stated: "I've been portrayed as a monster. This is a tragic mistake I made. It will follow with me for the rest of my life."
The Broader Context of Political Violence
The Roske case comes amid what appears to be an epidemic of political violence in the United States. Threats against federal judges more than doubled since 2021, according to US Marshals Service data reviewed by Reuters. Some judges who have ruled on politically sensitive issues have faced threats and harassment along with their families.
The case also occurred during a period of intense violence affecting both private individuals worshipping together and public figures. The controversy over the sentence reflects deep divisions about how to address politically motivated violence, the role of mental health in criminal culpability, and whether voluntary abandonment of a criminal plan should significantly mitigate punishment.
The question at the heart of the debate is whether Roske should be sentenced for months of disturbing planning and stated intent to kill three Supreme Court justices, or for what actually happened: a last-minute decision to call 911 and surrender without harming anyone. The government argued for the former, emphasizing the extensive premeditation and the fact that only the presence of law enforcement prevented the crime. The defense argued for the latter, emphasizing voluntary abandonment and severe mental health issues.
The court sided more closely with the defense, but the government's appeal means the final word on this case has yet to be written.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.