Hold on… is that “Darrell Brooks”? Or “DARRELL BROOKS”? Big difference. One is a legal Creation of the State. The Other is a Free bOrn and Natural PERSON, Sovereign under The Land by God, and put Forth into Absolute and Free Claim Moral Personhood by the Articles Of Confederation.
So I think there should be a hearing on that issue before this trial proceeds any further.
ETA: But only if the State will present Herself In Proprio Person and agree to Discrete And Conditional Joinder.
ETA2: That is my take on how a sovereign citizen might frame the argument. Sorry, I should make that very clear. If it seems incoherent, it’s because (as this Brooks character appears to be showing by example) such arguments almost invariably are.
No, he had a number of witnesses, 12 in addition to the State of Wisconsin which was denied.
He got pissy because he needed the prosecution to help issue subpoenas, which they were willing to do as a favor, but they wanted to know which ones he wanted on each day. Since the prosecution didn’t have to tell him which witness was coming in which order for their case, he thought it was grossly unfair. The judge made it really easy and said to pick three for each morning and three for each afternoon. He kept going on and on but faced with the choice of submitting that request or trying to call witnesses from jail and ask them to come, he eventually gave the list.
The morning session is finished. Brooks refused to cooperate with drafting the jury instructions, of course, and resorted to building forts out of the boxes of files of evidence. My kids did that when they were in kindergarten and were upset with me, and he’s showing about the same level of emotional control.
There’s a difference between the State preventing a fair trial, and the defendant purposefully choosing to have an ineffective defense.
We should not reward people for interfering with the trial process, then appealing on the grounds that his interference in the process caused a bad result.
Everyone involved in this has a lot more patience than I would in the situation. I guess they are just sitting back, knowing the trial can only last so long. The judge is especially good at handling all the oddball crap that he keeps throwing up.
I know this can’t happen, but I wish there was a way to prevent people like this guy from directly questioning people they terrorized/assaulted/tried to kill. I can’t even imagine having to be questioned by the guy that tried to kill me.
As someone else mentioned, he’s getting the trial he chose. It’s fair in the sense that he’s capable of understanding the implications of his decisions, and he’s made a number of very poor decisions.
What a nightmare. Like things wouldn’t be bad enough being questioned by his lawyer.
Sorry if I missed this, is there a specific standard that would disqualify someone from acting as their own lawyer? Would not knowing right from wrong disqualify someone? I’d guess not being able to help in your own defense would be right out.
Defendants have a constitutional right to defend themselves, if they choose to.
In Faretta v. California, (1975) the Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. So, perhaps an insanity defense would preclude self-represntation.
Assuming he does not get an outcome that is acceptable to him, how would the appeal process work? Can he just say after the trail and sentencing “I appeal” and that will set in motion another trail at everyone’s expense? Or can the appeal be shut-down toot-sweet, and this excrescence get locked-up and forgotten like he deserves?
Aha, not what I thought this was. He was claiming the juror insulted him, and the previous knowledge was from the trial, not from before the trial. No way a camera would have covered that.
Thanks for the clip.
My understanding is that it’s a particularly high bar in Wisconsin. As this article about the Waukesha case notes (it’s from a few months ago, before the trial started):
Yeah, but, “intelligently elects”? This guy sounds like a total idiot. Can he make this choice intelligently?
I’m not trying to defend his actions. I’m just arguing that the State should not have a defendant badly represented, by himself or otherwise, if the State can reasonably tell the representation is bad. Defendants should be competently defended, even if they’re guilty and horrible.
I feel pissed that he’s abusing the courtroom so. It’d be fine with me if they chain him up and take him out behind the courthouse and a dozen lawyers beat him up specifically for the way he’s behaving at trial. My objection is that, with him as lawyer, even innocent people could easily get convicted. I don’t think the state should go along with that. I guess he sounds pretty guilty, but the bar should be higher than that.
There are other times when he makes intelligent and detailed objections and arguments. They’re often wrong, but they make sense and are logical. He’s presenting himself as out of control at least partially for his own purposes.
Is there a process for forcing someone to have professional representation, against their will? Would he have to be declared incompetent first? While I agree every trial should be seen as fair, how does the court step-in to ensure someone is represented properly in the court’s eyes, and in the general public?
If an accused is found to be incompetent to give instructions for their own defence, the trial doesn’t proceed. (That’s a different issue than insanity at the moment the crime was alleged to have been committed.) The trial generally isn’t permanently stayed, in case the individual does regain competence, but if they are never found competent to give instructions, then the trial won’t proceed.
But what if the person is entirely competent but acting like they aren’t.
Brooks has been evaluated by multiple mental health professionals, who deemed him competent to stand trial, saying his peculiar behaviors were not the result of any mental health issues. The court, in consultation with the psychologists, deemed him competent to stand trial and represent himself. The District Attorney said they are not concerned about his competency to stand trial and believes his behavior is a delay tactic.
In short, it seems like the powers that be have decided his mental health (or lack thereof) isn’t the issue. He’s just playing games to delay things. One of the things I read somewhere mentioned that the judge is being very careful to make sure experts evaluate him and sign off on him defending himself knowing that he may try to get the decision reversed on the basis of allowing him to represent himself when he clearly isn’t able to do so.
It’s possible, in addition to delaying things, he may also be hoping that someone will evaluate him after the trial, taking his in-court behavior into consideration and suggesting he never should have been allowed to be up there by himself.
I found this link (PDF) to the Wisconsin Law Library on the topic, which states the following:
It does seem to indicate that, in Wisconsin, when someone wishes to act as their own lawyer at a trial, the court has to determine if they’re competent to do so. However, on page 7 of that document, it also outlines the criteria for a court to determine that “competence”:
tl;dr: Yes, there’s a process in place in Wisconsin to deny someone who is truly incompetent from representing themselves at trial, but the bar for that seems to be truly around “does not fully understand what is going on,” rather than “is erratic, argumentative, and probably trying to gaslight the legal system.”
The right to control one’s own defence is a fundamental trial principle, particularly when the stakes can be high. And, lawyers cannot act for someone who will not give them instructions. How can the lawyer advance a defence if the accused won’t even talk to them?