Has he ever said why he wanted to kill these people?
Not that I know of. He said that he didn’t do it, then he said that everybody just needs to forgive him. He has posted hate speech against white people and Jews.
Most likely to me is that he was just mad at his girlfriend.
During his closing arguments - he said it was ‘God’s Plan’ and we should accept it.
And this phantom malfunction not only disabled the brakes but also forced the driver to drive in a zigzag pattern, hitting as many people as possible?
And magically fixed itself when the police inspected the vehicle later.
Clearly it was hacked. All these newer models vehicles are subject to cyberattack. You don’t have to cut the brakes anymore, just hack the software to allow for remote interference.
…or so the argument might go. Or at least something like that if a competent defense attorney was forced by his or her client to reject an insta it y defense, and so wanted to introduce some conceivable doubt, along the lines of “Isn’t it true, detective, that you are not a cyber crimes expert? And isn’t it true that no one in your department is certified on this particular SUVs software? Then isn’t it true you cannot, and did not, rule out the possibility that the software was hacked through malicious code?”
And FWIW, what I have just laid out could conceivably happen. Fortunately, the standard for criminal conviction is not “beyond any conceivable doubt,” but “beyond reasonable doubt.” Mere assertions as part of a jumbled and contradictory mess of a closing simply will not do.
and prevented you from taking any side streets?
Jury deliberations beginning:
ETA, the actual title of that article is “Darrell Brooks trial: Jury begins deliberations after closing arguments”
ETA2, the article is the same as the previous one (hence the title). The jury part is tacked onto the end. Scroll waaaaaay down.
IANAL, but isn’t it true that if the defense wanted to try a argument like that, it would have to inform the prosecution, so that they would be able to bring an expert in the SUV’s software in to testify?
I mean, I think that’s the reason behind pretrial hearings where both sides show the kinds of evidence they’re going to be introducing at trial.
IIRC, for the the car recall issue, the defense failed to raise the issue during the evidentiary phase. He wanted to recall the police investigator since he claimed the prosecution should have told him about the recall and class action lawsuit. The prosecution argued that the car wasn’t impacted by the failure, it had been examined specifically for that. And even if it had, the brakes would have stopped the car. And that the prosecution wasn’t required to do the legwork for the defense. It was his mother’s car, who had gotten the notifications of the recall and could have supplied the information.
The judge’s ruling was that the defense missed his opportunity to raise the issue. And based on the other evidence presented it was extremely speculative so it wasn’t appropriate to raise to the jury without something else supporting it.
It was a logical defense issue that a competent attorney might have gotten into evidence.
This is one of the many things throughout the trial that, I don’t want to say made me feel bad for him, but kinda did. That is, he raised a good point that would have been worthy of the court’s time, but he couldn’t bring it up due to, what is more or less, a technicality. Just a quick side note with that; I may have felt differently if I wasn’t working under the assumption that even if he had OJ’s Dream Team, he’d never be a freeman again.
I also still can’t wrap my ahead around what he was going for by defending himself. Certainly he knew that there was almost no path to a not guilty verdict. A lawyer can only help. Hell, even if a lawyer quietly gave him some pointers on how to act crazy without pissing off the judge, that would have helped him. And as an added bonus, they could have handled the procedural side of things.
I’m not so sure. He might be delusional enough to believe that if he just says the magic words, the court will realize it has no power over him and let him go free. Sovereign citizens are not unlike trolls in that sense: the difference between malevolent bad faith on the one hand and sincere but stupid on the other is at times difficult to parse, and the same individual might weave between the two depending upon the particular issue under discussion.
Anyway, I do feel justice, “the people,” whatever would be better served if someone had been required to advocate on his behalf, even if only before the judge (so as not to force a particular line of defense on him in front of the jury, if he really didn’t want it). At the very least, I think the state should be required to prove its case, and part of that—in practice if not strictly in theory—demands an actual contest, not just shooting a fish already on the end of a line. Because, again, I think that’s a better outcome for the system as a whole, to force the prosecution to actually argue against someone competent (and I don’t mean bare bones competent to stand trial, I mean competent when it comes to the technicalities of the law and various ins and outs at trial).
But then I realize that any defense attorney forced to assist an uncooperative client might put their own career in jeopardy. What’s the standard to use for ineffective assistance of counsel if counsel fails to do something simple like, say, look into the recall notices and request them, but the defendant never even told them that maybe their brakes might have failed as a defense? Just for example, as a purely rhetorical question. The thrust is, it seems to simply shift the “you never told me that was an issue, so I was under no obligation to do it” burden from the court to a hapless defense attorney.
True, and we’re all just guessing at his actual motivation. I’m not sure if you’ve heard him speak yet, but he comes off as a whole lot more coherent than the written articles suggest. Personally, I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. But I’m open to the idea that he’s fully immersed in the SC thing and he honestly believes it all.
I think an interesting test would be if he was on trial for something considerably less severe. For example, instead of driving through the parade, he fired some ‘warning shots’ to scare the girls he was arguing with and someone got killed by a stray bullet. So instead of 76 charges and multiple lifetimes in jail, he was looking at manslaughter and 10-20 years in jail. Would he still defend himself? Would he still act like this? Would he still play the SC card?
I, and it seems many others, are under the impression all of this is an act since he’s in a ‘nothing to lose’ situation so he’s just wasting time.
After the case is over, it’ll be interesting to hear from others what he’s like in real life (not on trial, not on camera). Will his family and friends say he was always like this or headed in this direction or that it was just an act? Will prison guards say he’s as much of a problem as he appeared to be in court or that he’s a model prisoner that’s never mentioned being a SC?
jury is in. announcement is expected shortly.
It really isn’t a black mark on one’s career to be found ineffective. Certainly, having a reputation for that would hurt, but in the circumstances you describe, it would not “put their own career in jeopardy.”
To be read at 10:45 AM Central Time.
I’d agree; it’d be one thing for a lawyer to provide a poor defense for a client, due to being lazy or incompetent. In the case described, especially if the lawyer is being “forced to assist” an uncooperative client, then as long as there isn’t any malpractice going on, I don’t see how it would have a bad effect on the lawyer’s career.
Lawyers regularly lose cases. Lawyers also likely, with some regularity, have difficult or stupid clients, or wind up with cases which even deft lawyering can’t turn around.
his actions/demeaner after it being sent to the Jury tell the entire story of his act.
On the flipside, however, I assume it would be a huge boost to the career of a public defender if they got him acquitted.
I’m assuming he’ll appeal the (presumably guilty) verdict. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets representation for that. Any ‘reasonable’ person would be aware that the tactic he used here wasn’t very effective and it would be wise to try playing by the rules next time. Plus, I have to assume a judge in an appeal case, assuming they had a similar demeanor as Judge Dorow, would look favorably on him if he took the appeal case seriously.
The public defender would be the toast of the office that night at the local pub. After that, he or she would turn to their next hopeless case. Public defenders have a rather thankless job, and not much “boosts” their careers.