Surely they’d get offers from private firms, right?
Yes. But most criminal defense firms are small (one or two attorneys) and don’t often hire. (I got an offer after three years as a public defender, but almost everyone else I knew stayed there for years or started their own firms). When they do hire, they would look at the attorney’s career, including the high-profile win. But not just that one case.
Trial wins are rare for a public defender. The local criminal bar knows your skills from the whole body of your work, and wouldn’t rank you on your wins. Obviously, wins help build your reputation.
And he’s still spouting off his bullshit, as the verdict is about to be read.
Guilty on the first charge of homicide. I’m not listening to the other 70+, but I imagine the majority of them will be the same.
I know the jury had asked to see the map of his path and where all the victims were, so it’s entirely possible he could be acquitted for some of the charges, but I can’t imagine it’ll be all that many.
life in prison.
I don’t know about that. The attorneys commenting on it agreed that introducing something after the defense had rested is too late, or are you talking about before the trial?
The public defender hadn’t raised the issue before, and had left notes on how the various witnesses should be cross examined. That’s why Brooks was able to ask reason questions along with his SovCit nonsense.
He apparently got the information about the recall from his mother on Friday or Saturday, and since his calls are recorded the prosecutors knew about the issue on Monday morning when he raised the issue. There were already waiting for it and were completely prepared.
I agree with you. He is much more coherent and argues reasonably at times. I don’t believe he honestly believes the SovCit thing but he’s smart enough to grasp onto that as a possible way of getting off.
That would be interesting, but I think he still may have defended himself.
He’s so narcissistic and insistent on his own views that I don’t think he would have let an attorney run things.
Apparently there was a minor kerfuffle over a Reddit post from someone who claimed to be a juror, whom the mod of the subreddit claimed provided proof.
The entire sub is now banned. It was just a prank, bro!
Guilty of all six charges of intentional homicide. There are 60 charges of reckless endangerment that I think are still being read, but all the verdicts I heard were guilty.
I had not realized (or had forgotten) that at the time of the incident, this charmer was out on bail after being arrested for domestic violence, and had a long criminal history before that. He’s never getting out of prison.
That plays into what I was saying before that I’m willing to bet that he’s always been a manipulator. This might be a new level for him, but he’s seems very shocked when he can’t annoy someone into getting what he wants. This is, I’m guessing, the first time he’s been told ‘no’ so many times, with such serious ramifications and by someone who’s aware of what he’s doing and isn’t playing along. Every time he’s told ‘no’, he instantly asks for the judge to provide supporting reasons for her ‘no’ or prove she’s legally in a position to be answering that way. To me, it looks like he’s expecting her to say ‘whatever, fine’ and let him have his way to shut him up, but it’s just not working.
My brother is a repeated criminal. In one conversation I had with him (many years ago, when we were still talking) he mentioned that he felt no guilt about stealing from people, scamming them, stealing people’s identity (he was once part of an identity theft ring, he was even in the local papers). He felt that he was so much smarter than everyone else that he deserved it and they deserved to be victims. I doubt his opinion is that rare.
This perp had the bad luck to be up before an exceptionally competent judge. He’ll probably appeal because that’s just the sort of thing he does, but there is zero basis for it and it will go nowhere.
I think so, too. I think that he doesn’t realize that most people have let him get away with things because he’s either good at manipulating certain people, and too obnoxious for others. They have usually just let him get away with things because he won’t let stuff go.
I doubt that he’s ever had a real job where he would have been held accountable for his actions.
Yep. This is how manipulators work. They just keep pressing buttons until they get what they want.
Guilty of all charges. I had it on while I was doing something else, but it took a long time to read.
Actually, I’m surprised he didn’t have a meltdown during the reading of the verdicts.
I was talking about before the trial. I believe that a competent defense could have explored various possible lines of defense and done their legwork to see if that could be presented to the jury. Not sure if it would be admissible, but it could have been presented at the appropriate time and with the appropriate context.
I don’t know if every defense attorney would discover and present the recall evidence, or if a judge would allow it, but it could have been presented better than he did.
All indications are that he had a competent attorney until Brooks took over himself and obviously they hadn’t done anything with that information. The recall and call action lawsuit are public information so it’s something they could have found out.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t have been able to present that information if they had tried. The police had the SUV inspected and found nothing was wrong with it. The failure in the recall doesn’t seem like it would have been a factor so maybe that’s why the defense didn’t pursue it.
And yes, I think anyone would have done a better job of presenting things than him.
If someone’s car malfunctions and they hit a bunch of people, I think the jurors would expect that this explanation would be the first thing out of the driver’s mouth at the scene.
You would think so, wouldn’t you? You wouldn’t expect them to run away, hide the car and ditch their clothes, either.
Brooks tried to introduce a malfunction in the closing statement but that was rightfully objected to by the prosecutor.
Brooks never offered a defense for what he had done, only that he was a victim and we never know why God lets things happen.
However sincere he is in that belief means bupkis. There are plenty of sincere flat-earthers who believe there is no gravity, just a platter-earth accelerating at 1g since forever. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to cater to that belief.
Mormon studies is actually an adademic field of study and one of the major reasons is that it’s new enough that the massive changes in theology in the early days have been able to be tracked and documented.
Brooks was in court to day for a hearing to set the date of sentencing as well as address a few other things. He is continuing to act as his own attorney.
He had made a claim as the jury was returning with the verdict that he was in shock restraints and the judge took the time to have that disputed, including calling one of the sheriff deputies to the stand.
Brooks was his typical self, and got kicked over to the other courtroom quite quickly and the judge was much faster at dealing with him today. He made a number of disruptive comments and tried to drag out the questioning of deputy.
Today, the judge was much quicker to cut him off and not let him disrupt the procedures. She speaks fairly softly, but effectively. I was impressed.
Sentencing will be held November 15th and 16th.