A couple of the injured kids have been able to go home from the hospital.
Just wanted to acknowledge that this was funny…a moment of levity amidst this horrific occasion. Carry on!
Bump….
The perp has been on trial for a couple of weeks now. He’s gone full Sovereign Citizen and is representing himself, and it’s apparently been spectacular. I watched a few clips and his defense strategy seems to consist mostly of insulting and talking over the judge.
The Beloved was just remarking on how patient and calm the judge has been. I guess it’s easier to be nice when you know that you’ll soon be sticking the guy in a 6’ x 8’ box for the rest of eternity.
I definitely heard about him taking his shirt off in the courtroom.
I’ve watched some videos by lawyers discussing and commenting on the trial. One that I found to be enlightening was two defense attorneys discussing his defense.
He delayed offering an opening statement until after the prosecutors rested their very well done case, as is his right. There are just too many videos and witnesses showing that he did what has been charged, and he didn’t outline a legal strategy of why it couldn’t have been him, but rather some sort of vague statements that everyone is suffering and the jury will finally have a chance to hear both sides.
In the video, one defense attorney gave his take that Brooks has three arguments which he’s attempting to make. He hasn’t stated much of this directly but it’s sort of implied.
First, that it’s all his ex-girlfriend’s fault. There was a domestic violence incident right before he took off down the parade route and this is a classical abuser blaming things on the victim. It was her fault that he got so enraged and people should have moved out of his way because he couldn’t have controlled his reaction.
Second, he tries to show that there may have been other people in the SUV, so maybe trying to raise doubts about it being him. However, too many witnesses and video evidence show that there wasn’t anyone else in the car.
Third, he have gone SovCit, but he’s gotten shot down repeatedly by the judge. They think that his SovCit stuff possibly comes from influence from other people in jail.
As he is defending himself as a pro se, the judge is giving him a lot of leeway. (Too much, IMHO). I would not have had the patience for him.
There is a mix of opinions by the lawyers I’ve watched. Some believe the judge is doing exactly what she needs to in order to appeal proof a conviction. Others say she should take a harder line on him.
He called as his witnesses a bunch of victims and others who hate him, including his ex-gf and her male friend. All of his witnesses seemed to have helped the prosecution’s case more than his. None of them helped his case. At this point he has nothing.
He has said he will call his mother as a witness on Monday and then he may possibly take the stance.
It will probably go to the jury on Tuesday or possibly Wednesday.
The video of this trial can be used to conclusively demonstrate why representing yourself is such a bad idea, even without the SovCit nonsense. He opened the door several times which allowed otherwise excluded evidence in, and only the judge saved him from having his prior criminal history allowed as he was opening the door yet again.
I can hear his appeal argument already.
“It’s pretty clear my attorney was out of his mind.”
Sheesh.
Well, the guy seems despicable and I hope he goes to jail until a thousand years after his corpse stops smelling.
But I think it IS pretty clear his attorney was out of his mind. He’s not getting a fair trial. In this case a fair trial would put him away, but, we shouldn’t have sham trials anyhow. Maybe the law does not provide for forcing a defendant to have competent representation. Does anybody here know? Otherwise, it seems to me this trial should be appealed.
Unfortunately, it seems that appeals are in essence automatic, even when they shouldn’t be. I’m sure that he’ll appeal if convicted, even though he should have the grace and dignity to accept the verdict.
Too many appeals boil down to “Waah! Waah! I don’t like the outcome! Life isn’t fair!”
But what’s the alternative?
Let’s say he did get forced to have competent representation after he explains that, no, he wants to represent himself — and, like you just said, let’s say the ensuing trial results in him getting “put away”. Would he get to appeal that? Could he say, I wanted to do A and B and C, which might have worked; and this lawyer they forced on me, he was in favor of X and Y and Z, which, uh, didn’t; so, now that I was forced to do it his way, shouldn’t I be allowed to do it mine?
(Unless you just mean that he gets a lawyer who pushes for X-Y-Z stuff, but who can be ignored such that he still goes A-B-C — but, if so, what’s gained?)
I’ve been half keeping up with this trial. It’s getting a lot of coverage here (it’s local to me) and on days with court proceedings, it dominates the news sites.
The first article I read outlining a day in court, I assumed he was just blathering incoherent non-sense. Then I watched a video and, while he’s blathering non-sense, it’s not incoherent. I was surprised at how well spoken he is (at least compared to my expectations) and he does appear to be more intelligent than I would have assumed. Someone at my work regularly watches clips from the courtroom so I’ve seen a bit of it as well.
Yesterday, I heard him complain to the judge that he has to answer all of her questions but she doesn’t have to answer any of his. I asked the person if this was a ‘rerun’ (I thought he was watching an older clip). Nope, turns out that’s just one of his go-to lines every time he asks her, and she declines, to explain the workings of some court procedure.
It’s just another delay tactic. Like just about everything else he’s done. At the beginning he wanted to delay the trial for three days until he got a covid test result because he felt he had covid and was concerned. The judge declined the request because (IIRC) the doctor cleared him and he refused to take a rapid test. He also refuses to answer simple yes or no questions but instead attempts to twist them into something else.
The judge has far, far more patience than I think anyone could have expected. She seems to be doing her absolute best to accommodate someone that’s clearly making a mockery of the court in order to do everything in her power to make sure that this person, representing himself, gets the fairest trial she can provide him with.
Even though he doesn’t have a lawyer representing him, I’m curious if he still has legal help outside the courtroom.
One thing I’ve heard mentioned is that a big part of his antics are because he’s trying to get held in contempt just to delay things even more. Unfortunately for him, she’s avoided doing that, instead choosing to move him to a different courtroom and video conferencing back in. This gives the judge the ability to put him on mute during times when he shouldn’t be speaking (like objecting during an opening statement or complaining about jurors after jury selection). *
Another thing I’ve noticed with her is that she’s going out of her way to make him look as ‘respectable’ as she can. In the early days of the trail, he was wearing his orange jumpsuit. She consistently asked him if he’s rather change into a suit and tie. Like, throughout the day, anytime there was a break, she’d offer him the chance to change out of the jumpsuit, but he refused. The jury also never sees him walking (he doesn’t move away from his table and the jury is cleared before he’s moved in/out of the room) so they don’t see the leg shackles he’s wearing.
I think she’s doing a great job at remaining calm, offering him a fair trial while still calling him out on his BS, but also making sure that the media and the internet doesn’t find little molehills they can use to turn into mountains and claim she did something wrong.
*that’s the part that made me think maybe he’s smarter than I assumed he would have been. He claimed to have a previous interaction with one of the jurors and wanted her removed. The judge took issue with him for not bringing that up during jury selection, but he pointed out that she had him in the other room that day and the camera on the jury pool was set up in such a way that he couldn’t see her or he would have objected then. True? False? Part of a bigger plan? I don’t know, but it was at least a logically sound argument (and the judge did remove that juror ‘in an abundance of caution’).
It’s hard to argue that anyone should have the grace and dignity to accept a verdict when they’re staring down the barrel of a life (or death) sentence and have nothing but time on their hands. They have literally nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing appeals.
In fact, the judge has already instructed him, if found guilty, to file an appeal in response to some of his complaints that would be addressed during an appeal, not now.
FWIW, Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty – it was the first U.S. state to permanently abolish it, back in 1853. But yes, he’s undoubtedly looking at a life sentence.
I don’t know for sure, obviously, but I was in a jury selection process on Zoom and the potential jurors being questions were moved onto the screen into a more prominent position. In in-person jury selections I’ve been in the potential jurors selected for questioning moved to the actual jury box from the pool, and also would be easy to see. The jurors also give their names and get specifically asked if they know the defendants or any of the list of potential witnesses.
Here’s the clip from that interaction. I have no idea how jury selection plays out in real life, let alone via zoom, so I don’t know how everything would or should be set up, but it appears he couldn’t see them.
But in any case, after having read quite a lengthy article on all his antics in court and then seeing him actually speaking for the first time in that video, I was surprised he was talking like a civilized human and even more shocked that, at least in my opinion, he a valid complaint and solid reasoning to back it up.
Even if his problem with that juror was entirely fabricated and it was just another delay tactic, the complaint, in and of itself, was entirely plausible when taken in consideration of his reasoning for not speaking up earlier.
I’d be willing to bet he’s a manipulator in real life. Even if he’s being coached, he’s too good at this to have just picked it up since he was arrested. James McGill didn’t turn into Saul Goodman overnight.
That was all a really long winded way for me to say that I can’t blame him for doing all this. Had he been on trial for something a lot more minor and was just looking at a week or two in jail, I’d feel differently if he was behaving like that.
And here’s the clip I forgot to include.
I have not bee following this trial, but these are my assumptions. The judge has a good idea of the amount of time his schedule allows for this case. I imagine he is pretty much sitting back, trying to avoid making this about HIM, and trying to stave off glaring appealable issues. So, in large part, his job is to sit back, avoid taking offense at this despicable moron’s antics, and allow him to blat on - having his day(s) in court.
I’ve long said that among the main requirements for a judge are a high tolerance for boredom, a thick skin, and a strong bladder. Of course, WRT the 3d item, the judge can call a recess whenever he/she wants - something no one else in the courtroom can do! 
Her, the judge is Jennifer Dorow. She is documenting everything on the record, down to the number of times the defendent mumbled under his breath and when. She’s making this appeal-proof and it’s a lot of work.
Monday morning update:
Brooks made a motion that because the SUV had a recall, the prosecution should have known that and therefore they should have turned this over to him. However, the prosecution was ready for it, and his motion got denied.
After that, Brooks refused to participate, and refused to answer if he had a witness ready (his mother was the only potential witness other than himself). He kept arguing with the judge, constantly interrupting her and continuing to try to revisit his SovCit nonsense, so she had Brooks removed to the other courtroom.
Before making a decision if he was going to testify or not, the judge needs to have a colloquy to determine if he understood his rights. He repeatedly refused to cooperation. After the judge carefully made a record she ruled that he had forfeited his right to testify.
She then ruled that the defense had rested, the prosecution said they didn’t have any rebuttal witnesses. She excused the jury for the day so that they can go over the jury instructions. They will spend most of tomorrow going over the jury instructions then closing statements either tomorrow or Wednesday.
It’s almost over.
I do have to say that the judge was much more forceful today than before. Well done.
Yes and no. She’s allowing him his day in court, but she’s balancing that with not allowing him to blat on for so long that his day in court turns into more and more days. She’s doing a good job of squelching his nonsense while allowing just enough to slip through that she can make a case for shutting him up. For example, he’s been told over and over that he cannot call the State of Wisconsin as a witness, but she’ll let him at least say it so she can make a note of it and it’ll help prove that, for example, he chose not to have any witnesses, she didn’t deny it.
OTOH, she’s more or less ignores it when someone refers to him as Darrell Brooks and he says 'you mean the person you’re identifying as Darrell Brooks". It’s mostly harmless, probably doesn’t change anything and allows him to get some of the sovereign citizen stuff out of his system with minimal interruption.
And the whole ‘either tell me who you want to call as a witness or you’re forfeiting your chance to call your own witness(es)’ thing started last week. She told him then that she wanted his witness list since the court will need some time to get that all organized. IIRC, the only witness he requested was the State of Wisconsin, which she told him, again, isn’t a witness he can call to the stand.
Again, I think she’s doing a great job of keeping his antics reined in while giving him enough slack to justify her actions.