SUV plows down Wisconsin Christmas parade as children watch in horror

#701
#701
bamawriter said:
Haven't watched the entire session (most of which is jury selection, so it won't be totally televised). But Brooks got himself removed from the courtroom for refusing to shut up and stop asking irrelevant questions. It's going to be really hard to act as his own attorney without being in the room.
Click to expand...
He can do a Zoom call, apparently that's all the rage among younger workers these days.
 
#702
#702
bamawriter said:
Haven't watched the entire session (most of which is jury selection, so it won't be totally televised). But Brooks got himself removed from the courtroom for refusing to shut up and stop asking irrelevant questions. It's going to be really hard to act as his own attorney without being in the room.
Click to expand...
this made me eye roll. That man is going to be in more trouble with the court than he knows.
 
#703
#703
NurseGoodVol said:
this made me eye roll. That man is going to be in more trouble with the court than he knows.
Click to expand...

I don't think he cares. He's going away for the rest of his life. Nothing he (or his former lawyers) can do about that. He's just trying to see how far he can go in frustrating the process.
 
#704
#704
bamawriter said:
I don't think he cares. He's going away for the rest of his life. Nothing he (or his former lawyers) can do about that. He's just trying to see how far he can go in frustrating the process.
Click to expand...

What's the over/under on there being a big victimhood theme once we get into the trial itself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#705
#705
bamawriter said:
I don't think he cares. He's going away for the rest of his life. Nothing he (or his former lawyers) can do about that. He's just trying to see how far he can go in frustrating the process.
Click to expand...
And trying to have a mistrial declared or set himself up for an appeal.

The court has to get him some council, because it appears he isn't going to allow normal proceedings.
 
#708
#708
KB5252 said:
And trying to have a mistrial declared or set himself up for an appeal.

The court has to get him some council, because it appears he isn't going to allow normal proceedings.
Click to expand...

The judge has so far done a good job of not letting him force a mistrial. As for forcing counsel on him, I'm not familiar enough with Wisconsin law to know if that's possible. The judge said that WI does not allow for advisory or elbow counsel, so it seems like if he is going to go pro se he has to go it alone. At the federal level, the court can declare that a defendant is incompetent to represent himself if he is intentionally frustrating the process. But it doesn't appear that such a rule exists in WI, or I'm convinced that this judge would have already pulled that lever.

As far as an appeal, right now he doesn't have a leg to stand on. She was extremely thorough in the Feretta hearings. She made the risks perfectly clear, and she set very specific expectations for his behavior. Appeals courts tend to dislike arguments that boil down to "the judge should have let me do whatever I want regardless of the rules and the law."
 
  • Like
Reactions: hndog609 and KB5252
#709
#709
bamawriter said:
I'm not getting that vibe as of yet. He seems all in on the sovereign citizen "your laws don't apply to me," schtick.
Click to expand...

Thats because he is not getting the picture yet ;)

AMHu.gif
 
#710
#710
bamawriter said:
The judge has so far done a good job of not letting him force a mistrial. As for forcing counsel on him, I'm not familiar enough with Wisconsin law to know if that's possible. The judge said that WI does not allow for advisory or elbow counsel, so it seems like if he is going to go pro se he has to go it alone. At the federal level, the court can declare that a defendant is incompetent to represent himself if he is intentionally frustrating the process. But it doesn't appear that such a rule exists in WI, or I'm convinced that this judge would have already pulled that lever.

As far as an appeal, right now he doesn't have a leg to stand on. She was extremely thorough in the Feretta hearings. She made the risks perfectly clear, and she set very specific expectations for his behavior. Appeals courts tend to dislike arguments that boil down to "the judge should have let me do whatever I want regardless of the rules and the law."
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed response. My fear was that he was going to disrupt the proceedings to the point that he would have to be removed from the courtroom. I was under the impression that could be used as an argument that he was not allowed or unfit to participate in his defense adequately. But from your response that doesn't appear likely.
 
#711
#711
KB5252 said:
Thanks for the detailed response. My fear was that he was going to disrupt the proceedings to the point that he would have to be removed from the courtroom. I was under the impression that could be used as an argument that he was not allowed or unfit to participate in his defense adequately. But from your response that doesn't appear likely.
Click to expand...

At one point the judge warned Brooks that he'd be removed if he kept it up, and he shouted back "Remove me!" It's hard to base an appeal on the judge doing exactly what you demanded she do.

The most galling moment from yesterday was when the judge asked for a list of his potential witnesses for the purpose of jury selection. He claimed that he left the list in his holding cell. When she gave him the opportunity to go back to the cell to get it, he said "I'm not gonna do that." So she said he could give his witness list verbally and, I kid you not, he said "How am I supposed to do that without the list in front of me?"
 
#712
#712
bamawriter said:
At one point the judge warned Brooks that he'd be removed if he kept it up, and he shouted back "Remove me!" It's hard to base an appeal on the judge doing exactly what you demanded she do.

The most galling moment from yesterday was when the judge asked for a list of his potential witnesses for the purpose of jury selection. He claimed that he left the list in his holding cell. When she gave him the opportunity to go back to the cell to get it, he said "I'm not gonna do that." So she said he could give his witness list verbally and, I kid you not, he said "How am I supposed to do that without the list in front of me?"
Click to expand...
Sounds like one of those scenarios where the guy would call himself as a witness and under cross examination ask the judge for permission to treat him as a hostile witness.

All that to say this trial will be a cluster fudge of his own creation.

Honestly it sounds like this guy shouldn't have been walking the streets a free man to begin with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bamawriter and Wireless1
#718
#718
I will say this about the judge: she is being overly thorough regarding procedure, decorum, rulings, etc. She is clearly doing so because she wants the record to destroy whatever argument he tries to make on appeal. However, it gets to a point where she should just say "We've covered this and we're moving on."
 
#721
#721
Brooks is actually doing an okay job of keeping the crazy in check in front of the jury.

However, he's going into SovCit nonsense that makes him look like a moron. He's asked a cop about how the State of Wisconsin can be the plaintiff if it isn't a human being. He keeps blurting out "GROUNDS!" whenever the DA objects to a question. He doesn't consent to being called by his name or by the pronoun "he."

He's clearly talking to someone after each hearing, because he's adding new nonsense every day. It would be interesting to hear the recordings of his calls from jail. I wonder if the DA will use them if he chooses to testify.
 
#724
#724
His objection to the use of his name is makes him look really stupid. It would be one thing to say "I'm not Darrell Brooks. Whoever they are talking about isn't me." Instead it's coming off as "I know I ran all those people down, but I would prefer that you call me by a different name."

Also, he throws out objections with no concept of what they mean. He objects to fact-based questions with "hearsay," but the question had nothing to do with anyone saying anything. Then he objects to something like "which cross street was this?" with "irrelevant." So the location of the crime isn't relevant?
 
#725
#725
Based on his cross-examinations, his defense appears to be "when I was driving thru the closed parade route I was honking my horn, so I was giving the marchers warning and cannot be held responsible for hitting them."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top