Jump to content

Darrell Brooks trial


rmgill

Recommended Posts

I just saw some details. The man who ran down a parade of children and adults in Waukesha is apparently defending himself in court. 

I don't expect this trail to go very well. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict he's going to be found guilty. Then the left will scream that he didn't have a fair trial. Naturally they won't note that his defense was grossly incompetent. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently he has been seen by experts multiple times. He has shown remorse and apologized for the court room antics so he does know right from wrong. I think he's just a dirt bag. Hopefully he gets 6 consecutive life sentences assuming there was not some strange mixup of him and the actual perp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly he's not receiving a competent defence and could likely appeal based in that - so long as he doesn't try to continue to be his own lawyer and someone else funds it.  Unless the death penalty is involved, I doubt "the left" is going to be much interested in this case, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

I don’t think you can use “incompetent defense” as a cause for appeal if you defended yourself.

You may be right.  IANAL. 

At best, a good lawyer might have been able to claim he was just panicky and didn't mean to hurt anyone.  From evidence presented, that likely wouldn't work.  A good lawyer might also have plea bargained to lesser offences if the prosecutor was unaccountably merciful or lazy. 

Whatever happens, I bet he's not getting out of jail any decade soon if ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has spent 28 years in and out of court, I can tell you that the reason the judge is allowing the BS is to prevent an appeal on "Ineffective", or to be overturned on not allowing him to conduct his defense.  Judges are terrified of being overturned since it looks bad on them.  Before I retired I testified in two trials where the attorneys were so bad, that the prosecution was having to help them to just avoid "ineffective assistance" claims on appeal.  So since he is Pro Se (representing himself) the Judge has to allow a certain amount of BS to prevent being overturned on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was making a point about the George Floyd coverage but mixed up the what the media is paying attention to bit over on the Rushdie threat.

The points still stands, just not for response to Banshee...re-targeting here for correct elevation/azimuth...



Compared to the George Floyd coverage and subsequent riots, considering this was a  parade of children and elderly that were run down by the crazed man, yeah, it's been memory holed. 

Do you think ANY of the news casters that were just short of frothing at the mouth about Floyd have uttered Jackson Spark's name as 1/4 as many times?

Likewise, Virginia "Ginny" Sorenson (79), Wilhelm Hospel (81), Jane Kulich (52), Leanna "Lee" Owen (71), Tamara Durand (52). 

6-victims-box-.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Murph said:

As someone who has spent 28 years in and out of court, I can tell you that the reason the judge is allowing the BS is to prevent an appeal on "Ineffective", or to be overturned on not allowing him to conduct his defense.  Judges are terrified of being overturned since it looks bad on them.  Before I retired I testified in two trials where the attorneys were so bad, that the prosecution was having to help them to just avoid "ineffective assistance" claims on appeal.  So since he is Pro Se (representing himself) the Judge has to allow a certain amount of BS to prevent being overturned on appeal.

 I'm pleased that my worries were wrong. It's great to hear from you, Murph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.  

I had a trial where the defense counsel asked me: "Do you think this property is haunted?"  In my last Capital Murder trial, the defense asked me: Was there grass on the property (it was out in the country, so...yes)?  Again, Prosecutors and Judges are terrified of being overturned on appeal.  I have actually made case law (normally a VERY bad thing for a cop), twice and in a positive way (I did things right).  In the Capital Murder trial I was on the stand for over an hour, and I swear I lost brain cells during the defense questioning (I was called as a Defense witness!).  Killer got life in less than 20 minutes of jury deliberation.  He murdered two parents in front of their 6 and 8 year old children, and then tried to kill them as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Murph said:

Thank you.  

I had a trial where the defense counsel asked me: "Do you think this property is haunted?"  In my last Capital Murder trial, the defense asked me: Was there grass on the property (it was out in the country, so...yes)?  Again, Prosecutors and Judges are terrified of being overturned on appeal.  I have actually made case law (normally a VERY bad thing for a cop), twice and in a positive way (I did things right).  In the Capital Murder trial I was on the stand for over an hour, and I swear I lost brain cells during the defense questioning (I was called as a Defense witness!).  Killer got life in less than 20 minutes of jury deliberation.  He murdered two parents in front of their 6 and 8 year old children, and then tried to kill them as well.  

Welcome back and thanks for the perspective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/337/

One of the things related to Brooks being stuck in the other court room. He doesn't understand this singular case. 
 

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)

Illinois v. Allen

No. 606

Argued February 24, 1970

Decided March 31, 1970

397 U.S. 337

 

Syllabus

Respondent, who was on trial for robbery, was removed from the courtroom for repeated disruptive behavior and the use of vile and abusive language directed at the trial judge, notwithstanding the judge's prior warning that removal would follow another outburst. Appointed counsel represented respondent during the period respondent was not allowed in the courtroom, principally the presentation of the State's case. Having given some assurances of good conduct, respondent was allowed to return to the courtroom while appointed counsel presented his defense. Respondent was convicted. Following the State Supreme Court's affirmance, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, contending that he had been deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to confront the witnesses against him. The District Court declined to issue the writ. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to attend his own trial was so "absolute" that, regardless of how unruly his conduct, he could never be held to have lost that right so long as he insisted on it, as respondent had.

Held:

1. A defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, following the judge's warning that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in such a disruptive manner that his trial cannot proceed if he remains in the courtroom. He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect. Pp.  397 U. S. 342-343.

2. A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly. Pp.  397 U. S. 343-346. 

Page 397 U. S. 338

 

3. On the facts of this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, respondent, through his disruptive behavior, having lost his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp.  397 U. S. 345-347.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, rmgill said:

And was the grass mowed to the satisfaction of the code enforcement wonks? 

You know, I did not notice.  But I have never seen two human bodies more destroyed in my entire career.  Husband was shot 12 times, beaten with an entrenching tool, and then run over by an ATV.  Wife was shot at least 39 times (6 to the face with a .45 long colt) beaten with a "t" post driver (a metal club about 5' long), hit with the entrenching tool, run over with an ATV.  You can hear the last gunshots on perhaps the most heart breaking 911 call I have ever heard, a call so bad our Texas Ranger was crying as he listened to it.  We figured 39 times since the Medical Examiner ran out of trajectory rods during the 9 HOUR LONG autopsy (most autopsies last for 1 1/2 to 2 hours).  Bullet holes on her were overlapping, so the ME finally settled on 39 wounds.  One (from the 5.56mm) almost blew off her ankle.  When the jury heard the 911 call,  multiple jurors were openly crying (the men especially) and effectively the trial was over.  Suspect claimed "self defense".  

I can close my eyes and see that scene in living color.  Somethings you can never forget.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Murph said:

You know, I did not notice.  But I have never seen two human bodies more destroyed in my entire career.  Husband was shot 12 times, beaten with an entrenching tool, and then run over by an ATV.  Wife was shot at least 39 times (6 to the face with a .45 long colt) beaten with a "t" post driver (a metal club about 5' long), hit with the entrenching tool, run over with an ATV.  You can hear the last gunshots on perhaps the most heart breaking 911 call I have ever heard, a call so bad our Texas Ranger was crying as he listened to it.  We figured 39 times since the Medical Examiner ran out of trajectory rods during the 9 HOUR LONG autopsy (most autopsies last for 1 1/2 to 2 hours).  Bullet holes on her were overlapping, so the ME finally settled on 39 wounds.  One (from the 5.56mm) almost blew off her ankle.  When the jury heard the 911 call,  multiple jurors were openly crying (the men especially) and effectively the trial was over.  Suspect claimed "self defense".  

I can close my eyes and see that scene in living color.  Somethings you can never forget.  

Sorry. I wasn't meaning to make light of those homicides. Just expressing a general dissatisfaction that fluffy crap is being attended to more than horrible crimes are. Especially by some parts of government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...