in

Waukesha Parade Murderer Represents Self in Court

There are several variants of the adage “He who represents himself has a fool for a client,” However, the message remains the same.

Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow found that Darrell Brooks, who is charged with six murder charges as well as 61 charges of negligent danger for the November 21st, 2021 Waukesha parade, has the right to be a self-represented witness. Even though Brooks was so disruptive that he was forced to be relocated into a separate room, he still has the right to be considered his own “fool.” The judge has ruled in advance – prior to the jury being chosen, that Brooks was able to stand for himself.

Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975, was the most famous case that demonstrates the ultimate right of a defendant to advocate for himself. The case of Faretta Ct. 1975, the Supreme Court found that a judge is required to allow self-representation when the defendant is able to comprehend and take part in court proceedings. There are some fundamental requirements, however, that aren't difficult to understand. If an accused can comprehend English and isn't an outright b**** the defendant must be permitted to present himself.

There are numerous famous cases where a defendant was able to represent himself. Colin Ferguson is one. He was responsible for killing six and injuring 19 others on the Long Island train in 1993. Though every witness had put Ferguson on the train, shooting the 9MM pistol, Ferguson claimed that someone else had taken his gun and started firing while he was asleep in the car. Ferguson declared that “racism” is a conspiracy that targets blacks and also referred to himself as a third person. He was found guilty and the judge informed him at the time of his sentence – and in “legal-speak” – that he was a human being. Self-promotion is not the best option even with legal knowledge – and Brooks does not have any.

In June, Judges in Brooks' case ruled against Brooks' request for a changing of venue. The neighborhood in which this trial is held is largely white. “Expert” defense attorneys have expressed doubts regarding the fairness of choosing an all-white jury. In the end, the jury is entirely white. If the scenario is extremely likely that he's found guilty, the verdicts could be challenged on appeal. They're both unlikely to be deemed to be detrimental to his defense and require an appeal. In the first case, Brooks will need to prove that he was unable to receive a fair trial in the Waukesha venue due to the jury being affected by media reports. In the second case, Brooks will, on appeal, argue an argument of De Facto exclusion. If there were no blacks in the jury pool, it could be concerning.There are no demographics available on the jury pool so it’s not clear if any African Americans were among the possible selections. It is unlikely that the prosecution investigated jurors of color, and then eliminated them with the peremptory.

In any case, the trial began on a rocky surface. Brooks was so disruptive that his location was changed to a separate room so that it was possible to participate in a video feed. However, his microphone was turned off until he was ready to “speak.”

Brooks' inability to grasp the courtroom's workings is apparent in his questioning. The prosecutor's attorney is excellent. His opening speech was concise. He made it clear that the police officer who was working security was able to clearly see Brooks in the vehicle.

A glaring error that shows that Brooks does not care or comprehend the importance of witness examination or the way questions are structured when cross-examining an officer. Brooks was questioning an officer that fired on the vehicle as it was accelerating, to explain why he fired at the SUV. Brooks asked if the officer tried to kill the driver.

The officer reacted and replied, “Yes.” I was shooting at “you.” Brooks, by examining the police officer, was able to place himself in the driver's seat.

Other witnesses have put Brooks in the vehicle too. Additionally, a home surveillance video shows a hooded male, who matches Brooks description, running away from the vehicle, as Brooks attempted to flee from the police, but was eventually caught and detained by the police.

Brooks has stated that he doesn't know anyone named “Darrell Brooks,” and said he is a sovereign citizen.

The trial could last for an additional week to present the prosecution's arguments. What Brooks is able to do as his defense is debatable. 

In any case, this is an easy decision. The jury will have a good amount of evidence and, in the end, they'll decide to give a guilty verdict in all of the allegations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Two Grocery Chains Lined Up for Merger

New Poll Shows Good News for Election and Nation