The jury has returned a verdict in the trial of Darrell Brooks, charged with killing six people and injuring more than 60 others when he drove an SUV into a crowd of Christmas Paradegoers in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in November of 2021. Brooks was found guilty on six counts of intentional first-degree homicide, as well as over 60 counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, two counts of bail jumping, and one count of battery.
The verdict follows a three-week-plus trial that was characterized by numerous outbursts and disruptions by Brooks, who represented himself.
Per Fox News:
Brooks made several objections over “subject matter jurisdiction” before the jury returned. Judge Jennifer Dorow invited the jurors back. Brooks made a series of requests for documents, Dorow said they were noted and denied.
The decision came after a 23-day trial which saw the defendant, who was representing himself, ejected from the courtroom multiple times for disruptive behavior.
For instance —
As Jim Thompson noted last week:
Lawyers at trial make stupid mistakes, and it’s usually silly errors like not knowing how to ask questions of your own witnesses.
Waukesha Parade murder trial defendant, Darrell Brook, besides being a few weeks away from going to prison for (hopefully) life, is an idiot. As I reported about a week ago, he decided that he would act as his own lawyer. He spent the majority of the trial in a separate room because he can’t keep his mouth shut. Now that the trial has moved into his defense, he should not be in the courtroom. Besides being a fool, he’s also either not very bright or really smart. I lean toward the former. His only hope of it being the latter is to create some hidden, genius appealable issues. Being dumb isn’t a defense or a reason for appeal.
Brooks interrupted his own witness and offered silly objections to his own witness. You can object to an answer of your own witness, but not to an answer that you simply don’t like. And you can’t engage in a commentary or make a speech, which is what Brooks constantly does.
In his closing argument, Brooks told the jury:
“One thing that I believe that you have not been privy to is the truth of your rights and your duties being the jury. The fact that you and you alone, have the power, not well-prepared DAs with well-prepared and clearly rehearsed speeches, exhibits, a lot of theatrics. Frankly, not the judge. You and you alone have the power. You and you alone decide what is truth and what isn’t truth.”
The jury began deliberating Tuesday evening, breaking around 8:00 pm, then returned Wednesday morning to continue their deliberations, returning with their verdict shortly before 11:00 am Central.
Brooks has an extensive criminal history:
Brooks has a history of criminal behavior – and convictions – stretching back to 1999, involving domestic violence, child sex crimes, drugs and more on a 50-page rap sheet.
He is a registered sex offender in Nevada. He was convicted of obstructing an officer in 2005 and 2003. In 2002 he had another felony marijuana charge. In 2010 he pleaded no contest to felony strangulation charges after allegedly attacking a woman during an argument about phone calls. In 2012 he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor bail jumping and marijuana charges. A year earlier he pleaded guilty to felony marijuana charges and resisting arrest.
Nonetheless, a Milwaukee judge freed him on $1,000 just days before the attack after he allegedly used the same SUV to run over his child’s mother in a domestic dispute. At the same time he was dealing with those charges, he was out on bail for firing an illegal handgun during an argument with his nephew. There were no injuries reported in that incident.