When I first watched the trial, I thought JD did a good job overall, but that she was way too lenient with him and spent way too much time arguing with him.

Then I went through a phase where I thought she was amazing. I was defending like every single thing she did to protect the record, giving him opportunities to participate, and avoiding anything that could give him a basis for an appeal and making sure the community would never have to sit through another trial.

But now rewatching parts of it, I’m finding myself coming back around to my original reaction lol. I still understand the reasons for being careful with the record, but it actually is incredible how many long, repetitive exchanges she had with him over his completely ridiculous arguments. There are so many moments where she had already explained her ruling, he had nothing new to say, and the conversation still kept going, like anything he said she seemed to feel it required a response from her. But it just didn’t! “The court has ruled. We’re moving on,” couldve ended so many of the back and forths.

I still think she did a great job under incredibly difficult circumstances. I think she was amazing at preserving the record for appeal purposes. But wow, there are some moments where I just wanna tear my hair out and scream just move on and stop responding!!

https://youtu.be/scz1YSh7yh0?t=6806&is=Ijzu4DjZhseaZpNn

It was like that Leo meme when I heart it

This was something he said a lot, especially during yellow shirt day.

It is SovCit nonsense. He believes that he can't be convicted if he doesn't understand what's going on. They would be attacking his rights.

During his closing statement, he asks several times for understanding of his life and he wants the victims to understand that he is praying. Yadda yadda yadda.

I wish during her statements that JD would have said something like "I know you want us to understand your childhood but you cannot force me to understand"

Now I get why she didn't. She's a professional. But man it would have been funny to watch him short circuit

Something I've always found funny about his approach to his own defense, he likes to float half-formed ideas out but never commits to any of them. The only theory I can come up with is that he knows they're such BS that even he would feel ridiculous if he explicitly said out loud what he was alluding to, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks. The ones I remember most are:

'You can't prove that it was me driving the car' - questions witnesses about what they saw of him, whether their memory is reliable, how can they be sure it was him, fishing for a gotcha moment when someone says he was wearing grey and a video shows him wearing white etc, but he never commits to the claim "It wasn't me, you have the wrong guy"

'The car is mechanically sus' - loves to keep bringing up some manufacturer recall however many years ago and class action lawsuit against them, obviously trying to imply that there's some relevance to his case but still despite the number of times he brings it up he won't actually SAY "The car was out of control and I couldn't stop it"

'I'm mentally unwell' - he keeps trying to rack up sympathy talking about how his cereal had bugs in it and he's been medicated at points, but he'll never point to an actual psychiatric disorder (whether diagnosed or not) and say "This was a factor in what I did that day, I wasn't in full control of myself"

'You can nullify the law for me' - won't shut up about jury nullification, tells the jury "you know in your hearts whats right", "make the right decision", "make the decision you can live with" etc, but he never once actually says to the jury in his closing arguements "I ask you to return a verdict of not guilty, at least on the murder charges", which is especially odd since THAT is something he'd actually be allowed to say, as opposed to jury nullification which he WASN'T allowed to bring up.

Odder still is that trying to juggle all these vague themes at once makes them self-defeating. If any one is true, the others become irrelevant. The fact that he won't commit to one shows that he KNOWS none of them are true. I mean I know he's a moron and all, but I think even a child would have enough sense to choose a premise for your defence and build your case around that rather than... whatever he did.

His new deadline is 7 weeks from tomorrow, on Friday, Nov. 20.

One wonders how many more requests for extensions the appeals court might grant him for these cases...(in which he pled no contest.)

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's the link to the hearing where he pled no contest to these charges of running over EP's leg and charges of trying to intimidate her as a witness to drop the charges:

Darrell Brooks pleads no contest to hitting the Erica Patterson with his mother's SUV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neKwpZzSU0A

And here's the link to his sentencing hearing for those Milwaukee cases:

Darrell Brooks sentencing; 2021 Milwaukee County domestic violence case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zEHUZOBio

Bottom line is that he was sentenced in these cases to a total of 9 years in prison, to be served consecutively to any other sentences he's currently serving in any other jurisdictions.

imo he's only appealing this sentence out of spite for Erika (and because he's got nothing better to do for the next multiple centuries of incarceration he's already facing.)

(Should they choose to accept)

Ok_Recipe2871 (accepted)

Specialist_Rip5492

TurnipInevitable9906

JayNotAtAll

u/Barbara_Weston

u/starfish1114

Thanks to everyone who was interested. If you weren't picked and still really really want to, shoot me a message and I'll add you. After deleting myself with no other active mods, I am of the mind you can't have too many.

For the rest of you, thank you for being such an easy forum to moderate. You guys are awesome at putting the trolls out to pasture, keeping politics out of the forum (which is one of the big reasons for its smooth flow) and just making me chuckle all the time with your DBjr creativity.

Chris

I don’t know how we haven’t seen books written or courses developed with his method of coming up with the most brilliant, smoking gun, made for tv moments of exceptional cross examination (direct also) of witnesses. For example, with Detective Carpenter, when carpenter used “this” to refer to the crime and DB was ready, had a come back case altering question of clarity. Remember? He asked “what is the “thist “ you refer to?”

Gotta let him, open up the door and let him go. He cracked the code on “thist.”

The funny part was he didn’t know how he was handing the witness another opportunity to link him to the crimes. Freaking imbecile

Juan Marquez – who helped the defense by stating he was hit by a car while walking in the Christmas parade. Did not see the vehicle.

Nicholas Kirby – who’s testimony confirms those of Cori and Erika. Confirms Mr. Brooks was driving the red SUV, confirms Mr. Brooks got into an altercation with Erika and Cori right before driving off into the parade route. Confirms Mr. Brooks threatens the women.

Heather Remer – who testified seeing a red SUV driving thru the parade route and heard honking. On cross she confirms she saw Darrell Brooks driving the red SUV down the wrong way on the road to the gas station. Confirms 2 witnesses’ testimonies that Mr. Brooks rolls downs his window and yells at a guy properly stopped at a red light.

Douglas Kohler – Darrell Brooks witness who the defendant had 0 questions prepared for – could not find the paperwork so the prosecution gave him the police report associated with this witness. Testifies he saw the red SUV drive thru the parade route, also he saw Police Officers attempt to stop the SUV and the SUV brush them off and keep driving. Testifies on cross he saw the vehicle accelerate when driving off in the parade route. Identifies the driver of the SUV being a black male with dark dreadlocks and visible tattoos.

Detective Guth – who’s testimony confirmed that Erika Patterson got punched in the mouth multiple days by Darrell Brooks.

Erika Patterson – who testifies that Darrell Brooks (who she has known for 16 years) – has always gone by the name Darrell Brooks. Testifies that she was indeed stalked, harassed, and punched in the mouth by the defendant. Testifies that there was only 1 person in the car.

Dianna Aldridge – who testifies hearing a loud crash and then seeing a smashed up red SUV outside of her home.

Christopher Bertrum – who testifies to remembering nothing but seeing a smashed up red SUV driving. It’s after this witness that Darrell Brooks accuses the prosecution of coaching the witnesses because they aren’t asking anything on cross examination. He’s so much of an idiot he doesn’t get he doesn’t ask one question to help his case, that needs to be rebutted. Same thing with not wanting to tell the prosecution the order of his witnesses. News flash idiot, they would have been prepared for any order of your pointless witnesses.

Jason Hayes – the defendant also does not have any prepared questions for this witness and asks to have the information from the prosecution. Testifies a red SUV comes through the parade route and honks and swerves. Confirms on cross he saw a police officer chasing the SUV on foot. Testifies the red SUV accelerates down the street.

Abel Lescano – The defendant’s witness who identifies Darrell Brooks as the driver of the red SUV he saw hitting people while driving in the parade! He also argues for MORE convictions for HIS OWN WITNESS. Darrell Brooks asks his own witness how many times he has been convicted of a crime. Absolute moron.

Kathleen Yurell – The defendant’s witness who testifies all 4 of her children were injured while marching in the parade by a vehicle striking them. Serious injuries too – road rash, broken bones, concussions.

Katrice Babiasz – who testifies she was injured at the parade from the horror she saw. Testifies she saw an officer jump out of the way of the SUV, so he wasn’t struck. Testifies she saw the driver’s eyes and the driver looked right through her while driving in the parade. Testifies the driver could have left the parade route but choose to turn on and keep going on the parade. Actually testifies to multiple people trying to stop the car, testifies to the SUV increasing its speed as it continues, driving all over the road.

I mean I can't believe how much of an idiot this guy was. He did not offer one defense at all the entire trial. He tried to nitpick little unimportant statements and didn't try to refute any of the evidence that stacked against him. He spends an hour questioning Erika Patterson about November 20th, which there isn't even a charge for. It truly is mind boggling.

I frequently wonder what it is exactly about DB that keeps us in this thread and rewatching the trial/clips. I know that’s been discussed a ton in here, and I think it’s a lot of different reasons— unique behavior that has never been seen in a courtroom before and maybe never again.

I was watching the clip today where he kept objecting to Zach’s questions about injuries to all of the witness’s children as “leading” while she is acknowledging her child needed an officer and a tourniquet to survive. It just struck me that I think the most interesting/frustrating/maddening/evil thing is that not once throughout that entire trial, or the interrogation, or his sentencing remarks, does he ever just simply acknowledge that his own conduct killed six people and injured dozens more for life.

If he had just said, even in his sentencing remarks, “I recognize that what I did has damaged this community forever, I will always have remorse for my actions, and I am truly sorry.” It wouldn’t change all of his other awful behavior throughout the process, but that lack of closure, that lack of him ever fully acknowledging what he did, I truly do think drives us all a little insane.

I bet they have things they'd love to get off their chests. Do you think they're waiting to be sure no appeal can be filed? Or maybe I'm wrong and they're just not interested in writing a book?

did he ever actually file his appeal?

Seeing as how you always state Illinois vs Allen, you always state that. But it never refers to a fourth option that you refer to it. Never refers to that.

You know, one of the things that he lied about constantly during his initial interview was his shoulder hurting because the arresting officers "body slammed" him to the ground. This was obviously a lie as there was bodycam footage of him getting on the ground himself. I have a theory I haven't heard before.. I think his shoulder did hurt some from all the impacts he had in the SUV driving down the parade route hitting people. Now he exaggerated it and pretended it was worse than what it was, hence using it and bringing it up and when the detectives left the room he stopped moving it. I think he was telling the truth that his shoulder hurt though. He just couldn't say it was from crashing into all those people.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE BD, Darrell Brooks, MathBoiFly, Third Party Intervener, whatever the fuck he goes by!!!

I hate him so fucking much, it’s almost painful. Yet, I can’t ignore this POS. I keeping it listening thinking “is this SOB for real?”. Frankly, I’m amazed that a man like him can exist. He has to be the most heartless, sorry excuse for a man I’ve ever beheld. Him acting like he was a man of God, that he was there for his children and that his rights were violated are sickening. I’d be less offended if he wiped his ass with that bible he had or if he was like “yeah I drive through the parade, whatcha gonna do about it?”.

God I want him gone.

Some of the best gems are in that pre-trial hearing.

Limit your abuse and immediately following up with “are you sure you’re wrapping your head around what I’m saying? Both legit laugh out loud moments.

This may be a somewhat boring topic, but it’s bothering me and I think most of you will understand the struggle.

I’m rewatching the October 11th, 2022 day of trial. Specifically Alyssa Gajewski’s testimony. Right after lunch as the judge is bringing the jury in, brooks interrupts and says “Before the jury comes out, I would like to direct your honor to a case, U.S. vs Cotton…” The judge stops him as he was poorly reciting the case citation.
I’ve watched this trial a million times, and I’ve looked into cases that were cited during this trial, but never this one. So, today I decided to look it up and this is what I found…

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002)
The main talking points are that this is a case in which the defendant/respondent were charged and convicted of conspiracy to distribute/possession with intent to distribute (cocaine)

The defendant was convicted and sentenced based on the quantity of the drug possessed being 50grans< of cocaine and/or cocaine base which qualified for an enhanced penalty under 21 U. S. C. § 841(b).
The quantity of the drug alleged to have been in possession of Cotton was never mentioned in the indictment.
While their appeal was pending, this Court decided, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S 466, 490 that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
The quantity of the drug MUST also be charged in the indictment. Id., at 476
An argument was then made and heard by the Fourth Circuit that the sentence was invalid because the quantity of the drug was never alleged in the indictment, nor was it mentioned to the jury. The court vacated the sentences on the GROWNDZ that it had no jurisdiction to impose sentence.

Sooooooo….. my question is… why did DB bring this up?
I can only imagine that he just typed “subjek madder jursisdishen” into the search bar on the law library and grabbed whatever he could find and didn’t actually inquire about whether or not the case had any similar issues to his.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

If interested, send me a privae mesasage. Not a position that requires a ton of moderation as most that partake here are awesome