GUILTY WI - Darrell Brooks Rams Car Into Holiday Parade Crowd - 6 dead/61 Injured - Waukesha #3

[Weki]

Jury nullification means the jury purposely ignores the evidence and reaches a verdict not supported by evidence, ie not guilty. Technically a jury on its own can do jury nullification because their deliberations are private and no one would be the wiser unless one of them reveals it. But an attorney can not argue to a jury to do that. That's against the law!

 

[turaj]

Jury nullification means the jury purposely ignores the evidence and reaches a verdict not supported by evidence, ie not guilty. Technically a jury on its own can do jury nullification because their deliberations are private and no one would be the wiser unless one of them reveals it. But an attorney can not argue to a jury to do that. That's against the law!

what is the chance that would be happening in this case? I guess never say never.

 

[OtisC]

Its a Freudian expression by him. He feels boxed in as this trial nears a conclusion.

Perhaps, or he is afraid to face the truth and consequences of his actions.

Just my thoughts.

Otis

 

[tlcya]

Jury nullification means the jury purposely ignores the evidence and reaches a verdict not supported by evidence, ie not guilty. Technically a jury on its own can do jury nullification because their deliberations are private and no one would be the wiser unless one of them reveals it. But an attorney can not argue to a jury to do that. That's against the law!

Thank you, the "arguing" for nullification was what I didn't follow. I know juries have that power, to simply set aside what they heard and decide what they decide, but how would one go about arguing for that? legally. Thanks for drilling down to my conundrum

 

[Weki]

There's no chance in you know what of a jury nullification in this case! Even if he were allowed to argue that! Grandmas and children getting mowed down!! Heck no!

Jury nullification imo is for a case where for example a father in a fit of rage kills someone he caught red-handed sexually abusing his child. In that type of case, a jury might say he's not legally justified, but morally he's justified and what he did was understandable.

 

[Trouble1321075]

how would that be relevant in this case? The law is clear and no way are they returning "not guilty" because of some flaw in the law....I don't see how he could argue for this.

I don't see him succeeding but im not clear why he isn't allowed to inform the jury that nullification is an option

 

[Hoosgirl]

Was it decided that sentencing would be this week?

"2:26 p.m.: The district attorney asked if there's a guilty verdict, would the sentencing be this week? Dorow said it depends on how many victims want to speak. It's possible given she blocked off the entire week for the case."

Waukesha Parade suspect Darrell Brooks trial Day 16: Defense rests, jury excused for day

Darrell Brooks, who represents himself, is charged with six counts of first-degree intentional homicide.

www.google.com

 

[Trouble1321075]

I'm confused by this. What nullification grounds do you think he should be arguing? That the facts are not the facts? MOO the state has more than proven it's case that he was the perpetrator. That the law against running over a crowd are not just? MOO the law is just. I guess I'm just not following you here.

He can argue whatever he likes. He can argue little green men from Mars forced him to do it. That does not mean the jury will agree.

 

[BUF]

Per Chanley Painter CourtTV

Jury makeup: 10 men, 5 women
Looks like ages are in the 20’s to early 70’s

 

[pseudo_hum]

He can argue whatever he likes. He can argue little green men from Mars forced him to do it. That does not mean the jury will agree.

IMO, but doesn't it need to be supported by the evidence presented. If he had testified he could of brought up the green men, but since it was not introduced can he use it?

 

[Trouble1321075]

IMO, but doesn't it need to be supported by the evidence presented. If he had testified he could of brought up the green men, but since it was not introduced can he use it?

The burden is on the prosecution to convince the jury of his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (which I think they have). It is not the defendants burden to prove anything. The defendant can simply raises doubts by offering alternative explanations. Plausable or otherwise.

 

[tlcya]

He can argue whatever he likes. He can argue little green men from Mars forced him to do it. That does not mean the jury will agree.

true, and although closings are meant to only cover ground that was introduced at trial I suspect the judge will give him just as much leeway as she has up to this point so we may yet hear about those little green men.

 

[BeckyF]

I don't see him succeeding but im not clear why he isn't allowed to inform the jury that nullification is an option

Research case law.

 

[Weki]

The burden is on the prosecution to convince the jury of his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (which I think they have). It is not the defendants burden to prove anything. The defendant can simply raises doubts by offering alternative explanations. Plausable or otherwise.

Defense can not argue with facts not in evidence. For example, he can't argue that EP was the potential driver because there's nothing in the evidence to support that argument. There's arguing reasonable doubt and there's arguing out of your behind. The latter is not aloud. Defense has no burden but they also have to follow rules of criminal procedure. The rules of evidence and argument apply to them as well. They can't just get up there and say whatever they want! Defense can not argue to the jury to ignore all the evidence and find the defendant not guilty. The jury is literally instructed that they can not do that - they have to follow the evidence. So you can't then allow a defense atty to get up there and tell them they can ignore the evidence. They can't!

 

[shotgun09]

Way back in the beginning, some here were keeping a running tab of the possible defense that DB would run with. This was based off of his cross exam of many many witnesses.

Included in the list was the ' I honked my horn' ( so all victims should have been aware, and moved out of the way). It also wasn't his fault that victims didn't hear the honking, because it was a noisy parade.
Then, there was the 'The roads were blocked by barricades' ( so he had to keep running through victims).

Of course, there was the continuous statements/ questions regarding " You couldn't really tell it was just me' in the vehicle because of tinted windows.

That's all he has..
I suspect that at some point, if he ever does attempt a closing argument, that he will try to whoop out the Ford escape recall issue, and then he will toss in the " I blacked out" card. That's coming, thanks to Momma and her interview...

He has nothing.

 

[BUF]

With all the objections the prosecutor will make during his closing and all the admonitions the judge will give him…how long do you think his one hour closing will take? Will he just then be muted?

Do you think he will even give a closing?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I don't see him succeeding but im not clear why he isn't allowed to inform the jury that nullification is an option

I think he would have to in essence admit he did everything…which I think he has multiple times…then somehow argue that the law being applied to him personally is unjust for whatever reason, so the jury should acquit him.
I really don’t see how the charges against him could be argued that way.
My guess is he wants to argue all the sovereign citizen junk about jurisdiction and his name etc and that those reasons are why he should be found innocent. He calls that jury nullification. The judge calls that arguing things not presented as evidence in the trial which isn’t allowed. Pretty sure she’s correct.

 

[megs1477]

With all the objections the prosecutor will make during his closing and all the admonitions the judge will give him…how long do you think his one hour closing will take? Will he just then be muted?

Do you think he will even give a closing?

IMHO, he is going to bring up all the sov cit ideas the judge keeps shutting down. He will keep talking and do the “jury needs to know the truth” routine. The question is how long the judge lets him get away with it and if he explodes in the presence of the jury.

This trial has made me question our system in some regards. In a way it feels like the Facebook effect. The defendant puts on their best behavior in front of the jury (I know DB hasn’t always done this). How much would DB’s chances of conviction increase if the jury saw his conduct outside their presence.

 

[shotgun09]

With all the objections the prosecutor will make during his closing and all the admonitions the judge will give him…how long do you think his one hour closing will take? Will he just then be muted?

Do you think he will even give a closing?

My guess is that during the states closing, DB will be objecting continuously. He may even be so disruptive, that the court will move him and mute him. If we ever reach the DB show closing argument, <modsnip: language>, and more than likely double or triple the time allotted. Prepare for Happy Hour now!!!

 

[megs1477]

For those questioning the nullification concept, this article explains a lot. Basically the law is wrong not him.

FAR-RIGHT 'JURY NULLIFICATION' CONCEPT RESURFACES IN MARIJUANA DEBATE

This concept – known as “jury nullification” – has been promoted in previous decades by far-right extremists who sought to “nullify” a variety of federal laws by encouraging jurors not to enforce them. The cases involved civil rights laws, tax statutes and criminal acts by white perpetrators aagainst black victims. It was avidly promoted in the 1990s by members of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, particularly so-called “Freemen” in Montana who promoted the sovereign citizen ideology.
————
So, what is "jury nullification" all about?

There is in fact a long history of jury nullification both in American and English law – cases in which the jurors simply ignored the requirements of the law and set the accused free. However, it has primarily been viewed as a malfunction of the law, not as a principle to be embraced.

"Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court," according to a 1997 ruling by Judge Jose Cabranes, who said jurors who reject the law should not be allowed to serve. An appeals court upheld the ruling but determined that only "unambiguous evidence" of a juror's disregard of the law can justify dismissal.