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

[BUF]

I think the prosecution will request him in the other room on mute for their closing…and the judge will grant it.

Don’t know how she will handle his closing though…

 

[Weki]

He's basically going to use closing to testify and avoid being cross examined. It's a smart move on his part I have to admit! Of course State will get to give a rebuttal argument after he's done. The only issue of course is that he's going to bring in all kinds of irrelevant <modsnip: language> and it could be chaotic if state objects. I think State would do better to not object to his closing argument and deny him the ability to delay and let him ramble. He is looking at life in prison regardless.

 

[tlcya]

He's basically going to use closing to testify and avoid being cross examined. It's a smart move on his part I have to admit! Of course State will get to give a rebuttal argument after he's done. The only issue of course is that he's going to bring in all kinds of irrelevant <modsnip: language> and it could be chaotic if state objects. I think State would do better to not object to his closing argument and deny him the ability to delay and let him ramble. He is looking at life in prison regardless.

agreed, smart, but I suspect that he will ramble about everything under the sun and his "testimony" during closing will not sway anyone on the jury to believe he is anything other than as guilty as guilty can be.

 

[BUF]

He's basically going to use closing to testify and avoid being cross examined. It's a smart move on his part I have to admit! Of course State will get to give a rebuttal argument after he's done. The only issue of course is that he's going to bring in all kinds of irrelevant <modsnip: language> and it could be chaotic if state objects. I think State would do better to not object to his closing argument and deny him the ability to delay and let him ramble. He is looking at life in prison regardless.

One saving grace is that he will have a time limit

 

[turaj]

wow that was quick..glad to hear they will be sequestered.

 

[Weki]

agreed, smart, but I suspect that he will ramble about everything under the sun and his "testimony" during closing will not sway anyone on the jury to believe he is anything other than as guilty as guilty can be.

I dont' know how it works when he hasn't testified and put into evidence his "defense." I don't think he can then do a closing where he basically says this is the defense, because when 'he's closing he's acting as an attorney and can't testify. He can only argue what's in evidence. Since he didn't testify there is no evidence of his defense. It's going to be interesting from a legal perspective how that will be handled. I imagine if state objects then judge will sustain. But I'm not sure. JMO

Edited to add: He can argue reasonable doubt based on the witnesses he called but even there he didn't really create reasonable doubt.

 

[OtisC]

He's basically going to use closing to testify and avoid being cross examined. It's a smart move on his part I have to admit! Of course State will get to give a rebuttal argument after he's done. The only issue of course is that he's going to bring in all kinds of irrelevant <modsnip: language> and it could be chaotic if state objects. I think State would do better to not object to his closing argument and deny him the ability to delay and let him ramble. He is looking at life in prison regardless.

I agree that I would like for the prosecution to not object during his closing argument. Let him have all the rope he wants.

Just my thoughts.

Otis

 

[Thundar]

this is what google says about closing arguments
“A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at trial. It is not customary to raise objections during closing arguments, except for egregious behavior. However, such objections, when made, can prove critical later in order to preserve appellate issues.”

The defendant does not have much to present in the way of evidence. I am not sure what his defense actually is, so unless he wants to refute the videos and all testimony from all the witnesses the state brought in the defense has nothing……my opinion only.

 

[Chelly]

I dont' know how it works when he hasn't testified and put into evidence his "defense." I don't think he can then do a closing where he basically says this is the defense, because when 'he's closing he's acting as an attorney and can't testify. He can only argue what's in evidence. Since he didn't testify there is no evidence of his defense. It's going to be interesting from a legal perspective how that will be handled. I imagine if state objects then judge will sustain. But I'm not sure. JMO

Edited to add: He can argue reasonable doubt based on the witnesses he called but even there he didn't really create reasonable doubt.

You bring up a good point. If judge adheres to the "legal law" (as he would say) in his closing, we'll see a ton of arguing between him and judge. Otherwise, it will be an hour or so of him raging and rambling.

During defense closing, I think he will need to be removed to other room and muted.

 

[turaj]

agreed, smart, but I suspect that he will ramble about everything under the sun and his "testimony" during closing will not sway anyone on the jury to believe he is anything other than as guilty as guilty can be.

I think this will be good for jury to see...he will go rogue and I think let to do so within reason and within time limit. The state will keep it short and sweet and will press judge for short time limit for both sides.

 

[Thundar]

Surely I did not hear correctly when the jury instructions say there is no debate about the defendant being the perpetrator of theses crimes, that there has been overwhelming evidence that Mr. Brooks committed these crimes…….isn’t that what the jury is supposed to decide?
my opinion only.

 

[TeaTime]

He can say whatever he wants in closing to try to create reasonable doubt. Remember Casey Anthony's lawyer claiming the baby drowned in the pool? There was never any testimony or evidence at trial to suggest this. But, it worked.

 

[Gardenista]

Bet he's going to bring up the Ford recall in his closing and will get it out before the prosecution has a chance to object.

 

[OtisC]

With his court history of misrepresentations and falsehoods, I am surprised he has not claimed race discrimination.

I wonder if he will claim that in his final argument when he tells the jury "the truth".

Just my thoughts.

Otis

 

[tlcya]

I think this will be good for jury to see...he will go rogue and I think let to do so within reason and within time limit. The state will keep it short and sweet and will press judge for short time limit for both sides.

agree 100%, let him rant and rave, hoping the prosecution doesn't do much objecting, the jury has to be tired of this defendant as well. Let them get the full effect of defendant as their last impression of him.

 

[tlcya]

Bet he's going to bring up the Ford recall in his closing and will get it out before the prosecution has a chance to object.

I'm not at all worried about that. The prosecution will have ample opportunity to clean that and any other doo doo sprayed at the jurors during Brooks closing.

 

[LunaticFringe]

With his court history of misrepresentations and falsehoods, I am surprised he has not claimed race discrimination.

I wonder if he will claim that in his final argument when he tells the jury "the truth".

Just my thoughts.

Otis

He did say something about the court being prejudiced in one of his rants.He listed off a few things and that was one of them.

 

[Heaven Leigh]

I thought Markeith Lloyd was bad but this guy ??? Just wow.
Every time he goes off on his rants I just look at the screen and wave Bye Bye.

 

[TeaTime]

Surely I did not hear correctly when the jury instructions say there is no debate about the defendant being the perpetrator of theses crimes, that there has been overwhelming evidence that Mr. Brooks committed these crimes…….isn’t that what the jury is supposed to decide?
my opinion only.

They will have to decide if there was intent.

 

[turaj]

AM I correct that they never changed venues in this case and jury is from Waukesha? If so there sort of some weird stealth juror that they will not be unanimous and they will have a verdict a quickly as it takes to get the forms filled out.