Law&Crime Sidebar - Bizarre Trial of Darrell Brooks: Outbursts and Oddities of the Waukesha Parade

Episode Date: October 27, 2022

From proclaiming himself to be a sovereign citizen and dismissing his public defenders, to childish outbursts and disrespectful remarks, Darrell Brooks' trial was one of the most bizarre cases to date. The Law&Crime Network's Jesse Weber recaps key moments from Brooks' case in chronological order leading up to his conviction for the Waukesha Christmas parade attack.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Logan HarrisGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. If you don't make a record, do I can't make a ruling. It threw people off the loop. They weren't ready for it. They scared of it. That's what it is. That's what it is. Oh, man. Mr. Brooks. You are, you are, you are people letting me ask the question. You're a public It is a full recap of the incredible trial of Derell Brooks Jr. from odd beginnings to an intense end. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. What an interesting and bizarre few weeks we've had following the Dorell Brooks trial out of Waukesha, Wisconsin.

As you know, we've been following this trial both here on Sidebar and on the Long Crime Network. And this was the case about the man who was charged with 76 criminal counts for driving a red SUV into a group of holiday parade goers back in November of 2021, killing six people, injuring dozens of others. Now, I will tell you, I have covered a lot of trials here on long crime. And I can honestly tell you that this was the one, unlike any other. And also, probably one that will be very hard to forget. So we figured, why not do a bit of a recap of the entire trial highlighting some of these key moments? And really the best place to start, I'm sure you guessed it, was when Brooks decided to fire his defense lawyers and represent himself do you wish to represent yourself in this case

yes i do before i'm sorry go ahead i would like to represent myself pro per what does that mean to you sir explain to me that request again because i've already said it on record myself as a sovereign citizen. I'm not going to make a determination, sir, whether you're a sovereign citizen or not. It's not relevant to my determination, how you characterize who you are. So if you are allowed to represent yourself in this case, sir, you will not have attorneys assisting you. If I let them withdraw, they're gone from this case. Do you understand that?

I think I will probably be better served representing myself. And Judge Darrow did allow Brooks to represent himself. Now, he may look back on that decision and say, that probably wasn't the best choice. But what was fascinating is that Brooks identifies as a sovereign citizen. This is someone who doesn't really believe that they are under the jurisdiction of the government, that they're exempt from U.S. laws, which is seemingly why he would make repeated statements about his legal name or statements that would undermine the authority of the court and the trial. Sir, did you hear me tell you about the penalties for these offenses just now?

I don't understand the nature and causes the charges. I'm not asking you that, sir. Did you hear me advise you of the penalties for hit and run resulting in death? I don't understand. Mr. Brooks, any questions for this witness? Yes, I do for the record. I don't consent to that night. Are we going to address subject matter jurisdiction?

The written decision that I previously entered is what I will stand on. I'm not going to address it any further. Is that verified proof? Can we address subject matter jurisdiction? It still has to be proven for the record. I declined to do so. Ah, yes, the infamous subject matter jurisdiction argument that he made throughout the trial, even till the very.

end. And it's an issue that really has no basis in law because this court does in fact have the jurisdiction to handle this criminal case. But as the trial progressed, Brooks became even more argumentative and would constantly interrupt the judge to the point that he would get kicked out of court and placed in a neighboring courtroom with audio and visual tools so he could see and hear everything. But it was intense and bizarre nonetheless. Before, I need to make a record that at 842am, This court ordered Mr. Brooks be removed from the courtroom due to repeated interruptions and disruption with the court. You can see that he is seated with his back to the court or to the camera. He took his shirt off as well.

I'm also told that he is threatening to throw and break items. Yeah. And that's just the beginning of it. So we're going to get more into Brooks' behavior in a minute. But let's get into the meat of the case, what this case is really about. We want to get into the actual crimes here. So several witnesses to this parade attack actually testified in graphic detail about what they saw and about what they heard. So then you said you heard something?

Oh, yeah, you heard. I heard the, I heard and saw the impact. Tell us about that, please. If you heard a car hit another car or an abutment or a deer, if anybody's ever hit a deer with their car, you've heard it. I watched the body fly up onto the hood, and her head snapped back, and the body remained on the hood as it passed the side of my vehicle to where I thought I could have just reached out and grabbed her. So this happened that close to you? Yes. You saw all this with your own two eyes?

Yes. Did the car continue past you? Yes. Where did it go? The car veered. kind of in front of me, I saw brake lights and saw what was Jane fall off the hood. He proceeded to, and she was on basically on the right side of his vehicle, and he proceeded to run her over with the right front tire, then the right rear tire.

and at that point I was just focused on the body on the ground, but I remember hearing the roar the engine again. Did you see the red SUV strike any people in the Catholic community group? Several. Can you estimate how many? At least 15. Okay. And did, I'm sorry to ask it this way,

but did you see anybody like actually fly or roll or tumble? Yeah. Yeah, so originally it was, we heard sounds, like thuds, and then it was in the air, like bowling pins. And not only is this kind of incredible to have a murder case to actually have eyewitnesses to a crime, let alone these many eyewitnesses, but they also were able to ID Brooks as the driver of the car. I saw directly through the driver's window. What did you see? I saw a man focused on the group ahead of him. Is that Daryl Brooks that you saw?

Yes. Do you see the driver of the red SUV in the courtroom here today, Officer Schneider? Objection, hearsay. Overruled, she may answer. I'd ask Mr. Brooks be directed to remove his masks so that Officer Schneider can identify him, please. Objection, I've never heard an answer to the question. It has not been answered, Mr. Brooks. Please remove your mask.

Thank you. Officer Schneider is the driver of the red SUV that you've just described for this jury present in this courtroom today. Objection, you're safe. Can you please point him out by where he's seated and what he's wearing? He is seated over here at the table wearing a gray suit. That's the man you saw driving the red SUV as it sped past you? Yes, it is. And as strong as that was, it's not even the only evidence the prosecution laid out.

They also showed the defendant's police interrogation tape. You see, after Brooks drove his car into the parade, police were alerted to a man going door to door to try to get help from people, seemingly trying to evade law enforcement. Well, he eventually was arrested and he was brought in for an interrogation. And in this interview, the investigators don't initially ask him about the parade. they make it seem like it's just about a domestic violence incident that he was involved in. You see, prosecutors would say that Brooks actually got into a fight and attacked his ex-girlfriend Erica Patterson before driving the car into the parade. And maybe he ended up doing what he did out of anger.

You know, the motive has never really been clear here about why he did, but maybe it had to do with the fight with Erica Patterson. Well, just listen to Brooks's reaction when he realizes what's really going on. We've been cool, man, the whole time. If I did something, if I did something wrong. Yeah, that's what I do. But do you see them here today? They're not here today. Yeah, but you're all lied to me, man.

You made it seem like they just come for no reason. Well, here's the thing, Dorel. And I'm like, if I, if it's today for a minute. I apologize. I can give you a clean slate here. I apologize. Because you have lied to us as well. Because you came out here in the Red Force Skate.

Okay. what she came out here. You had the key, right? So what I want to do is try to give us all a chance to reset. You're saying what I'm saying? Start over because you're not giving us an accurate story. What if it wasn't me driving? What if it wasn't you? But if it was my mom's trip? Mm-hmm. But I wasn't driving. Mm-hmm. What if it was you? If it wasn't me? Mm-hmm.

Who else would it be? That's what I'm asking. That's not me. That's not you. That's not you. No, I don't. Doreau. That's you.

Doreau. That's you. Doreau. Why you say it like that, man? Oh, right. He wasn't driving, but what happens if he knows who was? Right, yeah, that's what makes sense here. Suspicious behavior?

I would say so. He seems more concerned with the tactics that police use than really giving them good explanations. Now, Brooks, like I said, represented himself throughout the course of this trial. And to give you a sense, this is where he went when he cross-examine the state's witnesses. You can kind of see his defense.

Do you know why the vehicle was beeping his horn? I imagine that the driver was angry and wanted to get through the crowd. And how did you come to that determination? I've been driving a long time and a lot of times people get angry, they're late, they beat their horn at you in a way that is because they're upset and they're trying to get past you. Do you know that for sure? You asked me my opinion. Yes, I did ask your opinion. Now I'm asking you, do you know for sure

if the driver of the vehicle you observed was in fact angry? I assume that he was. You thought because of that sound that there had to be some mechanical problems going on with the engine? I thought that there could be. But it was your first initial thought, correct?

Correct. And you were able to hear that sound and come to a conclusion that possibly there were mechanical issues all in a few seconds. A lot runs through your mind at that point in time. And you can see Brooks seemed to suggest a few things here. One, maybe it wasn't the intention of the driver to hit anyone. Maybe he was honking to get people out of the way. And two, maybe there was a mechanical issue.

with the SUV and the driver lost control. The only problem with that is that a state inspector testified to the complete opposite. He reviewed the steering wheel, the tires, the brakes, the gas pedals, and said that there was no mechanical issue that the driver would have lost control. And also, even putting that aside, the honking, if you honk, but you didn't stop, what does it matter? That's the point. He drove the car. He didn't stop. He kept mowing people down. Doesn't matter if he hung. But what made this trial so different and so out there, was the defendant's behavior as he represented himself, because he would constantly interrupt the judge

and bring up these legal theories that had no basis in fact and law. And the ups and the downs with his behavior was so startling. And at one point, let's begin. After he had a few of these outbursts, he actually apologized. I would like to issue the court an apology for me

in regards to my actions last week during the trial. I just want the court to understand it's very emotional right now, not only for just the whole situation of the trial. The family's here that have to go through, you know, everything that's going to be involved with the trial, but also my family as well and myself, is very, very emotional and but

not to excuse my actions I should carry myself with better respect than that. I wasn't raised that way. The I wasn't raised that way is really something else. But we all knew this didn't last long.

I'm a grown man with grown kids. Don't nobody, ain't nobody going to talk to me like that. Nobody. I don't have a problem with doing what you asked me to do not tell me just like when I ask you about subject matter jurisdiction that you have yet to prove on the record but somehow I'm being intentionally disruptive come on man stop just stop it jury's coming out all rights for the jury not going to work yeah and it only got worse

I don't care what you believe fully all right it's not a game we I don't think take this as a game. That's what nobody, you don't got to explain nothing to me. That's what you don't understand. You think that this is a whole game to me. This is not a game to me, Your Honor. In fact, there was one point when he got so angry. You see, Brooks had called as a witness his ex-girlfriend Erica Patterson. Now, she had previously testified for the state and it's alleged that Brooks got into a fight with her and attacked her right before he drove the car into the parade. And Brooks, when he had her on the what he wanted to do was introduce these photographs to arguably show that she was a credible witness and also a bad mother. So when prosecutor Zach Wichow talked about what would happen

if these photos were allowed into evidence, he said that he'd have no choice but reveal something very negative about Brooks's past. And again, this was all outside the presence of the jury. And thank goodness because look how Brooks blew up. Second of all, if we go down that road, we would be forced to counter that claim by pointing out that not only does the defendant not live with the child in question. He doesn't look. with any of the other children that he has, he impregnated Erica Patterson when she was a minor in Nevada, and for doing so, he was convicted of statutory sexual seduction, pled guilty in March of 2007 to that felony offense and is a sex offender on the registry as a result.

So if there's any causation that would lead to Erica Patterson being a bad mom, Mr. Brooks has a direct role in that causation. And that's furthermore, I'm not sure, because that's a lie. Let him finish. Let him finish. If we're going to open the door on that. No, since he wanted to make a record and not be accurate, so let's be accurate on the record since you think you know so much. Once again, Mr. Brooks is being loud, disrespectful,

interrupting. We can ask that question to me. He is over the top. Did you ask that? Do you know that? Mr. Brooks, I'm ordering you to sit down and to let the state finish. I'm not going to sit here unless somebody be in accurate on the record and lie on the record. Under Illinois versus Allen, I've warned him repeatedly.

He's being removed from the courtroom. from the courtroom and you know what let me dial that back we're just going to take an early lunch one hour we'll be back and uh unless he brings that letter and he can show it is inadmissible she will not be questioned and under 90611 i will declare the cross-examination closed thank you we're in recess one hour get your facts straight so let's let's open the door on all of it then so we can get all of it on the record since you think you know so much Did you know she said she was 18 when I met her? Did you know that?

And if you thought that was bad, the worst of the worst, is when at one point the judge had to stop court proceedings because she was actually scared of Brooks. So as long as the jury's out, we should probably discuss that. I would like to provide the defendant and the court with a... So that had to be said... So what's the defendant? That's not how it was said.

That was how I said. You want to run a record back? Mr. Brooks. I'm the only one. I got one ear there working. I heard that. This is to benefit you so that you understand your witness has a prior record. Your Honor, when I leave the table, I'm away from the courtroom,

and I have to elevate my voice. This is the alleged record of Abel-Lis-Con. Stop talking. Come on, man. y'all be thinking y'all fooling. I'll set for value in return for value this document. One more interruption and you're going to be removed to the next courtroom. That's what you want to do anyway. It's not what I want to do. Do not interrupt Attorney Opper. So can you tell you sleep? I believe he has seven prior criminal convictions via OWI second from 1997 and OWI third from 1997 and OWI fourth from 2003.

criminal trespass to dwelling from 2006. Right, I need to take a break. This man right now is having a stare down with me. It's very disrespectful. He pounded his fist. Frankly, it makes me scared. Now, despite all of these outbursts, the judge moved forward with the trial. She gave Brooks a lot of leeway.

She continued to allow him to represent himself. She didn't kick him out of the court all the time, although it happened a lot. And I've said it before because a lot of people have asked, why did she do that? Well, a common theory is that she did this because she wanted to preserve the record for appeal. That if he gets convicted, an appellate court can't say that the judge acted unfairly to Brooks, that she gave him every warning, every admonishment, and the only person that torpedoed Brooks's case was Brooks himself. And that also included when the judge said to Brooks that he forfeited his right to call any more witnesses or take the stand himself

because he refused to answer her questions. Now, he claimed he couldn't hear what was being said when he was in the adjacent courtroom, but an IT specialist and a bailiff testified that the volume was loud and clear. Either way, after this, after Brooks was told that he forfeited his right to present a defense, he was particularly upset. My final question to you, do you have any requests as it relates to the jury instructions? I just told you, Kimmer me? Am I beauty? No. I just told you. I don't know how many times I take here as you need to say. Then you should. the headphones on.

What about that? Don't you understand? What about that? Don't you understand? If you see headphones, you can see everything. You can see boxes. Do you see headphones? Have you asked for headphones to be provided, sir?

I should have to ask for my boxes to be moved. I believe they took them away previously because you were so agitated. They were perhaps afraid you might break them. Yeah, I'm still agitated. I ain't going to stop being agitated. That ain't going to stop. You sit up here and do everything you're doing and think you're going to, and think God don't see what you're doing. You ought to be ashamed to yourself.

Talking to a judge, it's just shocking. Well, with him forfeiting his right to present a further defense, the trial headed for the end a lot sooner than we anticipated. I mean, it would have been really something and very interesting to have Derell Brooks testify, take the stand and particularly be cross-examined. But alas, it was not meant to be. And given his non-compliance, we move forward with the closing arguments. This is the last attempt in closing arguments for both sides to persuade this jury to vote a certain way. Closing arguments are not evidence.

They're basically a summation of the case. First up, prosecutor Sue Hopper. He had plenty of opportunity to just stop. Anywhere along the way, one of the officers testified to it. I think it was Officer Schneider. if this was an accident and he mistakenly wandered on to the parade route after passing all this

and he mistakenly wandered onto the parade route at any point all he had to do was stop they could have paused the parade they could have moved the barricades and escorted him out it didn't it was intentional

he went on for four blocks four blocks it was intentional he reached speeds of approximately 30 miles an hour that's intentional he plowed through

68 different people 68 how can you hit one and keep going. How can you hit two and keep going? How can you hit three and keep going? Didn't phase him a bit. He kept going until he got for the end. And there was no more bodies to hit. It's intention. Again, she's really focusing on the intent here. She's focusing on the six counts of first degree intentional homicide in particular. And then if you had any question about what he was doing, just look at his actions. But Brooks had a response.

a defense attorney can present a closing argument. Obviously, he's representing himself, and he presented the closing argument. And he went into areas that he really wasn't allowed to go, though. You should be informed that you have the power to nullify any law that you don't agree with. Objection. Move to strike a statement. Sustain. Objection.

I will strike from the record the last statement made by the defendant, the jury. disregard it which is clearly what I've been saying I believe that not only is it fair but it's essential that you be privy to all knowledge not knowledge that certain people feel that you should hear and shouldn't hear disguised under the color of law But the fact that the matter is, the vehicle in question, make a model of 2010 for the skate, the vehicle in question, actually 2008, 2009, and 2010 of that motto was, in fact, recalled. objection misstatement of the facts facts not in evidence was in fact sustained was in fact recalled was in fact a class action lawsuit against for those models for those model vehicles information that you should have been

privy to that you weren't allowed to be privy to why I don't know that information malfunctioning throttled bodies okay so first a defendant can't argue jury nullification jury nullification is when a jury decides a case not based on the facts on the law but some other reason political emotional they're not allowed to do that and that's what brooks is basically advocating for here he's basically saying even if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty you jury have the power to say otherwise. You can say not guilty. And this is despite objections from the prosecution and an order from the court telling him not to do it, he kept saying it.

And by the way, the idea of a malfunctioning car, as we discussed, not only was there no evidence to suggest that wasn't even the case, but you can't argue something that wasn't presented in evidence. There was no evidence presented a trial about a recall or a class action. So all of this was irrelevant. Well, the jury was ultimately handed the case, and after about three hours and 15 minutes, the jury came back with their verdict. We, the jury, find the defendant, Daryl E. Brooks, guilty of first-degree intentional homicide as charged in count one of the information. Dated this 26th day of October 22, signed by the four-person. Hey, you are to be removed right now. You will not do that.

have it, they found him guilty across the board of all 76 charges, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide, which carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison. And at the time of this recording, the sentencing date hasn't been set yet, but we believe that the victims, the victim's family members, they're all going to have an opportunity to make statements, and also Mr. Brooks and anyone on his side can make statements as well, and we're definitely going to follow it and hopefully report on it here on sidebar. But I do want to leave you with this before we go. As much as this trial and the attention to this trial focused on the actions and behavior of the defendant,

we can't forget what this case is really about, and that is the victims, and particularly the six people who were killed in this nonsensical tragedy. And that's all we have for you, everybody. Thanks so much for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. We'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.