Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 5 Times Defendants Represented Themselves in Court

Episode Date: October 10, 2023

During an arrest, accused criminals are told if they can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them. Occasionally, brazen defendants decline a public defender and choose to represent themselves in their case. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the top five times defendants represented themselves in court during high-profile trials.HOSTS:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberAngenette Levy: https://twitter.com/Angenette5LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&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. views 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. You will have the sole responsibility to cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, to make arguments to the court, etc. Did you hear me say, Yes, ma'am. And you're informed of all of that. I am. Objection, Your Honor.

Ask and answered, and we've gone down this path. Mr. Smith. And I'm standing here, competent as can be representing myself today. From screaming at a jury to sparring with a judge to mentioning Scooby-Doo in an opening statement, these are some of the top times defendants represented themselves at trial in recent cases. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. It's sometimes hard to imagine how someone could represent a defendant, right?

A person accused of some of the most heinous crimes that we can think of. Well, I guess it becomes easier when the person representing the defendant is the defendant themselves. Yeah, defendants taking matters into their own hands, acting as their own lawyer in a trial. I will tell you always interesting to see. And that is what we want to get into some of the top times a defendant represented themselves in recent cases. Now, as we go through all this, I want you to keep in mind a phrase.

The phrase, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Now, why am I saying that? Well, maybe what better place to start than with Dorel Brooks Jr. He's the man who drove an SUV into a Christmas parade, Route in Waukesha, Shaw, Wisconsin, killing six people, wounding dozens of others. This happened back on November 21st, 2021, and he ended up facing numerous charges, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide. So during his criminal trial in 2022, Brooks' antics went viral multiple times, from him

taking off his shirt, to him building a fort out of boxes to staring down the judge. But we want to take you through the decision to represent himself and how that all worked out. So despite the gravity of the charges against him and the magnitude of evidence, Brooks told Judge Jennifer Darrow that he wanted to go pro se, meaning represent himself, as is his legal right. And this clip kind of gives you a pretty good idea of what was to come in this trial. You want to represent yourself. Yeah, but I didn't file the motion.

That's not relevant, sir. The motion is before me, and I'm going to. I'm just talking over me. Mr. Brooks. Just merely asking the question. I need to get through the advisement. And I would like to know the answer to the question. You are being difficult.

You are not listening. You are trying to interject your relevant factors for this court. So stop. It's not irrelevant. I have a constitutional right to the other action. I'm going to continue. Please stop talking.

So it is arrested. Mr. Brooks. The case law makes very clear. You can't waive your right to an attorney. Let me rephrase it. The case law makes clear you cannot act as your own attorney. exercise your right of self-representation while simultaneously exercising the right to counsel. Did you hear me say that?

Yes, I heard you say that, but that wasn't what I was attempting to do. That was the whole reason why I said it was filled out. His form was filled out for a specific reason the way that it was. Sir, I'm not going to entertain a request for whether it be called standby counsel, hybrid representation. your attorneys have told me you want to represent yourself. That is why we are having this hearing here today. All right, we want to thank Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this video. You know, life's scary, reminding your own business when it seems that everyone and everything,

no matter where you turn, seems to want to hurt you. Okay, maybe that was a bit much, but you get the idea. The point is, you don't have to feel helpless because Morgan and Morgan, the largest injury law firm in America is here. Now, before you say, oh, great, another law firm ad, first of all, how dare you speak that way of Morgan and Morgan? And second of all, you don't know what makes them special. You see, Morgan and Morgan has completely modernized the personal injury claim process.

They make it super easy for you. How? Well, you submit your claim, you sign contracts, you upload documents, and you talk to your whole legal team all on your phone. And you can text your legal team throughout your case, as much as you want, when you're ever or wherever about whatever you want. Now, you might be saying that sounds expensive. Well, here's the kicker.

There's no upfront fee. No, you only pay them if you win. So it's no wonder, over 3 million, 3 million people call them every year. So if you're injured, you can submit a claim at for the people.com backslash law and crime or by dialing pound law. That's pound 529 on your phone. There was also a concern, as you're going to hear from the judge, that maybe Brooks just wanted to do this to delay the trial.

I want you to know that waiving your right to an attorney does not mean the trial is delayed. Did you hear me say that? That's not my reason for wanting to represent myself proper. It had nothing to do with delaying the trial. So you don't want to delay the trial, correct? That's not what I said. I said that the decision to represent myself. her had nothing to do with a delay tactic.

I think I'm very clear with what I said. Well, I want to be clear, I understand you, sir. If it's not a delay tactic, I take that as you're not requesting an adjourn of the trial. Is that true? That's not what I said. Are you requesting an adjourn of this trial? I can't logically make that decision until you make a judicial determination.

Why would I answer that question right now at this point when I still don't know what's been decided yet? So here's the important takeaway in my humble opinion, sir. You are being advised that I am not going to adjourn the trial that is scheduled to start next week. Did you hear me say that? I heard you say that, and I still can't logically, I still can't logically answer what you are asking me because a decision has not been reached.

So what you need to understand is that the case law makes it very clear, you have the absolute right to represent yourself. that is protected by the U.S. and the Wisconsin Constitution. Did you hear me say that? I know that. And Brooks proved time and time again, even during these earliest proceedings, that he wasn't going to be the easiest to work with. Understands that a lawyer may be appointed at the defendant.

I never said I understand. And understands the disadvantages of self-representation. Everyone said, I understand. He is volunteering. and freely waiving the right to be represented by counsel and is making a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel. And therefore, the court will grant the motion to withdraw brought by attorney Perry and attorney he's. And from this point forward, Mr. Brooks will proceed as his own attorney. And if the court thought that Jarrell Brooks would behave more professionally,

as things got underway, they were wrong. Mr. Brooks, you just interrupted me within a minute of us starting this case here today. I'm asking you to respectfully not interrupt me. That's the second time. So I can go through the list of things that I need to get through this morning. Mr. Brooks, it wasn't the proper time to do that. That's now the third interruption. So.

With all due respect, Your Honor, every time we've got to. By saying all due respect doesn't change the fact that you're interrupting me. Your objection is noted, all right? But you need to stop interrupting me so I can get through what needs to be done. I have a number of documents that I need to discuss this morning. Mr. Brooks, you do not have a right to interrupt the court. I will remind you once again of the Supreme Court rule. It's on a yellow laminated.

double-sided piece of paper that is before you. I checked, I verified. It is. Mr. Brooks, that's yet another interruption. Let me get through this, please. I just want for the record. You will have an opportunity when I give you an opportunity. No one else is speaking at the moment but me.

You need to stop interrupting. I don't identify by that name. You heard him say there that he doesn't identify by the name Dorel Brooks. He brought this up multiple times before and during the trial. And that's because Brooks identifies as what's called a sovereign citizen, which seems to mean that he doesn't believe the regular laws apply to him. And while he repeatedly said he didn't consent to being called Derell Brooks or even Mr. Brooks, you know what I was thinking throughout all of that and that whole trial. I don't recall him ever saying what he did want to be called. Anyway, throughout this trial between Brooks and the prosecution, there were reportedly more than 600 objections.

And look, despite this being a really serious case, I got to tell you, it was Brooks's antics in court that at times, honestly, it became comical to watch. I'm winking it, Your Honor. You can object. Your objections noted, but you need to let her state what she needs to state. I don't see the relevance to this. Your objection is noted. It's overruled. Are you a party to this matter in any way? Grounds. Grounds.

Grounds. Sustained. It's not relevant. Do you have a claim in this matter? Objection. Irrelevant. Sustained. Have you read the complaint in this matter?

Objection. Grounds. Not relevant. Sustained. I do not consent to being called that name nor do I know any individual by that name, Your Honor. Objection hearsay and speculative. It's neither one of those things. Can we address the subject matter jurisdiction?

before the juror comes out the jury comes out we've already done it and is that a judicial determination that you're making not to address the subject matter jurisdiction what has yet to be proven at this point it has not mr. Brooks please the jury's coming out come on now we got to cut that out you know you have to prove subject matter jurisdiction you know that your honor I don't consent to being caught their name and would like to address subject matter jurisdiction Diction for the record as yet to be proven. Comical might be one word.

Then again, I think it was exhausting. Yeah, exhausting. I think that's a fair word to describe some of his defense tactics. And Brooks especially sparred with the prosecutors. 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 copy. So that had to be said, so it'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. 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. Like, I don't know who y'all be thinking, y'all fooling. Now, set for value, and retired 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. Judge Darrow even said at one point that Brooks was scaring her when he stared her down. So maybe not surprisingly, she removed him to a separate courtroom several times during the course of this trial. So he wouldn't interrupt court proceedings. He could still monitor what was going on. But more shenanigans ensued with Brooks taking off his shirt, building a fort out of evidence boxes, waving his arm so he could be seen on. refusing to wear the headphones so he actually hear what was going on but at one point even

brooks may have realized he was in over his head under the six amendment i have the right to assistance of counsel it doesn't say anything about representing yourself without assistance of counsel having counsel represent you and having assistance of counsel is too totally different things. You, Your Honor, gave me paperwork that was a waiver of counsel.

We both know that any contract can be altered if I don't agree to certain terms. I crossed out everything in that paperwork that I did not agree or consent to and specifically wrote on that paperwork that I do not waive my right to existence of counsel. At the very least, I should have been awarded a standby counsel. Not someone to represent me, to speak for me, but someone to help me do things in a timely fashion,

get things filed in a timely fashion get motions together in a timely fashion make preparations to get things done that I don't have the privilege to do in my current situation of being housed at the Walker Shaw County Jail. I gave you back that paperwork and you accepted the paperwork that I altered

that you understood that I didn't agree and consent to those things that were altered. You accepted it and you filed it. Yeah, this kind of seemed to me like you can't have your cake and eat it too kind of thing. You want an attorney to file for you, do your paperwork, but you want to do the arguments, right? Seems like he wanted a paralegal, like a legal assistant. And look, under the court's rulings, he forfeited his right to have standby counsel. So it's all on him. He seemed to understand that when he first made the request to represent himself.

And by the way, this defendant really pushed the judge to her limit. All right. The jury's coming back out. And I'm going to warn you, if you bring this up again, I will pause and I will remove you to the next courtroom for being disrespectful, for being interruptive, for being disruptive, and for bringing up irrelevant matters in front of this jury. You will forfeit your right to be present for the direct examination of this witness. Did you hear what I said, sir? No, I did not. I object to that, Your Honor.

Well, you can object, and your objection is noted, but if you interrupt when this jury comes out, they will go, I will, I will have them taken out again, and you will be removed to the next courtroom. You can't, what is the legal basis for that ruling, Your Honor? Illinois versus Allen, sir, and all of the other cases that I've cited previously, I'll make the appropriate record. stop interrupting me. The jury's coming out. We're continuing with this trial despite your repeated efforts to disrupt. Yesterday, sit down. Yesterday alone, sir, 17 interruptions, not including the opportunity that I gave you where you spent 50 minutes, okay, discussing what were primarily either irrelevant or baseless accusations and requests not based in law or fact. I was abundantly

patient with you yesterday. And you still have to verify by proof. Any of what I say, you know. And none of that is required, sir. Because it is. You can't verify. Your belief that that's the law doesn't make it so, Mr. Brooks. Your belief that these are legitimate

legal positions doesn't change the law and doesn't make it so. So, again, I'm going to step off and give Mr. Brooks five minutes to cool off. And when that I don't need to cool off. I'm not angry at all. I just wanted to. I don't. And this went on for basically the whole trial. Now, to give you a sense of what he actually

argued at his defense, here's a sample. Brooks delivered his closing argument, and he got emotional. I myself and my own life have had to do a lot of healing. As a man with children myself. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's really had conversations with me spent time around me would think for one second that this is an intentional act. I've never heard of someone intentionally trying to hurt someone trying to hurt someone while attempting to blow their horn. alert people at their presence.

And he even at one point suggested the jury engage in nullification, which is basically like ignore the facts, ignore the law, decide this case based on some other factor. It is totally improper for the jury to do that and totally improper for him to tell the jury to do that. And he was instructed not to do so. But he also brought up one of his only maybe real defenses. And that argument seemed to be that the car that he was driving had been under recall and that he had no control over the brakes and was honking his horn to get people out of the way.

Which brings me to more information that I believe that you should have been privy to. And I'm sure that the prosecution will beg to differ. But the fact that the matter is, the vehicle in question, make a model of 2010 for the escape, 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 Ford 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 But he actually did have the opportunity to question a state patrol inspector on the stand who testified that there was no mechanical issue with the car that would have caused the malfunction, meaning the driver wouldn't have lost control, meaning the car hit those people because of the driver and the driver alone. It also didn't help that multiple people testified they saw Brooks as the driver, and there was video and photographic evidence that he was the driver as well. Well, it took the jury only about three hours to reach their decision. 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, juror number 11. If you find the defendant guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, answer the following question, yes or no. Did the defendant commit first-degree intentional homicide? while using a dangerous weapon? Answer, yes. We the jury find the defendant, Daryl E. Brooks, guilty, a first-degree intentional homicide as charged in count two of the information. Did the defendant commit first-degree intentional homicide while using a dangerous weapon? Answer, yes. Hey, you are to be removed right now.

You will not do that. Well, you heard there how someone felt. there how someone felt after that verdict. Durel Brooks was convicted on all 76 charges, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide, and he was handed down six life sentences in prison plus 700 years, and he'll go down as being part of one of the wildest trials in law and crime history. Well, this next case definitely needs a warning. The crime here, unthinkable, one of the most brutal that we have ever reported on.

So let's go to 2018, where 29-year-old Ronnie O'Neill III beat and then shot his girlfriend, 33-year-old, Kenyatta Barron, and hacked their nine-year-old special needs daughter to death with an axe. Her name was Ronnevea. And if that wasn't terrible enough, he also stabbed their eight-year-old son, Ronnie O'Neill, the fourth, and set their home on fire. The young boy wasn't expected to survive, but miraculously, he managed to recover. In fact, law enforcement testified that they witnessed this young boy. struggled to walk out of the home with stab wounds and severe burns.

It doesn't get much worse than that. This all happened in Riverview, Florida. When he went to trial in June of 2021, O'Neill decided to act as his own attorney with standby counsel. And when it came time for him to deliver his opening statement, O'Neill took several deep breaths and then launched into a tirade. The evidence is going to shock! that we are under some of the most visions, lying,

some of the most vicious fibrating fibrating fictitious By the time it's all said and done, you will see who is the mass murderers in Tampa Bay, the state of Florida. you will know why what occurred on

March 18, 2018 occurred. And the evidence is going to show that law enforcement tampered with evidence to meet there's such high burden of proof because

originally it wasn't enough so we had to tamper with evidence since it was such evidence already but we still had to tamper with evidence

the evidence is going to show my son did not see me murder his mom the evidence is going to show he did not see me shoot his mom the evidence is going to show my son said many things that are not true I've never seen someone scream their opening state into the jury before.

This went on for half an hour. I can't tell if he was trying to do an impression of an emphatic lawyer like one he saw in a movie or TV show, but that's what came to my mind. And some pretty big allegations he's making here about the government, too. Here's some more. Local law enforcement wanted to make it seem like I'm some kind of minutes to society. And I ran after. killing Kei Oliverin, knowing that authority was on the way to kill my own children.

I wonder why I would do something like that for no reason. And I'm standing here competent as can be representing myself today. I look alone, but I'm back by mighty government. Yeah, during his opening, O'Neill claimed that law enforcement not only manipulated, recorded 911 phone calls to make it sound like he was beating his ex-girlfriend and insulting her, but that they also tampered with call logs to make his own 911 phone call disappear. The prosecutor called these claims absurd. Then again, really hard case for him to defend, let alone anyone, considering there was a crucial eyewitness and a harrowing 911 phone call where you could hear Barron screaming. So not really a lot for him to argue. But one of the more disturbing moments came when O'Neill had the opportunity to cross-examine

his own son, the son that he was accused of stabbing, burning, almost killing, the boy who was 11 when this trial took place. He wasn't shown on camera, but you can hear his voice. Did I hurt you that night of this incident? Yes. I did. And how did I hurt you? you. He stopped me.

Do you remember telling the tank of dirt? After he asked, did your dad hurt you the night that he hurt your sister? And you said, no, he didn't hurt me. Do you remember that? No. By the way, O'Neill actually started this questioning of his son by saying, It's good to see you, man. Wow.

It was so strange. I mean, there was one point when O'Neill cross-examined a detective who adopted O'Neill's son after this incident and thanked him for adopting his son, but then would later suggest to the jury that this show his son was not credible, that he may be falsely testifying against his father. And speaking of which, when it came time for O'Neill to deliver his closing argument, he went back to screaming at the jury and staring down the prosecution. He showed you a fraudulent recorder. where they allege that I beat Kenyatta Barron to death.

He talked about Mr. Khalil Brown, my neighbor who stayed across the street. But if Mr. Khalil Brown was a help to them proving, Me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they would have called Mr. Khalil Brown. But I called Mr. Khalil Brown to be a witness for me. You will know the truth, whether in this trial or the next one. And the judge finally had to step in to calm things down. If you think I'm here to put around with you all. All right, Mr. O'Neill,

Please stop using swearing language. It's not appropriate in a closing argument. I was wondering when she may say this is too much. And then O'Neill, during his closing, confesses. I did kill Kenyalta Van. But I want you to tell it like it is if you're going to tell it. So he admits he killed Barron but didn't strike her 15 times as the state claim. In fact, he seemed to argue that he was acting in self-defense, that he attacked her to protect his kids.

While not surprisingly, the jury found Ronnie O'Neill III guilty on two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated child abuse, one count of arson, and one count of resisting a law enforcement officer. Two days later, at his sentencing hearing, this happened. I am not sorry. for something I didn't do and I am not sorry for the things I did do. Mr. Anil, I don't, listen, stop right, stop, listen to me. I'm not, I'm not going to raise your voice again. I'm not going to raise my voice again. I'm not.

I will have you removed from this courtroom. I consented you without you being present. Yes, ma'am. You don't conduct yourself. Thank you. But I will say I'm sorry for your loss. 19 years I've been at this job. I've seen human beings killed at the hands of others

in every way imaginable. You name it, I've seen it. Shooting, statutes, drownings, suffocates, blown apart by cars, some DUI manslaughter cases, horrible things. this is the worst case I have ever seen

as far as the facts go and the judge said that she would be haunted for the rest of her life by what she saw during that trial she sentenced O'Neill to three life sentences without the possibility of parole plus 90 years

all right next we go to Quincy, Illinois where a man named Bradley Yon who was accused of a list of awful crimes decided that the best person to defend him was Bradley Yon Yon and a woman, Karen Blackledge, were accused of egregious offenses. Police say they carjacked a 77-year-old woman, Tina Loman Schmidt, on November 9th, 2021. Yon drove her home, sexually assaulted her, sprayed her with carpet cleaner.

Yon and Blackledge then allegedly stole several jewelry items in Lomans purse. Sadly, Loman Schmidt died a few weeks later. Prosecutors didn't charge Yon in Loman Schmidt's death, but did charge him with home invasion, residential burglary, aggravated vehicular hijacking, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sexual assault, Blackledge pled guilty to one count of home invasion and one count of aggravated sexual assault in April of 2022. She got 40 years in prison. But Jan maintained his innocence and went to trial in July of 2023. And he chose to represent himself with standby counsel there to advise him and answer any questions. But from the very beginning, Jan demonstrated his odd way

with words. There's not many smiles today. However, I did see some yesterday. I appreciate their smiles that has brought a light to my soul as I've been stuck here in this county jail, tormented for the last 19 months. I ask you, forgive my appearance. This is not normally me. I normally have hair.

I did not expect you to feel sorry for me by any means. Okay. Just a thought, but I don't think a lot of people are feeling sorry for him. I don't think that's something he really has to worry about. His opening statement to the jury was oftentimes rambling and, oh, I don't know, maybe not the best. I once heard that trials are based on persuasion. Who has the best persuasion in their words? Who can be persuaded by the persuading?

Incredible and impossible happenings. We all know what incredible and impossible means. Impossible means not possible. credible means it's not credible yeah and then for some reason yon launched into an anecdote about his little brother and scooby-doo my little brother used to run to mother and say mom bibi hit me bibi was my sister you should say bibi hit me mom would say well my lovely young man where are the marks to prove such What, my mom, show me the marks. He could not show any marks.

Mother would say, I can't tell where the marks are. True story. Come to find out, my brother only had the remote taken from him. Scooby-Doo was his favorite. He would watch it end on end for hours. During them times when my brother would make them claims, we would all come to find out in the end that he had just simply walked away from the TV. Sis picked up the remote, and he wanted the TV back. The tells he was telling, you will see that today here and throughout this trial, there are major tales told, tells that are tall, simply very tall tells.

Weird, just very, very weird, and a strange way to speak to a jury that's deciding if you degraded an elderly woman who eventually died. Now, for our listeners who can't see this visual of this clip, as this is all going on, the assistant state attorney, Josh Jones, he appears to be giving a look during this, like, what are you talking about? By the way, we see this a lot of times with defendants representing themselves, their arguments, they don't make sense, they focus on the sympathy factor. Remember, they're not trained attorneys. At one point, Mr. Jones made the court aware that Yon's cousin, Travis Bloom, made a disturbance in the courthouse, and Yon tried to argue with the court about it. Vigual by the name of Travis Bloom attempted to enter the courtroom while the proceedings were occurring. He was stopped by security and told he could enter at breaks. At that point, he stayed outside the courtroom, but was heard outside.

the courtroom making very loud comments that were heard by sheriff's deputy sam smith inside the courtroom your honor throughout the throughout my time here my family has been repetitively denied i understand travis bloom is an idiot i understand that fully understand that he holds a good heart um they didn't arrest him yesterday if he did all them things they probably should have arrested him right i mean these are very serious matters uh to limit him from the courtroom simply because of this is ridiculous. If a person does not know that they cannot come in during a time that is not a recess, then maybe they should be explained to that,

or maybe there should be notices posted on a wall somewhere. The gentleman in the back courtroom by the door with law enforcement, what's your name? You step outside the door, and see if there's anything posted about there entering the courtroom during a recess? There is, Your Honor. And what does it say, sir? You may only enter the courtroom at recess or breaks. And you were here yesterday, sir?

I was. And was that signposted on the door at all times? I believe so. Have a seat, Mr. Jan. Your motion or objection is overruled. You were, as you described, idiot relative, Travis Bloom, should have read the door sign before. he tried to enter the courtroom, and so he was advised of the court rules. Yeah, not the best argument.

Don't argue there should be signs so people know if they can't enter the court or not, when in reality, there is a sign. That back and forth, though, I was outside the presence of the jury. Now, I want to move on to this really outrageous moment. I'm going to give you a bit of context here. So at one point, Jan is questioning Tim Schmidt. This is the husband of the victim. And Jan seemed to try to point out that Mr. Schmidt didn't call 911 on the night

his wife said that she was attacked. And despite Schmidt saying he did call 911, Jan wanted to impeach him with phone records. The problem here is that those 911 phone calls are not recorded on phone records, and so these records are inadmissible, and Jan can't ask Schmidt about them. And Jan can't introduce them

because he has no legal basis to do so. He has no foundation. Well, Jan didn't quite get that or maybe chose to ignore that, and Mr. Jones, the prosecutor, got quite heated. And do you recall what time you made a 911 call it was some it was a little after six o'clock right after i went home and uh if i said it there objection your honor i know what he's going to ask next your honor and if he's going to

it's going to be an objectionable question that the jury is not allowed to hear just to refresh your memory of you stated you were subpoenaed for phone records for it objection your honor we just dealt with this John the court sustained that objection your honor I'm just letting the witness know where we're at your honor he was here he knows so next question sir okay and you did provide those records. Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered, and we've gone down this path. Mr. Smith, are you aware

me, are you aware that there was no objection, your honor? I will sustain the objection. There was no nine more. Objection, your honor. I'll ask the bailiff to have the jury return to the jury room and we'll do address this. Hey gentlemen, she's right. And it seems to only get worse for Mr. Yon because later on he questioned Sergeant Jake McMahon with the Adams County Sheriff's Department about the phone records. And whether this was a mistake or it didn't know what he was doing, but arguing there was no 911 phone call that day, this report would suggest otherwise. And that is a CFS report, which is also known as a 911 report, correct?

I know it is a dispatch ticket, but I believe CFS. Your Honor, I'd like to publish this in the jury. Okay. The state's mail came and attacked his wife and broke into the house and stole the car, right? Yes, that's what it reads. This is a Quincy Adams County 911 call for service report, doesn't it? Yes. That means there was a 911 call, doesn't it?

Correct. Yeah, that backfired. This is why we say representing yourself maybe not the best idea. Now, in terms of closing arguments, prosecutors delivered there, and then Jan had a chance to speak for himself one last time. He agreed that whoever did this to Miss Lohman Schmidt was an awful person, but he insisted it wasn't him. Ladies and gentlemen, the jury,

they were here on some sick, sick heinous matters. Matters that if I were that person, I wouldn't care if I was a prosecutor or not. I wouldn't sit here and call the defendant a man. I'd call him a piece of shit. Excuse my terminology, Your Honor, but I'd call him a piece of shit. Because that's what he would have been. I promise not to attempt to persuade you, to manipulate you.

I'm still not going to. But one thing I'm going to tell you before I go any further is I'm not a creep. A person who does then things are creeps. They are sick. what I think they deserve is one of them pistols right there on the man's hips to be taken and having their heads blowing off my mama taught me better than this she didn't teach me to go out and do these things nor did I do them please stop man I'm glad we got that straightened out he also took time to critique the prosecution mr. Jones put on a great presentation today very

great, just like Ms. Kek did on Monday last week. She put on a great presentation, very abnormal, not her normal voice, not her normal voice at all. She come forward with a presentation that seems so unnatural just to try to persuade you people, just to try to persuade you. You see the woman right here on the screen. That's from a video. Does it appear if she's hurt, battered, beat, persuasion? You can persuade anybody to do anything with words. You can persuade them with actions. You can persuade them with evidence.

Sometimes evidence isn't evidence. So, was it a good decision or a bad decision for him to represent himself? I think you can take a guess because Bradley Yan was found guilty across the board. and to me he seemed shocked when the jury found him guilty of all of the charges like sexual assault and kidnapping home invasion. It seems to me he thought he really could win this. And the judge ended up sentencing him to 130 years in prison with a minimum of 110 years to be served in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

During sentencing, Judge Roger Thompson said Jan was, quote, the most reprehensible person I have had in court before me. That says a lot. So as we continue our discussion into some of the most memorable times, defendants chose to represent themselves in recent cases, how could we not talk about Trevor Summers? He was accused of kidnapping, sexual assault, and attempted murder in Florida. Prosecutors say he attacked his ex-wife, Elisa Mathewson. So what happened was back in 2016, Trevor Summers pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges. He was awaiting sentencing. And a few months later, as he and his wife

were getting divorced, a judge barred the two from seeing each other. But Summers apparently told the couple's teenage daughter in 2017 that he wanted to reconcile. So he convinced her to leave a window open so he could get into the family home and then leave the two alone, instructing her to take her siblings and drive to his home so he can make up with Matthewsson. But authorities say Summers planned a murder suicide and held Matthewson captive in her home for days. He allegedly tried to kill her twice during that time. At one point, he put her in the back of her car and a witness spotted the vehicle, alerted police, they swooped in, rescued Mathewson. So his criminal trial started in August of 2022, and he started with defense counsel who

delivered the opening statement. But for the prosecution, their star witness was Ms. Matthewson, Summers' ex-wife. And she laid out what happened to her for the court. My hands are tied behind my back. And at this point, I'm again, this is where he is going to kill me. That's what you're thinking at this point? And they're not going to find my body

because this is so secluded and such a wooded area. So what happens? So he turned me around and slipped my wrist and said, that's forgetting out of the car and the Walgreens. Pushed me back into the car, tied me back to the seat, buckled me back in with my hands still tied behind my back. But then, a surprise. Summers decided he didn't need an attorney.

He said he would do a better job of cross-examining his ex-wife, so he wanted to represent himself for the rest of the case. Mr. Summers, you have a request of the court, sir? Yes, Your Honor. What is it? I would like to resume self-representation and discharge Mr. Marquesian's lead counsel. And you believe that to be a wide decision?

Yes, Your Honor, I do. Are you unhappy with the services of Mr. Marquesi? I'm not unhappy with the services of Mr. Marquesie. I do not believe that he fully understands the circumstances surrounding the events, and it would be better if I did the cross-examinations from here on now. The judge allowed it. And yes, he had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim. is ex-wife.

Let me say, this cross-examination was tense. Did I threaten you to have sex? You broke into my home in the middle of the night when I was sleeping. I attacked me and tied me up. I take that as, yes, you threaten me to have sex with you. Yes. I'm asking you specifically, before we had sex, did I threaten you or force you to have sex?

my answer is yes you forced me to have sex with you did i hold you down no did i push you not at that time of having sex but prior to having sex you did push me you did hold me down you did tie me up you did attack me and you did break into my home when i was sleeping you raped me and i'll tell you matthewson barely if at all looked at summers as he was questioning her And what he tried to do in his questioning was saying, how could she know what I was thinking? How could she know what I was intending to do, that I was intending to kill her? And he also tried to show that she was incredible. Have you consistently said that I just stopped?

No. I came to and there was no more pressure on the pillow. So he stopped putting pressure on it while I was unconscious. So you are unconscious, but you knew what I was doing? I regained consciousness, and there was no pressure on the pillow. That's not your testimony in this courtroom. Your testimony in this courtroom is that I just stopped. And your testimony in other cases...

Objection, Judge, improper impeachment. Yes. as to argumentative, as to testifying, and as to improper impeachment. Remember that this is not just some random eyewitness. This is the surviving victim testifying directly against the defendant about what she says happened to her at his hands. That's powerful. But Summers was acting as his own counsel,

and he tried to convince the jury that there was more to this story, and he delivered his own closing argument. Gentlemen, reasonable doubt, I believe, is everywhere. And I ask you to please remember that, and to please focus on that, that element that has to be proven by the time that you make these decisions about my life, about the situation that you've been presented, about deciding whether or not to find me innocent or guilty. I ask you to please consider all of these factors and see that what I am trying to, um, show you is that this was a very abnormal series of events and it requires a lot more information for you to draw a conclusion that would say that I absolutely am guilty of these crimes. But unfortunately for Mr. Summers, the jury wasn't buying it and it took them less than five

hours to convict him on all counts including attempted murder and he was sentenced to three life terms in prison plus another 224 years. We end today with a bizarre twist, ongoing pro se. Staying in Florida, we want to talk about the sentencing phase of Stephen Lorenzo. So Lorenzo was accused of the 2003 murders of two men, Jason Galehouse and Michael Walkholtz, who were identified as members of the gay community. Now, Lorenzo was convicted of drugging and sexually abusing nine men, including the two victims I just mentioned, and he was sentenced to 200 years in federal prison, 200 years.

But it wasn't until 2012 that Lorenzo and a co-defendant were actually charged by Florida state prosecutors with the murders of Gale House and Walk Holtz. So Lorenzo's co-defendant, Scott Schweikert pleaded guilty, agreed to work with prosecutors in their original case against Lorenzo. And Lorenzo would spend years fighting the charges, represented himself, reportedly delaying court proceedings, until he eventually decided to plead guilty. In fact, Lorenzo penned a handwritten letter from jail to the court saying he wanted to plead guilty, he wanted to be sentenced to death, and he wanted to forfeit his right to appeal. Okay.

And in pleading guilty, Lorenzo had to explain what happened. Mr. Schweikert wanted to get some experience. So we allowed him to do some stuff on Mr. Galehouse. Now, I don't know if I should add this, but Mr. Schweiker wanted to have a video done of him having experience as a master who was trying, and I was videotaping it while he was doing this. Mr. Schweiger got carried away. He lost control. The kid started to scream and get all upset. We realized that the kid was going to probably call the police on all of us. so we had a power and we said this kid can't leave it's chilling how calmly he explains it now i'll give you a little bit more context here according to lorenzo's co-defendant lorenzo basically knocked out

the two victims he put gale house in a sleeper hold he covered wokholz's face with a rag soaked in ether they never regained consciousness they both died and from there lorenzo and schweichert allegedly dismembered gale house put his body parts in different dumpsters. It's our understanding the body has never been recovered. As for Walkholz, the pair allegedly wrapped him in a sheet, put him in a Jeep, and he was found in a town and country parking lot. So why did Lorenzo want the death penalty so badly? Well, he explained it to a judge during a hearing. Yes, give me the death penalty. That is absolutely great. That's exactly what I want. I'm 64 years old. It can take, I could be on death row for 10, 15 years. The

comforts that they get in the death row a lot more comfortable than it is in the federal system you get your own private cell you get your own tv you're getting your own computer you get all this stuff but your privacy your daily quality life privacy at my age is is that invaluable i want to do my time my way it's easy time so i'm going anyway as far as i'm concerned everybody here is on death row everybody's got to go sometime well there was a spencer hearing that was held a couple weeks later to assess whether Lorenzo had any other evidence to present to the court. It sounds like there's nothing else that you, no argument you want to make, no testimony you want to offer at this time. Is that correct? That's right. The mitigation kind of put it over

the top of what I wanted to put in, so I'm coming. I feel I'm covered. I feel good about it. Thank you. Let me ask you this. Throughout these proceedings, including the penalty phase, you've indicated that you want the court to impose the death penalty. Is that still your position? Yes, that sure is. I don't know if you want me to explain, but yes. No, I don't need any explanation. I just wanted to make sure that nothing has changed from your desire as to the sentence that you wish the court to impose on Friday. Yes, I sure do, yes. Nothing's changed on that. All right.

Now that Mr. Arendzo has presented no other argument, no other evidence, we will stand on the proceedings, the previous proceedings, the arguments, the evidence, and the sworn testimony. So that's all we have gone. A few days later, it was time for the judge to deliver his sentence, and Lorenzo spoke before hearing the decision. The sooner that I get euthanized, as far as I'm concerned, the faster I can get, the sooner I can get, the sooner I can get, fetch myself a new body, and come back again. A fresh body. That's how I look at it, because that's how it is. That's how it's spiritual work.

We're eternal beings. So the way I look at it is the sooner I euthanize, the sooner I can come back. I've got better things to do with my time. hang out and spend the next 15, 20 years on death row or in any prison system. So that's what I'm asking for. It's selfish. That's what I want. So that's why I really have to say. Thank you. Well, thank you. And I don't know if what you say is perhaps some form of reverse psychology or do I care. I will not consider what you want in issuing my sentence.

I know that. All right. So I am then ready to proceed. Did you have anything else that you want to say? No, I'm pretty good. I'm looking forward to getting this over with. It's been five long years. All right. I sentence you, Mr. Lorenzo, to death. That is the punishment that you deserve for these horrific crimes.

Thank you, Mr. Lorenzo, may God have mercy on your soul. My soul is fine. Thank you, sir. Interesting move by a convicted criminal. You know, I guess you could call this self-representation in this situation a success. He got what he wanted. And again, as the judge said, this isn't about what Lorenzo wanted. This is about justice, given the gravity of these crimes, not surprised by the outcome.

All right, everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'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.