- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Waukesha Christmas Parade Massacre Trial - Brooks Gets 6-Life Sent. + 762.5 yrs in prison
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:23 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:23 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
Oh look...another break because of his bullshite.
0
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:23 am to Gris Gris
I get what she’s doing but she’s doing a poor job of it. There is a zero percent chance of the trial finishing if he’s in the room. It just can’t possibly happen.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:24 am to MFn GIMP
He finally learned how to pronounce tacit.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:24 am to rt3
And... back to the other courtroom we go
KEEP HIM THERE THIS TIME!!!!
KEEP HIM THERE THIS TIME!!!!
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:24 am to MFn GIMP
Brooks knows his time is short. So glad he'll be in prison for life soon enough.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:24 am to MFn GIMP
Do you think there's something in Illinois v Allen that she's concerned about not letting him back in when he asks? Surely his conduct at this point would override any kind of demand to be present in the courtroom just to delay.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:24 am to CaptSpaulding
quote:
I get what she’s doing but she’s doing a poor job of it. There is a zero percent chance of the trial finishing if he’s in the room. It just can’t possibly happen.
She needs to keep him in the other court room until time for his closing statement. Once he goes off the rails then she can end his closing statement and kick him out again.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:25 am to MFn GIMP
I’m guessing she’s doing this to make his appeal useless? I don’t understand the numerous attempts to bring him back knowing he’s just going to repeat the same silly questions.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:25 am to CaptSpaulding
quote:
I get what she’s doing but she’s doing a poor job of it. There is a zero percent chance of the trial finishing if he’s in the room. It just can’t possibly happen.
This needs to be the last time he is moved back and forth. He should be relegated to the other room until his closing argument and, even then, he may need to give that from the other room. She should not give in again.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:26 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Do you think there's something in Illinois v Allen that she's concerned about not letting him back in when he asks?
Sadly, yes.
Held:
1. A defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, following the judge's warning that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in such a disruptive manner that his trial cannot proceed if he remains in the courtroom. He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect. Pp. 397 U. S. 342-343.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:27 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect. Pp. 397 U. S. 342-343.
Which he continues to fail at doing
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:27 am to MFn GIMP
She is giving him leeway because she doesn't want him to have a valid basis for appeal, even a HINT that he might win.
Judges hate being overturned on appeal. (And she doesn't want the families to have to go through this again)
Judges hate being overturned on appeal. (And she doesn't want the families to have to go through this again)
This post was edited on 10/25/22 at 9:28 am
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:28 am to idlewatcher
The 2nd part of that decision also says "(3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly."
Based on that as soon as he "promises" to follow the rules he can come back.
ETA: At this point though I would take the risk. This is not going to get overturned based on him not being in the actual courtroom.
Based on that as soon as he "promises" to follow the rules he can come back.
ETA: At this point though I would take the risk. This is not going to get overturned based on him not being in the actual courtroom.
This post was edited on 10/25/22 at 9:29 am
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:29 am to MFn GIMP
the part has yet to come.
his closing arguments.
his closing arguments.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:29 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
r/Justice4Darrell
•Posted by
u/Naychaboy
10 hours ago
The Complete Darrell Brooks defence argument...
It wasn't my SUV.
But hypothetically if it was, it definitely had defective brakes.
And hypothetically if it didn't have defective brakes, I wasn't driving it.
And hypothetically if I was driving it, I wasn't trying to hit anyone.
And hypothetically if I was trying to hit anyone, I definitely wasn't trying to kill anyone.
And hypothetically if I was trying to kill anyone, I feel really really sorry about it now.
And hypothetically if I doesn't feel really sorry about it, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
And hypothetically if the court has subject matter jurisdiction, they haven't proven it in the written decision I received.
And hypothetically if they did prove it, I tore it up anyway.
And hypothetically, besides all of that, there is no plaintiff.
And hypothetically if there is a plaintiff, there are no injured parties.
And hypothetically despite all of the dead people, and parents of injured parties I called to the stand myself, it don't matter.
Because I am not an idiot.
Did I miss anything?
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:29 am to MFn GIMP
Was just about to post that. It's a shitty infinite loop where he can act like an arse, be removed, request to be brought back, and repeat. Is it possible for an appeals court to take this up just to rule that a judge can use their discretion to more permanently remove an unruly defendant from the room?
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:30 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Based on that as soon as he "promises" to follow the rules he can come back.
ETA: At this point though I would take the risk. This is not going to get overturned based on him not being in the actual courtroom.
He doesn't ever really agree to follow the rules, though. The number of times he has had to be removed warrants keeping him in that room. I think any court will uphold that.
He will not ever actually agree to keep quiet during the instructions.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:32 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect.
He has not demonstrated a willingness to do anything close to this. Not one time. In fact, he has threatened continuously to disrupt and be disrespectful at every turn. I cannot recall one time where he has promised to do anything within the boundaries of court decorum. He is a jackass of the highest order.
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:33 am to Gris Gris
She's calling him on it now. Making him write out his intent to come back with a pledge to not interrupt. She's going to permanently boot his arse if he writes it out (which he won't) then interrupts anyway. She knows he's not going to commit to anything
Posted on 10/25/22 at 9:33 am to statman34
This DA is great. Thinking of everything.
Page 90 of 184
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News