I was once assaulted and when I came to court to testify I found out my attacker was representing himself, which meant he would be questioning me. And let me tell you, that experience was absolutely traumatic! Being forced to interact with him and having to answer the absolutely ridiculous and completely false questions as he tried to impugn my character and the validity of my attach was horrible. I get the right for people to represent themselves, but for them to be able to question and interrogate their victims is cruel.
While I get that certainly would be a traumatic situation, and I do give you my sympathy about it, at least it also means that he was doomed to fail. For what it's worth, a professional cross-examination would not have been friendly, and would have been tough in a different way.
I’m sorry for you, but during the court trial he was an innocent man defending himself from your allegations of assault given that he had yet to be proven guilty. Saying he couldn’t do that because you were his victim is also saying he was guilty before the trial even started.
@@woodlefoof2 I never said he couldn't do it. I was merely stating that the impact it has on victims in cases in unfortunate. Additionally, his presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the eyes of law did nothing to assuage the deep panic and trauma I experiences in that courtroom. I knew him and knew who assaulted me. The lack of an official verdict at the time of questioning did not change that fact. But good for you for sharing your opinion siding with abusers and criminals.
I doubt it. Think his lawyers were completely pissed. The amount of work they did and sleepless nights and right before the trial they spent months and months prepping for he ‘fired’ them to represent himself. They were most certainly not happy about it.
@@dougfoster445 well they still get paid for the hours worked, and this case would probably not be a winning one, so it probably helps their trial record while also the lawyers are get paid for the legwork they put in already.
@@joetomp from a case like this it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. It’s not necessarily if they win or lose but how effective their job was for their client. Look at Casey Anthony. I’m sure her lawyers were ready for a guilty verdict as well. It’s the opportunity that matters. It was swept up from under them by that clown. I guarantee you they aren’t happy.. all those boxes he had on his desk were essentially paperwork from his lawyers. All their hard work. He took it and butchered it.
From what I understand (not a lawyer) in Canada you can represent yourself but you do not have the right to question your victims. Stand in counsel does it for you. That way they can't continue their abuse or trauma.
I like that a lot. I was really perturbed by the idea that the alleged victims' rights to safety from further abuse is apparently less important than the defendant's right to try and intimidate or re-traumatize them on the stand
The ability of the accused to question victims in the US comes from two places: -98% of the time it will be a lawyer doing the questioning, but the accused are allowed to represent themselves. - The accused are innocent until proven guilty, so until a verdict is given the victims can't be said to have been victimized by the accused (under the law.)
@@lazaruscain3424 can witnesses opt out if they're afraid of the defendant? Like can they do a written deposition only? It'd be nice if they could get victim counsel assigned to serve as their mouthpiece or something, but I guess that's not as impactful as hearing it from them directly.
Not gonna lie, when he finished his little tirade to the empty court declaring that we all just don't understand that she TOLD him she was 18, suddenly a hell of a lot of stuff started making sense.
Thank god, it’s definitely not that way in other countries. On another video someone commented a story of theirs where their ex had attempted to take the persons life and then in the court room the ex directly questioned them and it caused them to relive the trauma
@@NexxtTimeDontMiss lawyers typically DON'T represent themselves, as even they consider it a bad idea. They usually cash in a favor from a lawyer buddy or use their lawyer money to hire their own
@@NexxtTimeDontMiss Actually most good lawyers DON’T represent themselves. They hire lawyers who are experts in their type of cases. I’m sure there are some small cases that they handle themselves, but a smart lawyer would know that representing themselves in something major isn’t going to be a good thing, especially when it comes time to question witnesses, speak to the jury, etc. It looks terrible to have a supposed criminal questioning and possibly arguing with witnesses. And perception by the jury is everything.
As a mentally ill person, whose friends are all mentally ill people..... There is a point where you start losing empathy for certain mentally ill people. Like when they murder 6 people and continue to be a belligerent asshole about it.
Yeah i undertand and agree with that people seem to pick and choose which mentally ill people they care about.. Skin tone and gender have nothing to do with it obivously
It also shows that there's "mental illness" and then there's "mental illness," and it can be tricky to delineate where the person's illness ends and their free will begins. I think most of us tend to feel greater sympathy for those whose issues are ego-dystonic and outside of their control, and much less sympathy for folks whose issues are ego-syntonic and seemingly within their control.
@@dinosaysrawr Yeah, also most people have been mentally ill at aome point in theri life depression is a mental illness. Then there are people who were born different from the start and even then they are able to understand right from wrong. There is a differnce between a man with autism having a meltdown due to aomething we may not understand and punching someone who gets close to them and me having a bady day choosing to get drunk and then getting into a fight and even then both are far differnent then someone with a mentail illness like ocd like I do stabbing someone. Since my ocd makes me do compulsions not murders. I'm not sure i i expalined it well but I agree!
I think as a person who is mentally ill and has PTSD--and the luck of a great therapist for 4 years, the resources someone has always has to be taken into account. Their home life, if they have a home, if they had treatment and help, a support group, etc. Some people make me puke, and some actions I still deem as unacceptable--but everyone deserves a chance of rehabilitation with help and resources. I know I was a piece of shit in HS when I had zero help and was in a crisis along with burnout from neurodivergence (that had been undiagnosed for 16 years) and after I got help and people ACTUALLY LISTENED, I because far less violent, had less meltdowns, and stopped trying to run away. Mental illness has to be viewed not just through a person's actions but what lead them to it before we decide what we do with them. Especially when it comes to a mental health issue they have only some control over even with some help. Obviously I'm not saying "Oh they had mental illness?? Doesn't matter they killed people!" but I am saying, it should be looked at carefully, especially to help prevent such harm in the future--both to possible future victims, and the mentally ill person getting worse instead of better.
True, but the stress from the frustration of having to deal with his constant “GrOuNdz” demands even when they’d already said it and every unneeded objection he made… I’m sure if I’d checked my blood pressure while watching his trial live it would have been super high, and I’m just a random audience member from an entirely different state. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to be sitting at the table next to him.
@@flamingsickle with the victims families in the same room, expecting you to do something. Watching them suffer the whole time when you know he will be found guilty anyways and that the trial could honestly just be skipped if he plead guilty. I don't think i could do it.
If you watch the whole trial, the prosecutors were actually quite stressed because he repeatedly did things that made it even easier for them. The whole 'opening the door' discussion went for quite a while and the prosecutor actually went over and talked directly with Brooks to attempt to explain it to him.
As much as I loved the judge's ruling in this case I'm really glad she didn't make her supreme court seat. She's on record calling Lawrence V. Texas the case decriminalizing homosexual intercourse 'the worst decision in U.S. supreme court history'
thank you for this. i came to the comments to sing her praises and im glad i didn’t now. she did some great work here but this serves as a reminder to not idolize servants of the state
I don't know the specific case but it is common for judge to dislike a particular rulling because it was badly conducted independently from the offense being judged
As a teacher, I have and have had many students who argue everything just like this guy. Kudos to that judge for keeping it together like she did. That mess is infuriating!
I teach high school and was shocked to see the similarities in this jerk's behavior and certain students. It was uncanny, and I would've never expected to make that kind of connection.
@@7489ktrue although usually most teenagers/children can be pretty “sociopathic” if you could say that but it’s more like just being a dumb stupid kid who doesn’t think about other people. most people mature and gain sentience and grow up, but clearly brooks never did
I often experience newly found levels of respect for people through my life, but... Judge Dorow... I am in complete awe. Every second she stood stoically and answered his nonsense with carefully worded logic... I could never have, not for a second.
My husband passed last year without a will. I spent about a month, in grief, halfheartedly researching wtf I needed to do to successfully move through the probate process, and reading all the legalese eventually brought me to tears. I gave up and searched around for a local attorney. I can't even imagine dealing with the legal system when you have little knowledge of the law AND your literal life is on the line? I understand how folks end up in this position because of their lack of funds, but we do occasionally hear about outrageous behaviors like this guy, because some of these people are so full of hubris... It is truly strange to observe ⚖
Sorry for your loss. The dude had a lawyer and decided to dismiss them and go to trial pro se. Probably because the lawyer and he disagreed on the defence strategy. No lawyer is gonna argue this sovereign citizen stuff and Brooks seemed to believe that it was his get out of jail card for some reason.
@@linkesocke4533 Thank you. Yes, I'm aware that he dismissed his lawyers. That fact doesn't alter my commentary. I can't imagine dealing with the legal system when one has little knowledge of the law, and meanwhile one's actual life is on the line. This guy clearly falls into that "full of hubris" category. Isn't his behavior also evidence of some kind of mental illness? I think that this whole legal episode really starkly shows the flaws in the system. Rational people could look at this and say, this is wrong, this man is causing himself injury, the trial has become a circus, this isn't how justice is supposed to work. And yet, it was enabled, and continued on until its obvious conclusion. I don't know. Some of these meta conversations about humanity and society and laws meant to give us due process are fascinating, but often there are no clear cut solutions. Ultimately, he did what he wanted to do, which was his right, but it was all so absurd, and it shouldn't really sit right with anyone who observes the trial for what it was
A lot of public defenders are overworked and unable to privide high quality legal advice. But courts are required to provide them to defendants who can't afford a lawyer. So people who decide to represent themselves and act like lunatics can't blame their finances.
That judge is deeply surprisingly patient, so many judges can be dicks and be like this in my house!! But she is giving him every opportunity to not screw himself. Looks like someone who really understands the importance of the position of court judge
videos of the trial kept showing up on my phone and i kept hitting do not recommend because after watching the first few, i would have not been able to keep my composure. i did watch the verdict live though, and i was SOOOOOOOO happy she shut him down at every fucking turn. i had never even heard about this guy before. i don't watch the news. purposefully.
I'm kinda glad he decided to defend himself cuz he showed how truly belligerent and unstable he was, and he didn't get to weasel out of his punishment by hiring people much smarter and more capable than him
Not only was this trial driving me up the wall in terms of court decorum, but the Parkland Shooting case is equally as irritating. The defense attorneys are incredibly disrespectful. Unfortunately for these “Sovereign Citizens,” it can be expected that they’re disrespectful and disruptive, but to see actual defense attorneys combat the judge as well?!?! Insanity.
They also flipped the families off and were laughing at the worst moments. Truly a shame that they can't be punished. They deserved the person they were defending.
I was in the jury for a homeless man that represented himself. His defense for video evidence with dates was that he didn’t do it on that day. It was a different day. He was found guilty for trespassing and assault of a police officer.
I'm so happy cases are recorded now, must make it tons easier for the secretaries to make sure they didn't miss anything when there's someone interrupting like this.
My mom is a public defendant in family court and yeah. This drove me kind of insane because these are the people she’s having to protect her clients against. Abusers who are so self centered they don’t believe they need a lawyer and take to harassing their victim on the stand
I had so many questions watching this trial. It was so hard to get through most days. I felt that judge needed an award for the way she conducted herself.
Just a little fyi from someone with bipolar (which is what DB reportedly is diagnosed with) is not a personality disorder. It’s a brain disorder that we can’t fluctuate the hormones to maintain a stable mood. You could say it’s more of a mood disorder and that’s why we are treated more so with mood stabilizers and antidepressants, some require antipsychotics depending on severity.
@@jaimeeguy9937 his mother and the judge both stated bipolar 🤷🏻♀️ my son has ODD which is a personality disorder and he behaves more like him when he’s not getting his way-not like a manic episode so this tracks way better. Maybe mom is trying to help him and it’s really not a help? I really don’t know. It’s just sad and no matter his diagnosis he knew what he was doing and he knows right from wrong. It’s clear from watching the trial or reading the record.
@@megzmorbidcuriosities it is in the DSM 5 as a personality disorder therefore it is a personality disorder. It doesn't matter what treatment is it is classified as a personality disorder with a subcategory for comorid cluster b disorders in the diagnosis standard
@@ayajade6683 not every place in the world uses DSM V and you'd be shocked at the sorts of classification and diagnosis list differences that exist between different systems. For example ICD 11, which is literally made by the World health organization, making it a much more reputable manual than the american version, does consider bipolar II disorder to be a mood disorder instead of a personality disorder. Don't assume the american way is the objectively correct one, even if it is the one applied in this case
Thank you for this. I'm not a lawyer, but I work in advocacy for survivors of DV and SA (and all the stuff that goes along with those categories.) Every client I've worked with had to file for an OP pro se. As an advocate it's so hard because, obviously, we cannot provide legal advice, and for plenary orders abusers/respondents tend to bring lawyers to court. There are so many times when you want to object or when your client freezes due to the trauma of the situation and just can't get their story out. It's a failing of the system that actual legal representation for victims isn't an option. But it is wonderful thing that they are able to file and that judges and clerks are able to assist them on the process. The other, other side of it is that it depends on the clerk and the judge. (*laugh/cries in rural Midwest*) Anyway, thanks for what you do, your willingness to admit that the system is a complicated thing to work in, and I'm glad your clients in family court have you.
@@ayajade6683 it's not an advocate agency, but a program that has advocates for survivors. (It's a strange clarification, I know.) We have connections to pro bono lawyers but the it's a rural area and those lawyers are stretched incredibly thin (think covering multiple counties and not all the lawyers specializing in DV/SA work.)
@@baeregard No, those who file for orders of protection are not defendants. OP court is a civil court so there aren't defendants in general, just petitioners and respondents. It is the victims/survivors who file for OPs. Generally, at least in my state, defense attorneys are only required for criminal matters so there aren't public defenders for civil cases.
God he reminds me so much of my dad. My dad has delusional disorder and represented himself in my parents' custody hearing. According to my mom it went just about as well as this case.
I got called in for jury duty when I was 20 for a criminal case. The defendant chose to defend himself. We had to stop basically every 10 minutes and wait in the jury room for anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour while they tried to get him to deescalate and the judge tried to advise him. The clips you showed were very similar to how he behaved, from the threats, the pointed glares, and talking over or ignoring the proceedings. They ended up having to bring in extra security (who were in plainclothes and made to look like they could potentially be family/friends or witnesses waiting to be called) and moved someone on the jury who was pregnant for fear of her safety (which they disguised as placing her closer to an exit so she didn't have to shuffle through many seats). Eventually the judge made him take the legal counsel back because he was actively hindering the inclusion of evidence and testimonies that could help reduce his sentencing. They had predicted this trial would take 1-2 days. It ended up taking 5 because of how often we had to sit in the jury room while the defendant was given advisement by the judge as she tried to deescalate the situation to give him a better chance. The court did a good job during the trial of making all of these precautions and added security invisible to the jury. The only reason we even found out any of this is because the judge walked us through the proceedings after sentencing had been finalized and the case closed while we waited for the defendant and his friends/family to leave because he had apparently threatened the jury during the times we had been removed from the room. I've been curious since then about how that process works, so this video was perfect!
Leeja, I’d love you to break down this “sovereign citizen” stuff. I’m part of a music subculture in the UK where this is a very common belief system and know people who have used “common law” to successfully get out of parking fines and other minor legal issues. I have cringed many times hearing people discuss it like it’s a sure fire way to deal with any legal situation, when clearly, it has limitations. I’d be really interested to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on the limits of it.
Common law is taking past Judges rulings as a precedent to determine an area of law that is vague or disputed or does not cover a particular instance. This can be how we get things like Strict Liability from Rylands vs. Fletcher and subsequent rulings on it have shaped the definition and rulings on it over time. However, where common law contradicts statute law, the statute law over rules that. For example if an old ruling of a judge let you discriminate against pregnant people but then the Equalities Act 2010 is passed the Act would take precedent. In your friends case a judge my have ruled un the past that a parking ticket similar to your friends was invalid. Or the traffic authority cancelled the tickets when they put up a fight as it was too much of a hassle (which wouldn't br common law but would be understandable). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so this is from my own research
"Sovereign citizen" is nonsensical American anti-government ideology. It's almost invariably invoked by people on the far-right side of the political spectrum.
parking tickets can be successfully fought in court, because the legally required signage wasn't in place, or because there was a technical error in the way the fines were issued. Or even because there simply was no offence and fines were being issued spuriously to generate revenue on the expectation they wouldn't be fought. That's not really a “sovereign citizen” issue, that's just a case of people operating within the existing laws and proving the law wasn't properly applied to them. It works in parking because those fines are often issued by poorly trained local authority or private contractors and the infrastructure they rely on is often poorly maintained or missing. It doesn't really apply to many other areas of law
When I was in jail my cellmate represented himself. It was for grand theft (he shoplifted something worth over $1000 still a felony) he not only did a good job but walked out with it being lowered to "disturbing the peace"
If this case was held in Massachusetts he ABSOLUTELY would not have been found competent. As a public defender I’m so glad that I live in the Commonwealth!
Judge Darrow and the prosecution team are an example of how I wish the system worked all the time. They went above and beyond to protect his rights even when he was trying to toss his rights out the window. DB makes me want to tear my hair out, but he has constitutional rights like everyone else. Those rights have to be upheld if we're going to take his liberty away. Judge Darrow is a saint, but she's also what a judge should be. I hope she treats every defendant that way.
I kept seeing clips of this trial here and there online and the absolute patience of this Judge was legitimately out of this universe. She deserves the world for her patience.
Genuine question (and I’m sorry if it’s a stupid one!) but why isn’t he being charged with something like domestic terrorism? Usually in the UK (where I live) deliberately driving a car into a crowd with the intent to unalive and harm as many people as you can is classed as an act of terror
Because that's a federal charge this is for the state. Also because he did this spontaneously it lacks the 24-48+ hour planning in advanced requirement for the state to pursue it as terrorism. But considering your country literally has bdsm as mild as spanking your partner as the sole reason to lose custody, this literally happened last year, and doesn't consider hooligan culture as terrorism but more vandalism/boys being boys your legal system is honestly a swinging pendulum of laws and how they're classified
@@ayajade6683 You could have stopped after “terrorism” tbh. But we can have this discussion if you want. I don’t think the US has any room to discuss spanking, when smacking children is legal in schools in some states, and it’s been banned here in Wales. BDSM (when done properly) is always consensual. Considering your gun laws, I don’t really want to hear why you think hooliganism and anti-social behaviour should be defined as terrorism when you can go into a supermarket and buy an assault weapon.
That poor judge man. I give her all the props for dealing with this case with as much poise as she did. The amount of patience she must’ve had and the number of bottles of alcohol she must’ve finished after her days ended must’ve been soooo high
I used to work in probation and was an intern and studied mainly criminal justice, but I have sat in on a bunch of cases as part of my education. In criminal justice, you're not automatically learning law depending on the avenue you go into. I did learn the basics of law, famous cases that lead to the main conduct we use today, and ethics, but my main focus was on theory and analysis on how we got to the point with how we understand, condemn and that sort of thing. The non-practical side of the conversation of crime and punishment (useless the real world but is super interesting as a study). I sat in on many cases at our local courthouse and I can say with absolute surety that our population is massively ill-educated in law (in all the cases I watched people are 100% dependent on the lawyer, they know almost nothing or do something really dumb without realizing it). Alot of what people know is from entertainment like Judge Judy and Law and Order. I really wish in the public school system there could be at the very minimum teach people basic legal terms to help them understand if they are being taken advantage of or know when it's time to consult a lawyer and how to obtain legal counsel with the systems we have in place.
That's so silly. The whole point of the American education system is to make dumb food soldiers that listen to their government like God-fearing bootlickers. Evolution?? Civil rights?? Law literacy? Pfft! Who needs to learn About that
I'm currently representing myself in two breach of contract cases. But I'm a law school graduate and I'm waiting for my bar results. And there is no risk of jail time in my cases. And if I pass the bar I want to be a public defender.
Judge Dorow did a great job cause I figure this guy would try and claim mistrial if she yelled at him or if she didn't point out for the record that she gave enough times to correct his behavior. If I was the judge, he would have been choked out minute 5 of that
It's more remarkable when you consider that him claiming a mistrial would have got him out of her hair much more quickly. I doubt he'll ever realise quite how excessively fairly he was being treated. Like, a fair trial would have been him getting charged with contempt of court every five minutes.
You are amazing! I am not in the field of law what-so-ever yet the way you present your information is perfect for a viewer like me. Your information is robust, clear, and just enough to keep me watching without making my head spin. I trickled over here from the RuPaul Drag Race review stuff and became unexpectedly eager to start exploring law through your presentations. You are great for your audience. Plus, your personality is too cool. Know what I mean? (please do merch with that as your catch phrase)
Thanks for the video. I like the pivot from an absolute mess in the news to broader problems with the legal system as a whole. I was pleasantly surprised with the direction this post took.
Taking up court resources…I’m so thankful for my circuit court. The court took care of my entire legal proceedings for my name change. I acted pro se. I’m thankful for them being respectful towards my case. Especially as my case was handle by a Republican-leaning Judge in Missouri. This issue needs to be in the mainstream Leeja, you’re on to something. I was worried that court finances were going to be denied because of it being a frivolous case. And that’s FAMILY court, pffft I have no idea about the immensity of it happening in the CRIMINAL court. Much support ❤
The only jury I was on - when your dad was a well-known lawyer in a small town - you get dismissed quickly - the defendant was someone who had clearly done time with the Posse Comitatus crowd. We, the jury, *knew* that because he WOULD👏🏽NOT👏🏽STOP👏🏽TELLING 👏🏽US. Thing is, he was a small-framed Indigenous man who was, by testimony by the State Troopers, subjected to abuse by said State Trooper. Who calmly told us that he had tasered the man several times, including while he was in handcuffs at the police station. We all agreed that it was clear that in addition to being over charged, he had been subject to police brutality, and probably extra abuse due to his race. And we could do nothing. Because he admitted to everything, told us he was a recidivist, argued that the jury members were idiots over something something sovereign citizens. Hell, the poor dude even told us that we are not citizens because there is no such thing as a state. Yes, this man denied the existence of the state we live in. In the end we had no choice because he admitted in open court what he had done. And also royally pissed us off. We decided to wait and eat lunch before deliberation just to make him sweat. In the end we got rid of the cop bs & convicted him of what he had told us. A sad day all around.
Unfortunately, sovereign citizen theory is spreading in Indigenous societies in so-called Australia, Canada, and the US. I haven't heard of it jumping to civil law jurisdiction Spanish speaking settler-states, but that is probably a matter of time. The problem is, from an Indigenous perspective, settler-states are just made up. The Commonwealth of Australia, Dominion of Canada, and the United States are illegitimate foreign impositions. Their laws and courts frequently do work by "magic words" - saying the right thing at the right time. To a lot of Indigenous peoples, the settler state really is the tyranny that market-libertarians only fear. So a claim that allows escape from this monster is really appealing. Hence the spread of sovereign citizen theory.
@@deanjustdean7818 you all make very valid points. I agree that in our nation of over policing, and oligarchic disenfranchisement on stolen lands, we really do have a crisis of legitimacy for the state. If America wishes to avoid another revolution, we need to re-examine and renegotiate the social contract. Because the common sentiment on all sides of the political spectrum is that, our government is irresponsive to our needs, is forced upon us non-consensually, and does not serve its people.
@@deanjustdean7818 education won't fix them they're assholes who want to be special and above the law. It's like how people drink insanely salty cabbage juice and ignores everything people show or educate them with sovereign citizens are just another side the antivax/naturalpath coin
@@deanjustdean7818 except we do and we still have them it's literally just assholes wanting to feel important and compensate often because they lack in the family jewel department. No matter the amount of education we're going to get whacks doodles like this and since the love violating TOS on multiple sites they will feel they're right because they're persecuted. There's a reason you have to have a cult deprogrammer for antivaxxers.
@@jacobvardy - We get them in the UK too - the "freemen of the land". It's funny how people think that the exact same loopholes will exist in every English-speaking countries, even though they presumably know that we all have different legal systems. What's disgusting to me about it is not the small-minded men who lap it up, but the evil bastards who promote it. Because while an individual who just picks up a bit of pseudo-legal claptrap might only have minimal contact with the community... the people who spread it know damn well that it doesn't work. They can't *not* know that, because they presumably occasionally have to google things. Even if they do no research, they can't *not* know that they did no research. So they are just spending their time ruining strangers' lives at random without conscience. I'm not going to act like every sovereign citizen's life was going particularly smoothly to begin with, but they probably could've at least stayed out of prison.
Thank you for summing up what was occurring here. I tried to watch 5 minutes of the trial but couldn’t handle this man’s attitude. The judge on this case was very patient.
I agree! She and the prosecutors did everything in their power to protect his rights and give him a fair trial. It was frustrating to watch, but imo the gold standard of how defendants should be treated. If we're going to strip someone of their liberty, we should do it right.
I have represented myself 2X, and have won both of them. I even got judges smiling at me. But the thing is this... You have to understand the law "and" how it functions in your situation. Otherwise, yes indeed "get a lawyer"!
Girl we would love a feature length film on this case! Or any case for that matter, you're so entertaining and great at explaining all this legal stuff that we would normally not understand!
I doubt she’ll see this but she should consider putting brooks name in the title. Even when I look up Darrell brooks trail analysis her video isn’t coming up, and it’s a popular topic.
I watched the entire trial (YIKES) & my absolute favorite part was attny Whitchow making Brooks melt down in that moment. I only wish he got to finish what he was saying because I have a feeling it was epic! It honestly blew my mind how brooks failed to see when the PROSECUTION was trying to help him! It was embarrassing to watch & I give so much credit to not only the judge & the entire DA's office & all members of the court, but particularly the families & victims! Just absolutely wild!
Scottish Court worker here! In Scots Law we call them 'party litigants' and face much of the same issues. I absolutely agree that everyone has a right to access justice but more often than not, party litigants are hugely unequipped to deal with their own cases, purely from a procedural standpoint more than anything else. Our legislation is difficult to interpret, full of latin, and there is a certain amount of local practice that will differ between sheriff court locations across Scotland, so no wonder people struggle to represent themselves. Also staff of our court services aren't legally qualified so we're unable to give legal advice or nudge someone towards what we may think they're trying to do even if we wanted to. It's a huge timesuck. More funding needs to be put into accessible legal advice for anyone trying to represent themselves in court but there also needs to be more enforcement of our vexatious litigant procedure which basically prohibits repeated actions being raised by someone who is intentionally trying to waste court time and resources.
Oh my God I had that job! I had to read and respond to a state version of federal habeas corpus petitions. How well I remember those handwritten "pleadings." Anyway, the judge, my boss, used to grant them a hearing if they had a halfway coherent argument. Because "It gives them a day out."
I tried watching some of the trial but just couldn't stand it, so I was hoping you'd give it the wonderful Leeja treatment at some point. Thank you! I must say from the bits I saw that the judge was just amazing, and I could almost imagine her picturing the transcript, making sure everything was documented and that it would hold up on an appeal. Hard to do I'm sure most of the time; just incredible she could do it with all his narcissistic, disrespectful, disruptive craziness AND still try to make sure he gets a fair trial.
I’m so happy to see you following this Case. I would also love to see your take on parkland school massacre case, specifically the victim impact statements and the defense team
I work as a court reporter and as such have sat through countless depositions. Worst ones were two from a pro se complainant suing the federal government (their employer) l. It was 7 hours of torture by litigation. Complainant didn’t submit exhibits to the defense, didn’t have anything bates stamped, and didn’t know what documents contained which talking points. I counted over 300 objections from the government in the final transcript. Craziest part is that the complainant was making over $125k a year, so that leads me to think no lawyer would take their case.
Once again… you are providing us information we were all wondering about. I watched this trial with so many questions that you’re answering. Can’t thank you enough! LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!! Love that you talk politics, drag race, current events, etc. Thank you!!!
I am from Germany. But this case came across my tiktok fyp with little knowledge what this is about. And I was like getting angry. Much respect to the judge to stay calm and professional. After a while I had to jump over those coverage clips because he was really unbearable to watch. 🤯 so thanks for explaining this case to me.
In the US only 2% of those charged with a crime get a trial by a jury of their peers. Imho, this illustrates just how bad Public Defenders are at their job. 98% of criminal defendants take a plea bargain because they cannot afford bail, and staying in jail until trial means they will loose their job, their home, and their children. In 2016, I was arrested and charged with a violent crime. The Arresting Officer appointed himself the First Respondent in charge of preserving the crime scene evidence. The DA named him the Investigating Officer in charge of collecting the evidence. He was named the Expert Witness to explain the scientific details of the collected evidence. He was named the Primary Witness because he claimed to have seen me commit the crime with his own eyes, in his presence. And he was the Supervisor of all the other attending officers, authorized to review and sign their Police Reports. He used those positions to destroy the crime scene along with the only physical evidence that proved my innocence. He perjured himself at the Preliminary Hearing and I was blocked from presenting the favorable Brady information that prooved he manufactured probable cause in his Police Report, along with the alleged Victim's under oath testimony that contradicted his testimony of the incident. I was 65 years old, a retired military woman with 25 years of service. I had no record, no moving violations, not even a parking ticket. I also had no children to raise, no job to go to, but I had a background in technical writing, loved to read and learn new things. There was enough money in my savings to pay the 8% of the $50k bail, and hire an attorney. The attorney did nothing for the first year. My savings were gone, so I took a Public Defender who would not meet with me, so I represented myself for two years until a Judge took that right away from me and I had to endure four more Public Defenders who refused to dicuss my case, just kept pushing for plea bargains. Finally, after two more years, a judge restored my right to defend myself. I finally got to trial five months ago, in March 2023. The Jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict in twenty minutes! I am now a very pissed off 73 year old on my way to Federal Court, again on my own because there isn't an attorney in this State that I can trust. I will hand them all their ass. You can bet on it.
One of the first thing I've learned from your channel is that legal process is very technical. Knowing law is one thing, but the whole apect of how to proceed is completely other thing. Knowing that - I'd never try to defend myself. I'd feel it's impossible for a person, who didn't study the law to be able to *correctly* go through the whole trial and not loosing due to some technical stuff.
The law is really strange and ambiguous, I'm just going to say this lawyers and attorneys are like doctors, you wouldn't pull out your own teeth if they hurt, why would you forgo such an essential right... Like that's just crazy.
1. We need basic civics classes in gradeschool. 2. There needs to be critical thinking classes in schools too. I truly thought stupid people were just here and there but you know since T***p and especially covid I've been so disheartened. It all about education. Not in your own bubble internet education. And lastly, FB, Twitter types of social media need to go. People are more insane than ever, though the internet can be good it seems to have just rotted our society. I love ya though Leeja! Thanks for the education on all things law. My newest favorite youtuber keep it up. 😁✌
Most states have civics in 3rd grade, 5th grade, 7th grade government, and 11th or 12th grade government. People like him are just assholes and no amount of education fixes nutjobs like this best we could do is remove kids, pets, or vulnerable adults from their care
I'm not sure how you came up on my algorithm, but I've become a fan! I'm not an attorney, but I did serve as a union official when we organized the new air traffic controllers union. So I had my fair share of representing and negotiating for controllers. Good job taking on a difficult subject with no good answers to resolve the situation, but you spent the time anyway. Love your intelligence and wit, and will keep watching.
Another great video! I always learn something. You've recommended Just Mercy before and I just ordered it. That judge was amazingly patient and calm. Her professional demeanor, along with video documentation to back up the transcript, decreases his chances of a successful appeal. Can you appeal based on bad representation if you chose to represent yourself and it ended badly? "I shouldn't have been allowed to do something so stupid."
Public defenders are great if you are guilty and are willing to make a plea deal. But they really don't have the resources to effectively defend you if you are innocent.
Very interesting and informative. I'm a Certified Shorthand Reporter working in a Texas state court. I'm proud to say the judge I work for is very fair to all pro se litigants, though she's very careful not to give them legal advice because that is against the rules. Also, thank you for mentioning Court reporters and the difficulties we can have when disruptive litigants come to court, pro se's and attorneys alike. Great job.
The Darrell Brooks self-defense was the biggest clusterf*** I've ever seen. Every witness he called made him look worse as they confirmed the prosecution's case. The only reason he called his ex is to try to embarrass her. He never stopped with the subject matter jurisdiction. I watched video from day 16 and he was still on it.
Leeja! another great video. :) Have you watched the series Maid? Since you practise in family court, a video reviewing some parts of the series to do with custody and abuse in the US would be incredible! Also it's just an awesome show I think about all the time that maybe you'd appreciate.
I clerked for a major American city’s felony court, and boy is it awful when criminal accused represent themselves. It’s painful for the judge, all of the attorneys, and any other parties to the case. And it almost always leads to a conviction. Family law can also be a bit of a shit show when one or both spouses go pro se in a contested divorce. But it’s felony trials that are the biggest train wreck. Even the worst public defenders will usually get a better result than a felony accused defending themselves.
26:00 - I can't help but think that the ignorance of most citizens (including myself!) when it comes to the in's and out's of the law is intentional. It would be beyond trivial to make a simple course where the basics of how things work and the structure of a 'common' trial. Yet I don't know of *any* public school system that engages in that sort of education. Almost like they want us to be as ignorant as possible about this extremely important portion of our lives or something. Thanks for the great video!
Can I just say its so cool to hear you just casually say "Waukesha" (not Midwest, Wisconsin, Milwaukee etc) like you're one of my neighbors haha. But also not cool about what happened :(
The one thing that had me fuming, even watching the coverage several months later, was when he asked "where are the victims" - which is a common talking point for SovCits during TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS. You know, when you don't have proper registration, or license - you know, breaking a rule. He killed and injured people - that "defence" does not fly in your case DB. And I don't think many people commented on that - lawtube creators I watched covering the trial. But they were maybe to flabergasted by his other antics. Paper box Fort Brooks will be a staple for future pro se trials.
This woman is the most patient judge I've ever seen... she kept her composure and stayed completely level... anyone would have broke and started yelling and imposing sanctions... kudos to her👏👏👏 She'd be scary to play poker with... 😳😆
15:00 regarding his rights to an attorney and to represent himself, would Brooks be able to relinquish his right to represent himself mid-trial in order to regain his right to an attorney (like if he were to realize how poorly he's doing)? Or is the law less forgiving than that?
Well, I have heard of defendants firing their attorney mid-trial and claiming inadequate representation as a cause. In which case the trial can be put on hold for the defendant to find replacement representation- so it’s used more as a stalling tactic. I guess in this case, you would need to make the claim that you were an inadequate representation for yourself and this guy is too much of a narcissist to admit that. In either case, I’m pretty sure the judge would have to approve that the trial be postponed in a reasonable amount of time for the defendant to find a new lawyer. Edit* I would think most judges would reluctantly approve of a criminal defendant retaining replacement representation- otherwise the defendant could make a legitimate claim that they were denied adequate representation by the court and could have their charges overturned.
@@jonathanl9229 good points, especially at the end about possibly overturning the charges. I know the judge in this case was extremely careful to give him every possible chance to participate for that exact reason. I was thinking he might not be able to relinquish his own representation considering that he proved he was competent and capable of taking on the case, but I guess that's different than supplying adequent representation. "... and this guy is too much of a narcissist to admit that." LOL trueee
The Law and Crime Channel provided amazing coverage of this trial and the Alex Murdaugh trial. I was glued to both. Thanks for filling in the legal blanks for this one. I hope that Judge Dorow got a nice vacation after all that chaos.
Idk about Wisconsin state judicial precedent but State v Brunson in North Carolina says No. Lol. And because the bar to be found incompetent for trial is so high as Leeja said...doubt that it would be enough to overturn the ruling or cause a mistrial. Edited because my Pixel keeps autocorrecting precedent to president? K.
I was once assaulted and when I came to court to testify I found out my attacker was representing himself, which meant he would be questioning me. And let me tell you, that experience was absolutely traumatic! Being forced to interact with him and having to answer the absolutely ridiculous and completely false questions as he tried to impugn my character and the validity of my attach was horrible. I get the right for people to represent themselves, but for them to be able to question and interrogate their victims is cruel.
I definitely agree. It goes with the "all men are equal" part of the constitution
While I get that certainly would be a traumatic situation, and I do give you my sympathy about it, at least it also means that he was doomed to fail. For what it's worth, a professional cross-examination would not have been friendly, and would have been tough in a different way.
I’m sorry for you, but during the court trial he was an innocent man defending himself from your allegations of assault given that he had yet to be proven guilty. Saying he couldn’t do that because you were his victim is also saying he was guilty before the trial even started.
@@woodlefoof2 Whatever. The fucking clown didnt have to represent themselves. If that's not a conflict of interest...
@@woodlefoof2 I never said he couldn't do it. I was merely stating that the impact it has on victims in cases in unfortunate. Additionally, his presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the eyes of law did nothing to assuage the deep panic and trauma I experiences in that courtroom. I knew him and knew who assaulted me. The lack of an official verdict at the time of questioning did not change that fact. But good for you for sharing your opinion siding with abusers and criminals.
I'm sure his original lawyers said a prayer of thanks when he fired them. Can you imagine having to deal with such a person?😬
I doubt it. Think his lawyers were completely pissed. The amount of work they did and sleepless nights and right before the trial they spent months and months prepping for he ‘fired’ them to represent himself. They were most certainly not happy about it.
@@dougfoster445 would, in that situation, the lawyer still be allowed to charge them something ?
@@dougfoster445 well they still get paid for the hours worked, and this case would probably not be a winning one, so it probably helps their trial record while also the lawyers are get paid for the legwork they put in already.
@@joetomp from a case like this it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. It’s not necessarily if they win or lose but how effective their job was for their client. Look at Casey Anthony. I’m sure her lawyers were ready for a guilty verdict as well. It’s the opportunity that matters. It was swept up from under them by that clown. I guarantee you they aren’t happy.. all those boxes he had on his desk were essentially paperwork from his lawyers. All their hard work. He took it and butchered it.
I can’t even imagine what those attorneys dealt with 😂 😅
From what I understand (not a lawyer) in Canada you can represent yourself but you do not have the right to question your victims. Stand in counsel does it for you. That way they can't continue their abuse or trauma.
I like that a lot. I was really perturbed by the idea that the alleged victims' rights to safety from further abuse is apparently less important than the defendant's right to try and intimidate or re-traumatize them on the stand
The ability of the accused to question victims in the US comes from two places:
-98% of the time it will be a lawyer doing the questioning, but the accused are allowed to represent themselves.
- The accused are innocent until proven guilty, so until a verdict is given the victims can't be said to have been victimized by the accused (under the law.)
@@lazaruscain3424 can witnesses opt out if they're afraid of the defendant? Like can they do a written deposition only?
It'd be nice if they could get victim counsel assigned to serve as their mouthpiece or something, but I guess that's not as impactful as hearing it from them directly.
Not gonna lie, when he finished his little tirade to the empty court declaring that we all just don't understand that she TOLD him she was 18, suddenly a hell of a lot of stuff started making sense.
Thank god, it’s definitely not that way in other countries. On another video someone commented a story of theirs where their ex had attempted to take the persons life and then in the court room the ex directly questioned them and it caused them to relive the trauma
Never forget, “The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client.”
This is like the 3rd time I've seen this quote by 3 different commentors and 3 different videos about this case lol
Ah yes , because a lawyer has never represented themselves, yep let’s get all out knowledge from your moms Facebook quotes
@@NexxtTimeDontMiss lawyers typically DON'T represent themselves, as even they consider it a bad idea. They usually cash in a favor from a lawyer buddy or use their lawyer money to hire their own
@@NexxtTimeDontMiss Actually most good lawyers DON’T represent themselves. They hire lawyers who are experts in their type of cases. I’m sure there are some small cases that they handle themselves, but a smart lawyer would know that representing themselves in something major isn’t going to be a good thing, especially when it comes time to question witnesses, speak to the jury, etc. It looks terrible to have a supposed criminal questioning and possibly arguing with witnesses. And perception by the jury is everything.
@@MommyOfZoeAndLiam wait so if “perception is everything” why even bother trying to find out who’s guilty if we just going off gut feeling
As a mentally ill person, whose friends are all mentally ill people..... There is a point where you start losing empathy for certain mentally ill people. Like when they murder 6 people and continue to be a belligerent asshole about it.
Yeah i undertand and agree with that people seem to pick and choose which mentally ill people they care about.. Skin tone and gender have nothing to do with it obivously
It also shows that there's "mental illness" and then there's "mental illness," and it can be tricky to delineate where the person's illness ends and their free will begins.
I think most of us tend to feel greater sympathy for those whose issues are ego-dystonic and outside of their control, and much less sympathy for folks whose issues are ego-syntonic and seemingly within their control.
@@dinosaysrawr Yeah, also most people have been mentally ill at aome point in theri life depression is a mental illness. Then there are people who were born different from the start and even then they are able to understand right from wrong. There is a differnce between a man with autism having a meltdown due to aomething we may not understand and punching someone who gets close to them and me having a bady day choosing to get drunk and then getting into a fight and even then both are far differnent then someone with a mentail illness like ocd like I do stabbing someone. Since my ocd makes me do compulsions not murders. I'm not sure i i expalined it well but I agree!
I think as a person who is mentally ill and has PTSD--and the luck of a great therapist for 4 years, the resources someone has always has to be taken into account. Their home life, if they have a home, if they had treatment and help, a support group, etc.
Some people make me puke, and some actions I still deem as unacceptable--but everyone deserves a chance of rehabilitation with help and resources. I know I was a piece of shit in HS when I had zero help and was in a crisis along with burnout from neurodivergence (that had been undiagnosed for 16 years) and after I got help and people ACTUALLY LISTENED, I because far less violent, had less meltdowns, and stopped trying to run away.
Mental illness has to be viewed not just through a person's actions but what lead them to it before we decide what we do with them. Especially when it comes to a mental health issue they have only some control over even with some help. Obviously I'm not saying "Oh they had mental illness?? Doesn't matter they killed people!" but I am saying, it should be looked at carefully, especially to help prevent such harm in the future--both to possible future victims, and the mentally ill person getting worse instead of better.
@@dinosaysrawr Agreed.
The prosecutors must have had a stress free three weeks knowing they weren’t going to lose that case.
True, but the stress from the frustration of having to deal with his constant “GrOuNdz” demands even when they’d already said it and every unneeded objection he made… I’m sure if I’d checked my blood pressure while watching his trial live it would have been super high, and I’m just a random audience member from an entirely different state. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to be sitting at the table next to him.
@@flamingsickle with the victims families in the same room, expecting you to do something. Watching them suffer the whole time when you know he will be found guilty anyways and that the trial could honestly just be skipped if he plead guilty. I don't think i could do it.
If you watch the whole trial, the prosecutors were actually quite stressed because he repeatedly did things that made it even easier for them.
The whole 'opening the door' discussion went for quite a while and the prosecutor actually went over and talked directly with Brooks to attempt to explain it to him.
A free win, sure. But I highly doubt it was stress free.
Then again, that court room was an absolute mad house and I'm pretty sure everyone was fed up by the end of it
As much as I loved the judge's ruling in this case I'm really glad she didn't make her supreme court seat. She's on record calling Lawrence V. Texas the case decriminalizing homosexual intercourse 'the worst decision in U.S. supreme court history'
She sounds like a awful person
thank you for this. i came to the comments to sing her praises and im glad i didn’t now. she did some great work here but this serves as a reminder to not idolize servants of the state
@Zoe-ex9nc a good reminder to not idolize anyone ever. People aren't usually good or bad universally.
@@moniker2804 Judges generally aren't good people.
I don't know the specific case but it is common for judge to dislike a particular rulling because it was badly conducted independently from the offense being judged
As a teacher, I have and have had many students who argue everything just like this guy. Kudos to that judge for keeping it together like she did. That mess is infuriating!
I teach high school and was shocked to see the similarities in this jerk's behavior and certain students. It was uncanny, and I would've never expected to make that kind of connection.
@@7489kI used to be one of those students, and now I have a law degree.
@@7489ktrue although usually most teenagers/children can be pretty “sociopathic” if you could say that but it’s more like just being a dumb stupid kid who doesn’t think about other people. most people mature and gain sentience and grow up, but clearly brooks never did
I often experience newly found levels of respect for people through my life, but... Judge Dorow... I am in complete awe. Every second she stood stoically and answered his nonsense with carefully worded logic... I could never have, not for a second.
That's what I'm saying. Literally... "I COULD NEVER"
She knew that killing him with "kindness" would be unquestioned and the best kind of response
Same here! This is why I couldn't be a judge, I would be too tempted to try to shout over the defendants if they were acting foolish.
“She was 18 when I met her”
OH MY BAD I didn’t realize that made anything any better 🤦♀️
He said "she said she was 18"
The argument worked so well for him in the original trial, why not throw it out there again!
My husband passed last year without a will. I spent about a month, in grief, halfheartedly researching wtf I needed to do to successfully move through the probate process, and reading all the legalese eventually brought me to tears. I gave up and searched around for a local attorney. I can't even imagine dealing with the legal system when you have little knowledge of the law AND your literal life is on the line? I understand how folks end up in this position because of their lack of funds, but we do occasionally hear about outrageous behaviors like this guy, because some of these people are so full of hubris... It is truly strange to observe ⚖
Sorry for your loss.
The dude had a lawyer and decided to dismiss them and go to trial pro se. Probably because the lawyer and he disagreed on the defence strategy. No lawyer is gonna argue this sovereign citizen stuff and Brooks seemed to believe that it was his get out of jail card for some reason.
@@linkesocke4533 Thank you. Yes, I'm aware that he dismissed his lawyers. That fact doesn't alter my commentary. I can't imagine dealing with the legal system when one has little knowledge of the law, and meanwhile one's actual life is on the line. This guy clearly falls into that "full of hubris" category. Isn't his behavior also evidence of some kind of mental illness? I think that this whole legal episode really starkly shows the flaws in the system. Rational people could look at this and say, this is wrong, this man is causing himself injury, the trial has become a circus, this isn't how justice is supposed to work. And yet, it was enabled, and continued on until its obvious conclusion. I don't know. Some of these meta conversations about humanity and society and laws meant to give us due process are fascinating, but often there are no clear cut solutions. Ultimately, he did what he wanted to do, which was his right, but it was all so absurd, and it shouldn't really sit right with anyone who observes the trial for what it was
He chose to represent himself. He had a lawyer. Dude is a narcissist
I'm sorry for your loss. I hope you're doing better now and finding/found peace. For sure you'll see him in heaven one day.
A lot of public defenders are overworked and unable to privide high quality legal advice. But courts are required to provide them to defendants who can't afford a lawyer.
So people who decide to represent themselves and act like lunatics can't blame their finances.
This is what entitlement looks like and what abusers not getting their way looks like.
As a former paralegal I was entertained and horrified at this trial. The judge is a saint
Judge Dorow was a freakin' saint.
I find her guilty of needing a paycheck bonus after that trial.
This trial must have aged her soul a decade, this thing was a circus
That judge is deeply surprisingly patient, so many judges can be dicks and be like this in my house!!
But she is giving him every opportunity to not screw himself. Looks like someone who really understands the importance of the position of court judge
You basically need to have a saint's patience dealing with sovcits.
videos of the trial kept showing up on my phone and i kept hitting do not recommend because after watching the first few, i would have not been able to keep my composure. i did watch the verdict live though, and i was SOOOOOOOO happy she shut him down at every fucking turn. i had never even heard about this guy before. i don't watch the news. purposefully.
This judge was brilliant. I am not sure how the tier systems work in the States but I hope she gets promoted to more senior courts
Federal court judges are appointed by the President and then confirmed by our Senate.
Some positions are elected some are assigned it's a mess just like the country they serve
She should not as she is homophobic
She did run for the State supreme Court but didn't pass the primaries
She is aggressively homophobic. I hope she doesn’t get shit
I'm kinda glad he decided to defend himself cuz he showed how truly belligerent and unstable he was, and he didn't get to weasel out of his punishment by hiring people much smarter and more capable than him
People like him are so stupid they think they're the smartest people in the room
Not only was this trial driving me up the wall in terms of court decorum, but the Parkland Shooting case is equally as irritating. The defense attorneys are incredibly disrespectful. Unfortunately for these “Sovereign Citizens,” it can be expected that they’re disrespectful and disruptive, but to see actual defense attorneys combat the judge as well?!?! Insanity.
The parkland defense team was a mess. They should be disbarred
that attorney giving the middle finger and laughing with the defendant, absolutely disgusting.
They also flipped the families off and were laughing at the worst moments. Truly a shame that they can't be punished. They deserved the person they were defending.
@@HadenBlake im sure, its folrida. Probably his best ED customer base
I watched that as well! Shame on those defense attnys! Absolutely ridiculous!
I was in the jury for a homeless man that represented himself. His defense for video evidence with dates was that he didn’t do it on that day. It was a different day.
He was found guilty for trespassing and assault of a police officer.
I'm so happy cases are recorded now, must make it tons easier for the secretaries to make sure they didn't miss anything when there's someone interrupting like this.
My mom is a public defendant in family court and yeah. This drove me kind of insane because these are the people she’s having to protect her clients against. Abusers who are so self centered they don’t believe they need a lawyer and take to harassing their victim on the stand
I had so many questions watching this trial. It was so hard to get through most days. I felt that judge needed an award for the way she conducted herself.
Willing to bet she had a stiff drink many of those nights 😂 lord knows I would need one if I was her.
Just a little fyi from someone with bipolar (which is what DB reportedly is diagnosed with) is not a personality disorder. It’s a brain disorder that we can’t fluctuate the hormones to maintain a stable mood. You could say it’s more of a mood disorder and that’s why we are treated more so with mood stabilizers and antidepressants, some require antipsychotics depending on severity.
Added to say my diagnosis in no way gives me a free pass to horrible behavior or homicide in manic episodes-period.
Agree with you. However, All the news articles I found say personality disorder not bipolar disorder. He seems to have a anti-social personality. IMHO
@@jaimeeguy9937 his mother and the judge both stated bipolar 🤷🏻♀️ my son has ODD which is a personality disorder and he behaves more like him when he’s not getting his way-not like a manic episode so this tracks way better. Maybe mom is trying to help him and it’s really not a help? I really don’t know. It’s just sad and no matter his diagnosis he knew what he was doing and he knows right from wrong. It’s clear from watching the trial or reading the record.
@@megzmorbidcuriosities it is in the DSM 5 as a personality disorder therefore it is a personality disorder. It doesn't matter what treatment is it is classified as a personality disorder with a subcategory for comorid cluster b disorders in the diagnosis standard
@@ayajade6683 not every place in the world uses DSM V and you'd be shocked at the sorts of classification and diagnosis list differences that exist between different systems. For example ICD 11, which is literally made by the World health organization, making it a much more reputable manual than the american version, does consider bipolar II disorder to be a mood disorder instead of a personality disorder. Don't assume the american way is the objectively correct one, even if it is the one applied in this case
Thank you for this. I'm not a lawyer, but I work in advocacy for survivors of DV and SA (and all the stuff that goes along with those categories.) Every client I've worked with had to file for an OP pro se. As an advocate it's so hard because, obviously, we cannot provide legal advice, and for plenary orders abusers/respondents tend to bring lawyers to court. There are so many times when you want to object or when your client freezes due to the trauma of the situation and just can't get their story out. It's a failing of the system that actual legal representation for victims isn't an option. But it is wonderful thing that they are able to file and that judges and clerks are able to assist them on the process. The other, other side of it is that it depends on the clerk and the judge. (*laugh/cries in rural Midwest*) Anyway, thanks for what you do, your willingness to admit that the system is a complicated thing to work in, and I'm glad your clients in family court have you.
Shouldn't your advocate agency have pro Bono lawyers that's the standard and usually a requirement to be considered an advocate group/agency
@@ayajade6683 it's not an advocate agency, but a program that has advocates for survivors. (It's a strange clarification, I know.) We have connections to pro bono lawyers but the it's a rural area and those lawyers are stretched incredibly thin (think covering multiple counties and not all the lawyers specializing in DV/SA work.)
Its so unfair 😢
why did they have to file? are there not lawyers available to represent them like the public defense lawyers? is it that they aren't defendants?
@@baeregard No, those who file for orders of protection are not defendants. OP court is a civil court so there aren't defendants in general, just petitioners and respondents. It is the victims/survivors who file for OPs. Generally, at least in my state, defense attorneys are only required for criminal matters so there aren't public defenders for civil cases.
God he reminds me so much of my dad. My dad has delusional disorder and represented himself in my parents' custody hearing. According to my mom it went just about as well as this case.
I got called in for jury duty when I was 20 for a criminal case. The defendant chose to defend himself. We had to stop basically every 10 minutes and wait in the jury room for anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour while they tried to get him to deescalate and the judge tried to advise him. The clips you showed were very similar to how he behaved, from the threats, the pointed glares, and talking over or ignoring the proceedings. They ended up having to bring in extra security (who were in plainclothes and made to look like they could potentially be family/friends or witnesses waiting to be called) and moved someone on the jury who was pregnant for fear of her safety (which they disguised as placing her closer to an exit so she didn't have to shuffle through many seats).
Eventually the judge made him take the legal counsel back because he was actively hindering the inclusion of evidence and testimonies that could help reduce his sentencing. They had predicted this trial would take 1-2 days. It ended up taking 5 because of how often we had to sit in the jury room while the defendant was given advisement by the judge as she tried to deescalate the situation to give him a better chance. The court did a good job during the trial of making all of these precautions and added security invisible to the jury. The only reason we even found out any of this is because the judge walked us through the proceedings after sentencing had been finalized and the case closed while we waited for the defendant and his friends/family to leave because he had apparently threatened the jury during the times we had been removed from the room. I've been curious since then about how that process works, so this video was perfect!
She had so much patience when he kept talking about jury nullification.
I mean, that's hilarious in itself. I guess no one told him that doing that is almost as good as a confession.
Leeja, I’d love you to break down this “sovereign citizen” stuff. I’m part of a music subculture in the UK where this is a very common belief system and know people who have used “common law” to successfully get out of parking fines and other minor legal issues. I have cringed many times hearing people discuss it like it’s a sure fire way to deal with any legal situation, when clearly, it has limitations. I’d be really interested to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on the limits of it.
Common law is taking past Judges rulings as a precedent to determine an area of law that is vague or disputed or does not cover a particular instance. This can be how we get things like Strict Liability from Rylands vs. Fletcher and subsequent rulings on it have shaped the definition and rulings on it over time. However, where common law contradicts statute law, the statute law over rules that. For example if an old ruling of a judge let you discriminate against pregnant people but then the Equalities Act 2010 is passed the Act would take precedent. In your friends case a judge my have ruled un the past that a parking ticket similar to your friends was invalid. Or the traffic authority cancelled the tickets when they put up a fight as it was too much of a hassle (which wouldn't br common law but would be understandable). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so this is from my own research
"Sovereign citizen" is nonsensical American anti-government ideology. It's almost invariably invoked by people on the far-right side of the political spectrum.
parking tickets can be successfully fought in court, because the legally required signage wasn't in place, or because there was a technical error in the way the fines were issued. Or even because there simply was no offence and fines were being issued spuriously to generate revenue on the expectation they wouldn't be fought. That's not really a “sovereign citizen” issue, that's just a case of people operating within the existing laws and proving the law wasn't properly applied to them. It works in parking because those fines are often issued by poorly trained local authority or private contractors and the infrastructure they rely on is often poorly maintained or missing. It doesn't really apply to many other areas of law
@@BeeLZBeeb Might be some sort of Reggae-related thing cuz Rastafarians were in a lot of ways OG sovcits.
The judge was a saint. Brooks was a jerk. There needs to be more legal education in general.
When I was in jail my cellmate represented himself. It was for grand theft (he shoplifted something worth over $1000 still a felony) he not only did a good job but walked out with it being lowered to "disturbing the peace"
It's outlier cases like this that really make me appreciate the integrity of judges like Dorow. So grateful for Leeja providing basic literacy in law
If this case was held in Massachusetts he ABSOLUTELY would not have been found competent. As a public defender I’m so glad that I live in the Commonwealth!
Judge Darrow and the prosecution team are an example of how I wish the system worked all the time. They went above and beyond to protect his rights even when he was trying to toss his rights out the window. DB makes me want to tear my hair out, but he has constitutional rights like everyone else. Those rights have to be upheld if we're going to take his liberty away. Judge Darrow is a saint, but she's also what a judge should be. I hope she treats every defendant that way.
This case was horrible to watch. The judge when it’s finally over looks so happy to wipe this man off her hands.
I kept seeing clips of this trial here and there online and the absolute patience of this Judge was legitimately out of this universe. She deserves the world for her patience.
Genuine question (and I’m sorry if it’s a stupid one!) but why isn’t he being charged with something like domestic terrorism? Usually in the UK (where I live) deliberately driving a car into a crowd with the intent to unalive and harm as many people as you can is classed as an act of terror
I think it depends on the state. I know federally, he would be charged with terrorism. It just depends on the jurisdiction of the court.
Because that's a federal charge this is for the state. Also because he did this spontaneously it lacks the 24-48+ hour planning in advanced requirement for the state to pursue it as terrorism. But considering your country literally has bdsm as mild as spanking your partner as the sole reason to lose custody, this literally happened last year, and doesn't consider hooligan culture as terrorism but more vandalism/boys being boys your legal system is honestly a swinging pendulum of laws and how they're classified
@@ayajade6683 damn dude calm down lmao
@@ayajade6683 You could have stopped after “terrorism” tbh. But we can have this discussion if you want. I don’t think the US has any room to discuss spanking, when smacking children is legal in schools in some states, and it’s been banned here in Wales. BDSM (when done properly) is always consensual. Considering your gun laws, I don’t really want to hear why you think hooliganism and anti-social behaviour should be defined as terrorism when you can go into a supermarket and buy an assault weapon.
@@noplace3571 are you really Welsh because no self respecting Welsh would defend the UK like you are.
That poor judge man. I give her all the props for dealing with this case with as much poise as she did. The amount of patience she must’ve had and the number of bottles of alcohol she must’ve finished after her days ended must’ve been soooo high
This man’s behavior just screamed “spoiled little man child who has never been told no and thinks he’s the main character.”
I used to work in probation and was an intern and studied mainly criminal justice, but I have sat in on a bunch of cases as part of my education. In criminal justice, you're not automatically learning law depending on the avenue you go into. I did learn the basics of law, famous cases that lead to the main conduct we use today, and ethics, but my main focus was on theory and analysis on how we got to the point with how we understand, condemn and that sort of thing. The non-practical side of the conversation of crime and punishment (useless the real world but is super interesting as a study). I sat in on many cases at our local courthouse and I can say with absolute surety that our population is massively ill-educated in law (in all the cases I watched people are 100% dependent on the lawyer, they know almost nothing or do something really dumb without realizing it). Alot of what people know is from entertainment like Judge Judy and Law and Order. I really wish in the public school system there could be at the very minimum teach people basic legal terms to help them understand if they are being taken advantage of or know when it's time to consult a lawyer and how to obtain legal counsel with the systems we have in place.
That's so silly. The whole point of the American education system is to make dumb food soldiers that listen to their government like God-fearing bootlickers.
Evolution?? Civil rights?? Law literacy? Pfft! Who needs to learn About that
I love this judge. She clearly was doing everything in her power to not play into his ploy to get held in contempt to delay the trial.
I'm currently representing myself in two breach of contract cases. But I'm a law school graduate and I'm waiting for my bar results. And there is no risk of jail time in my cases. And if I pass the bar I want to be a public defender.
Judge Dorow did a great job cause I figure this guy would try and claim mistrial if she yelled at him or if she didn't point out for the record that she gave enough times to correct his behavior. If I was the judge, he would have been choked out minute 5 of that
It's more remarkable when you consider that him claiming a mistrial would have got him out of her hair much more quickly. I doubt he'll ever realise quite how excessively fairly he was being treated. Like, a fair trial would have been him getting charged with contempt of court every five minutes.
You are amazing! I am not in the field of law what-so-ever yet the way you present your information is perfect for a viewer like me. Your information is robust, clear, and just enough to keep me watching without making my head spin. I trickled over here from the RuPaul Drag Race review stuff and became unexpectedly eager to start exploring law through your presentations. You are great for your audience. Plus, your personality is too cool.
Know what I mean? (please do merch with that as your catch phrase)
aw thank you!!!
judge dorrow deserves a raise and a month long vacation after this
Thanks for the video. I like the pivot from an absolute mess in the news to broader problems with the legal system as a whole. I was pleasantly surprised with the direction this post took.
I wish Leeja did have time to make this a feature length video because this is absolutely wild.
Taking up court resources…I’m so thankful for my circuit court. The court took care of my entire legal proceedings for my name change. I acted pro se. I’m thankful for them being respectful towards my case. Especially as my case was handle by a Republican-leaning Judge in Missouri.
This issue needs to be in the mainstream Leeja, you’re on to something. I was worried that court finances were going to be denied because of it being a frivolous case. And that’s FAMILY court, pffft I have no idea about the immensity of it happening in the CRIMINAL court.
Much support ❤
The only jury I was on - when your dad was a well-known lawyer in a small town - you get dismissed quickly - the defendant was someone who had clearly done time with the Posse Comitatus crowd. We, the jury, *knew* that because he WOULD👏🏽NOT👏🏽STOP👏🏽TELLING 👏🏽US.
Thing is, he was a small-framed Indigenous man who was, by testimony by the State Troopers, subjected to abuse by said State Trooper. Who calmly told us that he had tasered the man several times, including while he was in handcuffs at the police station. We all agreed that it was clear that in addition to being over charged, he had been subject to police brutality, and probably extra abuse due to his race.
And we could do nothing. Because he admitted to everything, told us he was a recidivist, argued that the jury members were idiots over something something sovereign citizens. Hell, the poor dude even told us that we are not citizens because there is no such thing as a state. Yes, this man denied the existence of the state we live in.
In the end we had no choice because he admitted in open court what he had done. And also royally pissed us off. We decided to wait and eat lunch before deliberation just to make him sweat. In the end we got rid of the cop bs & convicted him of what he had told us. A sad day all around.
Unfortunately, sovereign citizen theory is spreading in Indigenous societies in so-called Australia, Canada, and the US. I haven't heard of it jumping to civil law jurisdiction Spanish speaking settler-states, but that is probably a matter of time.
The problem is, from an Indigenous perspective, settler-states are just made up. The Commonwealth of Australia, Dominion of Canada, and the United States are illegitimate foreign impositions. Their laws and courts frequently do work by "magic words" - saying the right thing at the right time. To a lot of Indigenous peoples, the settler state really is the tyranny that market-libertarians only fear. So a claim that allows escape from this monster is really appealing. Hence the spread of sovereign citizen theory.
@@deanjustdean7818 you all make very valid points.
I agree that in our nation of over policing, and oligarchic disenfranchisement on stolen lands, we really do have a crisis of legitimacy for the state. If America wishes to avoid another revolution, we need to re-examine and renegotiate the social contract. Because the common sentiment on all sides of the political spectrum is that, our government is irresponsive to our needs, is forced upon us non-consensually, and does not serve its people.
@@deanjustdean7818 education won't fix them they're assholes who want to be special and above the law. It's like how people drink insanely salty cabbage juice and ignores everything people show or educate them with sovereign citizens are just another side the antivax/naturalpath coin
@@deanjustdean7818 except we do and we still have them it's literally just assholes wanting to feel important and compensate often because they lack in the family jewel department. No matter the amount of education we're going to get whacks doodles like this and since the love violating TOS on multiple sites they will feel they're right because they're persecuted. There's a reason you have to have a cult deprogrammer for antivaxxers.
@@jacobvardy - We get them in the UK too - the "freemen of the land". It's funny how people think that the exact same loopholes will exist in every English-speaking countries, even though they presumably know that we all have different legal systems.
What's disgusting to me about it is not the small-minded men who lap it up, but the evil bastards who promote it. Because while an individual who just picks up a bit of pseudo-legal claptrap might only have minimal contact with the community... the people who spread it know damn well that it doesn't work. They can't *not* know that, because they presumably occasionally have to google things. Even if they do no research, they can't *not* know that they did no research.
So they are just spending their time ruining strangers' lives at random without conscience. I'm not going to act like every sovereign citizen's life was going particularly smoothly to begin with, but they probably could've at least stayed out of prison.
Thank you for summing up what was occurring here. I tried to watch 5 minutes of the trial but couldn’t handle this man’s attitude. The judge on this case was very patient.
Judge Dorow did an amazing job, in my opinion, of keeping her cool and remaining as unbiased as possible in this whole trial.
I agree! She and the prosecutors did everything in their power to protect his rights and give him a fair trial. It was frustrating to watch, but imo the gold standard of how defendants should be treated. If we're going to strip someone of their liberty, we should do it right.
I have represented myself 2X, and have won both of them.
I even got judges smiling at me.
But the thing is this...
You have to understand the law "and" how it functions in your situation.
Otherwise, yes indeed "get a lawyer"!
Girl we would love a feature length film on this case! Or any case for that matter, you're so entertaining and great at explaining all this legal stuff that we would normally not understand!
I doubt she’ll see this but she should consider putting brooks name in the title. Even when I look up Darrell brooks trail analysis her video isn’t coming up, and it’s a popular topic.
I watched the entire trial (YIKES) & my absolute favorite part was attny Whitchow making Brooks melt down in that moment. I only wish he got to finish what he was saying because I have a feeling it was epic! It honestly blew my mind how brooks failed to see when the PROSECUTION was trying to help him! It was embarrassing to watch & I give so much credit to not only the judge & the entire DA's office & all members of the court, but particularly the families & victims! Just absolutely wild!
Your nails perfectly matching your shirt is goals, and so is your muggg
Thanks for breaking this down. You really have a great way of making law understandable and still full of sass. Great job as usual!
Scottish Court worker here! In Scots Law we call them 'party litigants' and face much of the same issues. I absolutely agree that everyone has a right to access justice but more often than not, party litigants are hugely unequipped to deal with their own cases, purely from a procedural standpoint more than anything else. Our legislation is difficult to interpret, full of latin, and there is a certain amount of local practice that will differ between sheriff court locations across Scotland, so no wonder people struggle to represent themselves. Also staff of our court services aren't legally qualified so we're unable to give legal advice or nudge someone towards what we may think they're trying to do even if we wanted to. It's a huge timesuck. More funding needs to be put into accessible legal advice for anyone trying to represent themselves in court but there also needs to be more enforcement of our vexatious litigant procedure which basically prohibits repeated actions being raised by someone who is intentionally trying to waste court time and resources.
He was so lucky to have judge Dorow, and he still messes up.
He really hit them with a:
"Im going to ignore the verdict. What verdict? See, thats me ignoring the verdict"
Oh my gosh this is not a boring topic! Then again I used to listen to USSC recordings for fun.
Oh my God I had that job! I had to read and respond to a state version of federal habeas corpus petitions. How well I remember those handwritten "pleadings." Anyway, the judge, my boss, used to grant them a hearing if they had a halfway coherent argument. Because "It gives them a day out."
Nobody should be forced to be represented by a lawyer they believe doesn't have their best interest at heart.
100%
I tried watching some of the trial but just couldn't stand it, so I was hoping you'd give it the wonderful Leeja treatment at some point. Thank you! I must say from the bits I saw that the judge was just amazing, and I could almost imagine her picturing the transcript, making sure everything was documented and that it would hold up on an appeal. Hard to do I'm sure most of the time; just incredible she could do it with all his narcissistic, disrespectful, disruptive craziness AND still try to make sure he gets a fair trial.
I’m so happy to see you following this Case. I would also love to see your take on parkland school massacre case, specifically the victim impact statements and the defense team
I work as a court reporter and as such have sat through countless depositions. Worst ones were two from a pro se complainant suing the federal government (their employer) l. It was 7 hours of torture by litigation. Complainant didn’t submit exhibits to the defense, didn’t have anything bates stamped, and didn’t know what documents contained which talking points. I counted over 300 objections from the government in the final transcript. Craziest part is that the complainant was making over $125k a year, so that leads me to think no lawyer would take their case.
Once again… you are providing us information we were all wondering about. I watched this trial with so many questions that you’re answering. Can’t thank you enough! LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!! Love that you talk politics, drag race, current events, etc. Thank you!!!
This judge’s patience is freaking amazing
God bless you! Seriously this is the quiet part out loud. Legal education is simply essentially nonexistent! God help us!
I am from Germany. But this case came across my tiktok fyp with little knowledge what this is about. And I was like getting angry. Much respect to the judge to stay calm and professional. After a while I had to jump over those coverage clips because he was really unbearable to watch. 🤯 so thanks for explaining this case to me.
In the US only 2% of those charged with a crime get a trial by a jury of their peers. Imho, this illustrates just how bad Public Defenders are at their job.
98% of criminal defendants take a plea bargain because they cannot afford bail, and staying in jail until trial means they will loose their job, their home, and their children.
In 2016, I was arrested and charged with a violent crime. The Arresting Officer appointed himself the First Respondent in charge of preserving the crime scene evidence. The DA named him the Investigating Officer in charge of collecting the evidence. He was named the Expert Witness to explain the scientific details of the collected evidence. He was named the Primary Witness because he claimed to have seen me commit the crime with his own eyes, in his presence. And he was the Supervisor of all the other attending officers, authorized to review and sign
their Police Reports.
He used those positions to destroy the crime scene along with the only physical evidence that proved my innocence.
He perjured himself at the Preliminary Hearing and I was blocked from presenting the favorable Brady information that prooved he manufactured probable cause in his Police Report, along with the alleged Victim's under oath testimony that contradicted his testimony of the incident.
I was 65 years old, a retired military woman with 25 years of service. I had no record, no moving violations, not even a parking ticket.
I also had no children to raise, no job to go to, but I had a background in technical writing, loved to read and learn new things. There was enough money in my savings to pay the 8% of the $50k bail, and hire an attorney.
The attorney did nothing for the first year. My savings were gone, so I took a Public Defender who would not meet with me, so I represented myself for two years until a Judge took that right away from me and I had to endure four more Public Defenders who refused to dicuss my case, just kept pushing for plea bargains.
Finally, after two more years, a judge restored my right to defend myself. I finally got to trial five months ago, in March 2023. The Jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict in twenty minutes!
I am now a very pissed off 73 year old on my way to Federal Court, again on my own because there isn't an attorney in this State that I can trust. I will hand them all their ass. You can bet on it.
One of the first thing I've learned from your channel is that legal process is very technical.
Knowing law is one thing, but the whole apect of how to proceed is completely other thing.
Knowing that - I'd never try to defend myself. I'd feel it's impossible for a person, who didn't study the law to be able to *correctly* go through the whole trial and not loosing due to some technical stuff.
Please never stop creating content. I’ve learned so much from this channel
The law is really strange and ambiguous, I'm just going to say this lawyers and attorneys are like doctors, you wouldn't pull out your own teeth if they hurt, why would you forgo such an essential right... Like that's just crazy.
That judge is beyond nice and patient omg
1. We need basic civics classes in gradeschool. 2. There needs to be critical thinking classes in schools too. I truly thought stupid people were just here and there but you know since T***p and especially covid I've been so disheartened. It all about education. Not in your own bubble internet education. And lastly, FB, Twitter types of social media need to go. People are more insane than ever, though the internet can be good it seems to have just rotted our society. I love ya though Leeja! Thanks for the education on all things law. My newest favorite youtuber keep it up. 😁✌
Most states have civics in 3rd grade, 5th grade, 7th grade government, and 11th or 12th grade government. People like him are just assholes and no amount of education fixes nutjobs like this best we could do is remove kids, pets, or vulnerable adults from their care
That judge is a dang saint! She has more patience than me. I love your mug BTW!
i like how the judge managed to mute somebody IRL.
also 76 counts?! wow
this was a good video and you deserve a bigger audience.
THANK YOU
I'm not sure how you came up on my algorithm, but I've become a fan! I'm not an attorney, but I did serve as a union official when we organized the new air traffic controllers union. So I had my fair share of representing and negotiating for controllers. Good job taking on a difficult subject with no good answers to resolve the situation, but you spent the time anyway. Love your intelligence and wit, and will keep watching.
Another great video! I always learn something. You've recommended Just Mercy before and I just ordered it.
That judge was amazingly patient and calm. Her professional demeanor, along with video documentation to back up the transcript, decreases his chances of a successful appeal. Can you appeal based on bad representation if you chose to represent yourself and it ended badly? "I shouldn't have been allowed to do something so stupid."
Public defenders are great if you are guilty and are willing to make a plea deal. But they really don't have the resources to effectively defend you if you are innocent.
jesus, I feel sorry for everyone in this man’s life
Very interesting and informative. I'm a Certified Shorthand Reporter working in a Texas state court. I'm proud to say the judge I work for is very fair to all pro se litigants, though she's very careful not to give them legal advice because that is against the rules. Also, thank you for mentioning Court reporters and the difficulties we can have when disruptive litigants come to court, pro se's and attorneys alike. Great job.
This man is clearly abusive...
Dat mug tho ☕️ love you queen!
The people who choose to represent themselves are exactly the people who most definitely should NOT be representing themselves.
The Darrell Brooks self-defense was the biggest clusterf*** I've ever seen. Every witness he called made him look worse as they confirmed the prosecution's case. The only reason he called his ex is to try to embarrass her. He never stopped with the subject matter jurisdiction. I watched video from day 16 and he was still on it.
Leeja! another great video. :)
Have you watched the series Maid? Since you practise in family court, a video reviewing some parts of the series to do with custody and abuse in the US would be incredible! Also it's just an awesome show I think about all the time that maybe you'd appreciate.
I clerked for a major American city’s felony court, and boy is it awful when criminal accused represent themselves. It’s painful for the judge, all of the attorneys, and any other parties to the case. And it almost always leads to a conviction.
Family law can also be a bit of a shit show when one or both spouses go pro se in a contested divorce. But it’s felony trials that are the biggest train wreck. Even the worst public defenders will usually get a better result than a felony accused defending themselves.
He gave such strong Kanye vibes at some points that if you closed your eyes, it could be him speaking
Thank you for this amazing content queen ❤
26:00 - I can't help but think that the ignorance of most citizens (including myself!) when it comes to the in's and out's of the law is intentional. It would be beyond trivial to make a simple course where the basics of how things work and the structure of a 'common' trial. Yet I don't know of *any* public school system that engages in that sort of education. Almost like they want us to be as ignorant as possible about this extremely important portion of our lives or something.
Thanks for the great video!
Can I just say its so cool to hear you just casually say "Waukesha" (not Midwest, Wisconsin, Milwaukee etc) like you're one of my neighbors haha. But also not cool about what happened :(
The one thing that had me fuming, even watching the coverage several months later, was when he asked "where are the victims" - which is a common talking point for SovCits during TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS. You know, when you don't have proper registration, or license - you know, breaking a rule. He killed and injured people - that "defence" does not fly in your case DB. And I don't think many people commented on that - lawtube creators I watched covering the trial. But they were maybe to flabergasted by his other antics. Paper box Fort Brooks will be a staple for future pro se trials.
If I was that judge I wouldn't have controlled my patience through all of that. Considering the offense my god
This woman is the most patient judge I've ever seen... she kept her composure and stayed completely level... anyone would have broke and started yelling and imposing sanctions... kudos to her👏👏👏
She'd be scary to play poker with... 😳😆
15:00 regarding his rights to an attorney and to represent himself, would Brooks be able to relinquish his right to represent himself mid-trial in order to regain his right to an attorney (like if he were to realize how poorly he's doing)? Or is the law less forgiving than that?
Well, I have heard of defendants firing their attorney mid-trial and claiming inadequate representation as a cause. In which case the trial can be put on hold for the defendant to find replacement representation- so it’s used more as a stalling tactic. I guess in this case, you would need to make the claim that you were an inadequate representation for yourself and this guy is too much of a narcissist to admit that. In either case, I’m pretty sure the judge would have to approve that the trial be postponed in a reasonable amount of time for the defendant to find a new lawyer.
Edit* I would think most judges would reluctantly approve of a criminal defendant retaining replacement representation- otherwise the defendant could make a legitimate claim that they were denied adequate representation by the court and could have their charges overturned.
@@jonathanl9229 good points, especially at the end about possibly overturning the charges. I know the judge in this case was extremely careful to give him every possible chance to participate for that exact reason. I was thinking he might not be able to relinquish his own representation considering that he proved he was competent and capable of taking on the case, but I guess that's different than supplying adequent representation.
"... and this guy is too much of a narcissist to admit that." LOL trueee
The Law and Crime Channel provided amazing coverage of this trial and the Alex Murdaugh trial. I was glued to both. Thanks for filling in the legal blanks for this one. I hope that Judge Dorow got a nice vacation after all that chaos.
Pretty sure I know the answer to this…but could he claim ineffective assistance of council (meaning himself) in an appeal? 😅
LOLLLLLLL
Idk about Wisconsin state judicial precedent but State v Brunson in North Carolina says No. Lol. And because the bar to be found incompetent for trial is so high as Leeja said...doubt that it would be enough to overturn the ruling or cause a mistrial.
Edited because my Pixel keeps autocorrecting precedent to president? K.
You are never boring! Love watching your videos. BTW, Love your coffee cup!
Oh boy, I’ve been against pro se parties before on the civil side. I dunno if my blood pressure can handle this video.