Darrell Brooks Cross Examine Detective Casey -Day 14

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: No scenes. The state has not rested yet. Will the state anticipate calling any other witnesses? [00:00:09] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. As indicated yesterday, we do intend to recall Detective Casey to the stand and I'd like to make a record in that regard, please. Go ahead. Your Honor, Detective Casey did testify once for the states early in the presentation of the matter. His focus at that point was largely on assisting the jury in understanding the layout of the parade route, giving background and contextual information to the jury, the different parade units that were impacted, what they looked like. We showed several videos with Detective Casey, just for background and context purposes. He then went on to describe his personal interaction with the SUV as it came through the intersection of White Rock and Main and essentially, that was the bulk of his testimony during his first testimony. We're seeking to recall him now. This is not unusual. It is commonly done in cases. We never excused him from his subpoena. We never asked for him to be excused from his subpoena. We always intended to recall him. We did this to the jury. We did this so that we can efficiently present the information to the jury. The types of questions we have for him now go more to the investigation itself and his role as the lead detective in this case. There will not be duplication or repetitive questions. I'm not going back to the corner of White Rock and Main with Detective Casey during this round of testimony. We want to ask him essentially about how some of the victims along the parade route were identified. We want to ask him about some of the topics that have been addressed throughout the course of the state's case as far as identification of the vehicle and identification of the driver. And we need to still introduce the certified bail forms from Milwaukee County for the two bail jumping counts. So he will be asked about that. I estimate my direct examination of Detective Casey would be about 20 minutes. So this is not going to be repetitive. It's information again that he has as the lead detective in the case to assist the jury in understanding some of the things on the back end that he was involved in, not his role at the parade. So we are, um, we have been very efficient in our presentation. I believe your honor would agree with that. Um, we're not wasting time here, but we just have a few more questions to wrap this up. [00:03:08] Speaker 1: All right. Any position from you, sir? [00:03:10] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. And I'm gonna start with what was just said that, um, the prosecution feels that they've been efficient in their presentation. Um, so it, it, it seems like to me, uh, an attempt to get more questions in instead that could have been asked in the first place. If, if your honor recalls, um, Detective Casey was, um, testifying for quite some time to the point that we actually had to have a break before I can cross examine Detective Casey. If you recall, um, testifying for quite some time to the point that we actually had to have a break before I can cross examine Detective Casey. If you recall, um, testifying for quite some time to the point that we actually had to have a break before I can cross examine Detective Casey. If you recall, um, testifying for quite some time to the point that we actually had to have a break before I can cross examine Detective Casey. If you recall. Uh, he was up there quite some time. That was more than enough time for, uh, any other foundations to be laid any, any questions to be asked at that time. Um, and also from my recollection, he was asked to be excused. Um, so essentially having him start off and then ended, um, I feel like it's an attempt to get questions that was maybe forgotten to be asked, answered. Um, and essentially what, what more could. What more could be gained by a second testimony from Detective Casey, what, what more can be gained that hasn't already be learned. We learned about, uh, vehicles and, uh, identification, uh, by numerous witnesses. We've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've been through the, uh, the, uh, inspection of the vehicle. We've been through, uh, uh, DNA analysis of the vehicle. We've been through, uh, numerous things in regards to the vehicle. Uh, even the, uh, even the, uh, reconstruction, uh, testimony. We, we, we've been through all of that. Um, seems like nothing more than to get extra questions answered that could have been asked from the get go. As seeing as how he, he was up there for quite some time and none of those issues were raised at that time. What would be the significance at this point? Um, when he's essentially, I, I should be already presenting, uh, my defense at this point in, in, in, in trial. I don't see the relevancy of it. And to my knowledge, he was excused from his subpoena. So, what is, what is the relevancy? Thank you, sir. [00:06:11] Speaker 1: The court has discretion under 906-11. Um, it's a statute I've quoted with frequency during the course of these proceedings. Um, I've listened to the state's offer of proof. Um, I've listened to, uh, the objections made by the defendant. Um, in my discretion, I am going to allow Detective Casey to be recalled, uh, for the reasons laid out by the state. Um, as I understand his proposed testimony today, it is not to rehash, uh, topics that, uh, he was questioned about initially. Uh, this has to do with his investigation and role, uh, subsequent to the initial contact. Um, with Mr. Brooks at the beginning of the parade route. Um, as the state indicated, uh, we'll address certain things, including, um, identification, uh, related to the vehicle, of the driver throughout the investigation, identification of certain victims. Uh, in addition, there are two additional charges for which the state has not yet presented testimony. So, it's proper for those as well. It's relevant. Um, and, um, I will allow it for those reasons. So, the state will be able to recall Detective Casey. And we'll have that done, obviously, when the jury is brought out. Any other preliminary issues, then, from the state? [00:07:35] Speaker 4: Um, Your Honor, just, um, I am working on going through our, um, list of exhibits. And I will work with your clerk to make sure that everything that I'm showing was admitted and accepted by the court, um, is what she has so that we can clear that up before we actually rest. [00:07:54] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. [00:07:56] Speaker ?: Thank you. Anything preliminary from you, sir? [00:07:58] Speaker 1: Yeah. [00:07:59] Speaker 3: Just a quick question about the, uh, last, uh, thing again. What? I will be able to recross-examinate. Oh, yes, you will. And is essentially anything left off-limits to my cross, or what? What? [00:08:18] Speaker 1: I may limit, depending on, uh, where we go, if the questions deal with what he testified to previously. It's primarily to cross-examine, um, based on the new testimony. However, 90611 also says this. Witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. Does say, in the interest of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to, um, direct. So, I'll give you some leeway, um, and I'll trust the state will make appropriate objections, and I'll rule on them if and when they're made. [00:09:04] Speaker 3: Because I'm not intending to go too much back into the previous testimony, but I think it may, a few points from the earlier testimony may come into play, and I just wanted to make sure. I think that's fair. That would be a problem. [00:09:19] Speaker 1: I think that's fair, sir. [00:09:21] Speaker 3: Um, also, uh, really quick, um, I did look over some, uh, information provided by the prosecution, as far as, uh, uh, the pretrial offer that I did not have knowledge of until, I don't know if that was, was today, Thursday, I don't know if that was Monday or Friday or Monday, one of those days. Um, I'll put together, uh, well, started to, I'm gonna say it's completed, that wouldn't be fair to say. Um, I've put together, uh, or started to put together a counteroffer, so I just wanted to advise the court that I was putting that together. [00:10:03] Speaker 1: All right, thank you, sir. When, if and when you do provide that to the state, please let me know so we can make a record of that. All right, anything else? If not, then, we'll have the jury brought out. [00:10:19] Speaker 2: Um, we do have one last, uh, large nap here, and Your Honor, I'm gonna ask to put up and face backwards like we did the other day. [00:10:27] Speaker 1: All right, go ahead, since the jury's not here. Thank you. [00:10:59] Speaker 2: Thank you. All rise. Thank you. [00:12:26] Speaker 1: Thank you, everyone. Please be seated and good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I know it's a little chilly in here. I'm not sure if that will change now that we're all in here. At any time that temperature is too cold for you, let me know and we can have that adjusted. All right. [00:12:48] Speaker 2: Attorney Opper, you may call your next witness. Thank you, Your Honor. The state would recall Detective Tom Casey. [00:12:55] Speaker 1: Good morning, Detective Casey. Please make your way to the witness stand. When you get there, please remain standing. Raise your right hand and Teresa will swear you in. [00:13:04] Speaker 2: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? [00:13:09] Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, sir. Please have a seat. Please state your first and last names for the record. [00:13:18] Speaker 5: Thomas Casey. [00:13:19] Speaker 1: Thank you. Go ahead, attorney. [00:13:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. Detective Casey, I'd like to begin by asking you to refer to the item behind you. There's a large poster board there. If you could please place that on the easel and identify the exhibit number for the court. [00:13:40] Speaker 5: Exhibit number 15. [00:13:42] Speaker 2: Thank you. And we've had testimony about this exhibit throughout the trial. Is that right, sir? [00:13:50] Speaker 5: Yes, we have. [00:13:51] Speaker ?: All right. [00:13:52] Speaker 2: Your role in this case was what, sir? [00:13:57] Speaker 5: Objection of leading. [00:13:59] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:14:00] Speaker 5: Initially, I was on traffic control for the parade. Shortly after the incident happened, I was signed as lead detective for the case. [00:14:10] Speaker 2: Were you the individual who created this map, state's exhibit number 15? [00:14:14] Speaker 5: Yes, I did. [00:14:15] Speaker 2: Okay. And I would like you to talk a little bit about how victims were identified in this case. [00:14:24] Speaker 3: Objection of leading. [00:14:26] Speaker 1: Overruled. Foundational. The witness may answer. [00:14:30] Speaker 2: So, at least initially, can you tell us, like, in the day or two after the parade, what happened? [00:14:37] Speaker 5: There's actually a lead. [00:14:38] Speaker 1: Overruled. You may answer. [00:14:42] Speaker 5: So, initially, that night, we knew that the victims were taken to different hospitals around the area, generally five different hospitals. So, at the beginning, we began by having detectives assigned to each hospital. Walks from where the hospital received the most patients. So, they also had a lieutenant that was assigned there as a team leader. As the patients came in, they were identified by detectives, the hospitals also provided us with lists of patients that they had, and we went through those lists and tried to identify people that came in and were being treated. [00:15:15] Speaker 2: And then, eventually, were there follow-up interviews conducted with these individuals? [00:15:20] Speaker 5: Yes, there were. [00:15:20] Speaker 2: What if the individual was a person under the age of 18? Objection of leading. [00:15:25] Speaker 5: Objection of leading. [00:15:27] Speaker 2: Overruled. Your answer. [00:15:29] Speaker 5: If the person was a minor or under 18, then we would reach out to their parents, talk to the parents. Some of the kids weren't able to talk to us, but we got the majority of their statement from their parents. [00:15:39] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:15:40] Speaker 2: And do you believe that the names on Exhibit 15 truly reflect all the injured victims that you were able to identify in the course of this investigation, sir? [00:15:53] Speaker 5: Objection of spectrum. No, I do not. [00:15:55] Speaker 1: Hold on. There's been an objection. It's overruled, and the witness will repeat his answer. [00:16:03] Speaker 5: No, I do not. [00:16:04] Speaker 1: Can you explain that? [00:16:06] Speaker 5: Objection of leading. [00:16:08] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:16:10] Speaker 5: Just because of the scope of the investigation, we had so many people that were hurt, we had to come up with some kind of parameters to limit the people that we would call victims. One of those parameters is that they had to receive treatment at a hospital. Another one is that they had to be in the street when their injuries occurred. So there are some people that were injured, maybe on the sidewalk, trampled by the crowd, or received injuries that they didn't get hospital care from. Unfortunately, I learned later on there was even a person that was in the band that somehow we missed her being reported that she received a broken leg. So there are some that are not on the map, so there are some that are not on the map, but all the people that have been charged are on the map. [00:16:52] Speaker 2: So you mentioned people on the sidewalk. We did have some spectators testify in the trial, correct? [00:16:57] Speaker 5: Objection of leading. [00:16:59] Speaker 2: Overruled foundational. [00:17:01] Speaker 5: Correct, but they were more in the roadway or on the curb, not on the sidewalk, or not running away from the incident when it happened. [00:17:08] Speaker 2: I see. So was, in your mind, when you were leading this investigation, trying to identify victims, what was the importance of the SUV in the injuries that were caused? [00:17:26] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:17:28] Speaker 1: Sustained as to the form of the question, please rephrase. [00:17:36] Speaker 2: Why were the spectators that are on this map included? [00:17:40] Speaker 5: Because they were directly contacted by the SUV that came down the street. [00:17:48] Speaker 2: If a person were injured because they were trampled by the crowd, are they on this map? [00:17:53] Speaker 5: We excluded. [00:17:55] Speaker 2: Overruled the detective, my answer. [00:17:58] Speaker 5: Those people were excluded from the map. [00:18:00] Speaker 1: There were some people like that, right? [00:18:02] Speaker 5: Yes, there were. [00:18:03] Speaker 3: Okay. [00:18:04] Speaker 1: Please make sure. Thank you. I'll allow his answer to stand. Next question. All right. [00:18:12] Speaker 2: I'd like to put up for you exhibit number 32, which has been previously identified. I'm sorry, admitted. [00:18:20] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you said 32? [00:18:22] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:18:24] Speaker 1: You said 32? Okay, thank you. Sorry, I just missed it. Just to the witness or published, because it's been received. [00:18:36] Speaker 2: Yes, we are going to publish this, Your Honor. [00:18:39] Speaker 1: Go ahead. Permission granted. Okay, thank you. [00:18:42] Speaker 2: And while we're waiting for it to come up in the jury box... [00:18:45] Speaker 3: I don't have it on my screen. [00:18:47] Speaker 1: It may take a second. Hold on. If it's not, let's check the cables. [00:18:52] Speaker 2: No, it's on. We don't have it either. [00:18:54] Speaker 1: We don't have it either. I can see it. The witness can see it. [00:18:59] Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. [00:19:01] Speaker 1: Go. Thank you for letting us know, sir. [00:19:06] Speaker 2: It's just the front tables. The back table's on, Your Honor. [00:19:09] Speaker 1: Hold on. I'm going to stop source for a second. I know. Anything? Yeah. You can see it on the screen, though, right, sir? There's a screen, obviously, on the far side of the courtroom, and then to your right. [00:19:47] Speaker 3: It's always better over here, because I can't see it. [00:19:49] Speaker 1: I understand. We'll get our tech guy over here to look at it, but it's previously been received, and we can see it on the two other monitors, so for now, we're going to continue. If there's anything new, I'll make sure to pause. Go ahead. [00:20:05] Speaker 2: Detective Casey, I want to focus your attention specifically as to the Extreme Dance Team. We heard testimony about several of the girls on the team being struck and injured. Do you remember that testimony, sir? [00:20:19] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. [00:20:21] Speaker 1: Overruled. It's foundational. The answer may stand. [00:20:25] Speaker 2: Do you know if there were other people associated with the Extreme Dance Team that were injured? [00:20:30] Speaker 3: Objection. Speculative. [00:20:32] Speaker 2: Overruled. He may answer. [00:20:34] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. [00:20:35] Speaker 2: And do you know the names of these people? [00:20:38] Speaker 3: Objection. You're the same. [00:20:40] Speaker 2: Overruled. He may answer. [00:20:41] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:20:42] Speaker 1: What were their names, please? [00:20:44] Speaker 3: Kathleen Hallmeyer. [00:20:46] Speaker 5: Speculation. [00:20:48] Speaker 1: Overruled. He may answer. Go ahead, sir. [00:20:53] Speaker 5: Kathleen Hallmeyer, Jennifer Stover, and Mitchell Lampine. [00:20:58] Speaker 2: What was their role with the Dance Team? [00:21:07] Speaker 5: Jennifer and Kathleen were support people. Jennifer's daughter was marching the parade. And then Mitchell was there to hand out candy with a step on. [00:21:16] Speaker 2: Okay. I'm going to now play. It's still not being displayed on our tables, Your Honor, but it is displayed on the two large monitors in the courtroom. So, do I have permission to proceed? Which exhibit? This is 32. [00:21:34] Speaker 1: Oh, yes. If we get to a new one that hasn't previously been received, then I will pause to get the tech people in. All right. Go ahead. [00:21:42] Speaker 3: Objection is to relevancy. [00:21:45] Speaker 2: Overruled. The bailiff confirmed. It's on in the jury box, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Please play from the 35-second mark to 47 seconds. [00:22:00] Speaker 3: How long is the exhibit? [00:22:05] Speaker 1: Looks like it's a minute 23, according to what I can see on my monitor. [00:22:09] Speaker 2: It is 123 total. We're only playing this 12-second clip from 35 to 47. Thank you. And please pause. Do you see any of the individuals you were just testifying about? Enter the screen, sir. [00:22:35] Speaker 1: Objection, Spike Lee 2. Overruled. He may answer. Yes, I do. [00:22:39] Speaker 2: Could you identify them by using the touchscreen? [00:22:42] Speaker 5: Objection, lady. [00:22:44] Speaker 1: Overruled. He may answer. [00:22:46] Speaker 5: You want to draw one big circle? [00:22:48] Speaker 2: Okay. [00:22:49] Speaker 5: It has two individuals. It has Jennifer and Kathleen. Kathleen has the red jacket on. And directly to her left would be Jennifer in a black jacket. [00:22:59] Speaker 2: Okay. A little hard to see right now, but as they... [00:23:02] Speaker 5: Very hard to see. [00:23:05] Speaker 2: Keep going. Could you see two people walking there, sir? [00:23:08] Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am. [00:23:09] Speaker 2: Okay. Please clear the screen. And continue playing. Okay. [00:23:13] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:23:19] Speaker 2: And pause. And... I'm sorry, because I can't see the counter, y'all. One... [00:23:26] Speaker 1: It is at 44 seconds. [00:23:27] Speaker 2: 44 seconds. Thank you. Paused at 44. Do you see anybody else that you just testified to in the video at this point, sir? [00:23:36] Speaker 3: Objection, speculation. Overruled. [00:23:38] Speaker 1: Here may answer. [00:23:39] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. [00:23:40] Speaker 2: And who is that? [00:23:41] Speaker 5: Lee Mitchell. Objection. [00:23:43] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:23:45] Speaker 5: Mitchell Lampine. [00:23:47] Speaker 2: Please circle Mitchell. Did you know Mitchell's approximate age? [00:23:56] Speaker 5: Objection, speculated. [00:23:57] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:24:00] Speaker 5: I believe he's about 10. [00:24:01] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:24:06] Speaker 2: All right. We can take down 32. [00:24:12] Speaker ?: Did... [00:24:12] Speaker 2: This video goes on to show the red SUV drive through the Extreme Dance Team, correct? [00:24:17] Speaker 3: Objection, leading. [00:24:19] Speaker 2: It's foundational, you're right? [00:24:20] Speaker 1: Overruled. It's foundational. It's previously been received. Go ahead. [00:24:23] Speaker 5: Yes, it does. [00:24:25] Speaker 2: To your knowledge of this video, sir, did those individuals, Mitchell and Ms. Stover and Ms. Pellmire, remain along the left side of the road there as the SUV went through? [00:24:38] Speaker 5: Objection, leading. [00:24:39] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:24:42] Speaker 5: They were hit by the vehicle and then moved to the left. [00:24:48] Speaker 1: Let's take a pause for a second. Yes. Our IT experts, hopefully they can get this figured out. [00:24:55] Speaker 2: Yeah, I just turned it on this side. It's a lot of pressure. [00:24:58] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:25:00] Speaker 2: Could you put something on the screen that's okay to you for the moment? Next one will be 132 if you want to... Oh, I'm sorry, 55. [00:25:11] Speaker 4: It's on our screen. [00:25:12] Speaker 1: It's on now. Hold on, let's make sure. Do you have it now, sir? Yes? Yes. Oh, good. Great. It's on mine. It's on the witness. [00:25:23] Speaker 2: Do they have it to you? [00:25:24] Speaker 1: Something. All right. [00:25:26] Speaker 2: Just like real life. You call the help desk and they show up and it... Oh, now it works. It works, yeah. But the jury monitors were working. [00:25:32] Speaker ?: Right. [00:25:33] Speaker 1: Jury monitors were working. It's not... Hold on, let's make sure. It was just working. I think there's a delay. [00:25:42] Speaker 4: Hold on, maybe next time we'll just do it. It was done. Oh, I'll take it down. Put the whole thing back on me. Are they still off? Yeah. Sometimes it takes like... [00:25:52] Speaker 1: It can take 30 seconds. [00:25:59] Speaker 3: What do you say it is this one? [00:26:01] Speaker 1: This is 55. Oh, all right. [00:26:03] Speaker ?: Oh. [00:26:04] Speaker 1: All right, it's not. Very good. We're up and working. And 55's previously been received, so go ahead. All right. [00:26:10] Speaker 3: Objection to the relative receive. [00:26:13] Speaker 1: Noted. Overruled. Go ahead. Attorney Emperor. [00:26:17] Speaker 2: Detective Casey, Exhibit 55, can you see at the end of the roll there, or the top of the screen, what unit is involved in Exhibit 55, please? [00:26:31] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:26:33] Speaker 2: Please tell us. [00:26:34] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:26:35] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:26:38] Speaker 5: It is the dancing grannies that are approaching from the right. [00:26:42] Speaker 2: Okay. And one of the dancers, we have her testimony that was involved with the grannies was a woman by the name of Lola Haspel. Is that correct? [00:26:57] Speaker 1: Objection lead. Overruled. It's foundational. The witness may answer. Yes, she was. [00:27:03] Speaker 2: Is there video showing this hospital being struck by the SUV? [00:27:07] Speaker 1: Objection lead. Sustain this to the form of the question. Please rephrase. Sure. [00:27:15] Speaker 2: Is the exhibit, you've seen Exhibit 55 before? [00:27:21] Speaker 5: Yes, I have. [00:27:22] Speaker 2: Are you able to identify Ms. Haspel, I'm sorry, yes, Lola Haspel in Exhibit 55, sir? [00:27:29] Speaker 3: Objection lead. [00:27:30] Speaker 2: Overall. [00:27:32] Speaker 5: Yes, I am. [00:27:33] Speaker ?: All right. [00:27:34] Speaker 2: We're going to play the clip, Your Honor, from point, I'm sorry, from four seconds to eight seconds at 50% speed, and it is zoomed in on the middle of the road where the dancing grannies are located. [00:27:49] Speaker 1: All right. Go ahead. Thank you. [00:28:07] Speaker 2: Please describe for the jury what you just saw in the video, sir. [00:28:10] Speaker 5: Objection lead. [00:28:11] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:28:13] Speaker 5: I saw the red SUV driving westbound on Main Street, approaching the dancing grannies, and hitting Lola Haspel, and then striking two other dancing grannies. [00:28:29] Speaker 2: When you say hitting Lola Haspel, what did you see? [00:28:32] Speaker 5: Objection lead. [00:28:34] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:28:35] Speaker 1: You may answer. [00:28:37] Speaker 5: I saw the left side of the car come in contact with her, and then she, her body, moved to her left after. [00:28:47] Speaker 2: Did Ms. Haspel report any injuries to the Waukesha Police Department? [00:28:51] Speaker 3: Objection lead. [00:28:52] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:28:53] Speaker 1: The witness may answer. [00:28:54] Speaker 3: Yes, she did. [00:29:00] Speaker 2: All right, sir. I'd like to now ask that Exhibit 118 be published for the jury. This has previously been admitted. [00:29:11] Speaker 1: Permission granted. [00:29:14] Speaker 3: Objection to the relevancy of 118. [00:29:18] Speaker 2: It's previously been received. Go ahead. Sir, do you recognize the item shown in Exhibit 118? [00:29:30] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:29:32] Speaker 2: And in addition to the photograph, if you had an opportunity to examine that item or items. [00:29:39] Speaker 3: Objection lead. [00:29:40] Speaker 2: Personally. Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:29:44] Speaker 5: Yes, I have. [00:29:46] Speaker 2: And Mr. Johnson from the crime lab testified about these items yesterday, but I'd like you to tell the jury what you remember of these items, please. [00:29:55] Speaker 3: Objection lead. Informative. The first part of the question. [00:30:01] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:30:06] Speaker 5: So, this is the red SUV that was used in the parade attack. This is a picture of it taken after. I remember a hood from a white jacket and a hat, a black hat with snowflakes on it, being pressed in between the hood and the windshield and the windshield wiper of the vehicle. [00:30:30] Speaker 3: Objection to it being called an attack. I think that's a disparaging remark for the record. [00:30:40] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted. And the answer will stand. I will instruct the witness to simply describe what he is seeing without further characterizing it, as it will be up to the jury to determine the facts in this case. Go ahead. [00:31:00] Speaker 2: Thank you. When you saw these items on the hood of the red SUV, did you later come to recognize where they may have come from? [00:31:13] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:31:15] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:31:16] Speaker 1: The witness may answer. [00:31:17] Speaker 3: Yes, I did. [00:31:19] Speaker 1: What did you determine? [00:31:26] Speaker 5: I determined that they were the jacket hood and hats that Virginia Sorenson was wearing while she was walking in the parade. [00:31:34] Speaker 2: I would like to display to the witness only, please, Exhibit 177. This has not yet been received, Your Honor. [00:31:46] Speaker 1: All right. Go ahead, please. [00:31:49] Speaker 2: Is 177 on your screen, sir? [00:31:51] Speaker 5: Yes, it is. [00:31:52] Speaker 2: And what do you see in Exhibit 177? [00:31:58] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:31:59] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:32:02] Speaker 5: I see two dancing grannies carrying a Milwaukee dancing granny sign, and the woman on the left is Virginia Sorenson, and she's wearing a black hat with snowflakes, wearing a white jacket with a hood on it. [00:32:17] Speaker 2: Move to admit 177 and permission to publish, Your Honor. [00:32:20] Speaker 3: Objection to whether it is received. [00:32:24] Speaker 1: The objection is overruled. Exhibit 177 is received. Permission to publish is granted. [00:32:30] Speaker 3: Is that 177? [00:32:32] Speaker 1: 177, yes. Go ahead. The jurors will let me know when it's in the jury box as well, please. All right. Thank you. It's there. [00:32:52] Speaker 2: And again, just so we're clear on the record, please circle Virginia Sorenson in the hat in this picture. [00:32:58] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:32:59] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:33:04] Speaker 5: That is Virginia, and then this would be the hat in the hood that I believe was found on the SUV. Okay. [00:33:19] Speaker 2: Detective Casey, there were many videos that have been shown to this jury, correct? [00:33:27] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:33:31] Speaker 2: Is it found HTML, Your Honor? [00:33:33] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:33:35] Speaker 5: Yes, there has been. [00:33:39] Speaker 2: To your knowledge, are there any videos that display the license plate of the red SUV as it goes along the parade route? [00:33:48] Speaker 3: Objection leading. Overruled. Yes, there are. [00:33:52] Speaker 2: Is it possible to capture a screenshot from those videos to see the license plate of the red SUV along the parade route? [00:34:02] Speaker 5: Yes, there are. [00:34:06] Speaker 2: I'd like to display for the witness only, Exhibit 150. [00:34:11] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:34:18] Speaker 2: Is 150 on your screen, Detective? [00:34:20] Speaker 5: Not yet. [00:34:20] Speaker 2: Okay. [00:34:23] Speaker 5: It is now. [00:34:24] Speaker 2: All right. Do you see Exhibit 150? [00:34:28] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:34:29] Speaker 2: Please describe what you see in Exhibit 150. [00:34:32] Speaker 5: I see the red SUV that was driven through the parade route, and it's at the time when it was contacting the Waukesha South band members. In that photo, you can read the license plate number. [00:34:52] Speaker 2: Do you believe this photo is a true and accurate representation in the events of the day? [00:35:00] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:35:01] Speaker 2: Move to admit 150 and permission to publish. [00:35:05] Speaker 3: Objection. How does this go to investigation? [00:35:11] Speaker 1: Overruled. [00:35:12] Speaker 3: Investigation. [00:35:15] Speaker 1: Exhibit 150 is received. Permission to publish is granted. [00:35:28] Speaker 2: The image is a little blurry, correct? [00:35:33] Speaker 5: A tad. [00:35:36] Speaker 2: Can you please point out the license plates in the photo and read it for the jury? [00:35:45] Speaker 5: Is it okay if I circle it? [00:35:46] Speaker 1: Yes. Overruled. You may do so. [00:35:52] Speaker 5: That is the license plate number, and I read ADP9256. [00:35:59] Speaker 2: All right. Now I'd like to show to the witness only, number 151, please. [00:36:03] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:36:09] Speaker 2: Please describe 151. Oh, please clear the screen, Madam Clerk. [00:36:20] Speaker 5: This photo is of the red SUV on the parade route. It's just a photo taken just prior to the Bears Logistics float, and the band director is in the lower left-hand side of the video. It shows the red SUV with the license plate number displayed. [00:36:43] Speaker 2: Do you believe this photo represents a true and accurate depiction of the events of the day? [00:36:47] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:36:52] Speaker 2: Move to admit 151 and permission to publish, Your Honor. [00:36:56] Speaker 3: Objection to relevancy. [00:36:58] Speaker 1: Exhibit 151 is received permission to publish. Granted, the objections noted. I know the rule. [00:37:04] Speaker 3: I recall the state assembly had 140 exhibits. How did we get this made? [00:37:11] Speaker 1: Keep going, Attorney General. [00:37:13] Speaker 2: Detective, please describe what you see in 151. I think you did describe it. Teresa. Strike that. Please circle the license plate and read it for the jury. [00:37:23] Speaker 3: Objection, leave. [00:37:25] Speaker 5: Overruled. ADP9256. Thank you. [00:37:33] Speaker 2: It's still not up. Okay, I'm sorry. I've got to wait for a little, Jerry. No, it is. Go ahead. Detective Casey, during your investigation, did you uncover any other videos linking Mr. Brooks to this same vehicle with this same license plate? [00:37:59] Speaker 3: Objection, I don't consent to be called their name. He is leading for with this. [00:38:03] Speaker 1: Overruled as to both counts. You may answer. [00:38:06] Speaker 3: Yes, we have. [00:38:07] Speaker 1: Could you describe this video for us, please? [00:38:10] Speaker 5: Objection, leave. [00:38:11] Speaker 1: Overruled. [00:38:13] Speaker 5: There's a video that we obtained from social media that shows Mr. Brooks standing next to the SUV, and you can clearly see the license plate number on the vehicle. The video was taken sometime prior to November 21st, 2021. [00:38:34] Speaker 2: Okay, I'd like to display for the witness only, Exhibit 175, please. [00:38:40] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:38:51] Speaker 2: Please identify 175. [00:38:56] Speaker 3: This is a... Well, you may see. [00:39:00] Speaker 1: Overruled. You may answer. [00:39:04] Speaker 5: This is a photo. This is a photo. There's two individuals in the photo. The individual on the left, I know to be the person referred to as Gerald Brooks. It displays a vehicle, a red Ford, and it has the license plate number, which is displayed in the photo. [00:39:25] Speaker 1: What is the source of this photo? [00:39:28] Speaker 5: Objection, leave. [00:39:29] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:39:32] Speaker 5: We obtained it through social media. [00:39:34] Speaker 2: Okay. I mean, this is a photo versus a video. [00:39:38] Speaker 5: This is the photo taken from the video. [00:39:41] Speaker 1: I understand the objection. It's sustained. It's foundational. This particular question, the witness may answer. Go ahead. [00:39:49] Speaker 3: Overruled or sustained? Overruled. You said sustained. What did I say? Yes, you did. Sorry. [00:39:54] Speaker 1: I meant it's overruled. The witness may answer. Sorry. I'm taking notes. I was writing the word source, and I think that's why I did that. In any event, go ahead and answer. Sorry about that for any confusion I may have caused. [00:40:08] Speaker 5: This is a screenshot taken from a video. [00:40:13] Speaker 2: Move to admit 175 and permission to publish, Your Honor. [00:40:17] Speaker 3: Objection to that. What's the relevancy? I don't see the alleged opinion in it. [00:40:25] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted. It is overruled, and Exhibit 175 is received. Permission to publish is granted. Where's... Oh, sorry. The jury would also let me know when it's in the jury box monitors, or on the jury box monitors. [00:40:49] Speaker 2: Detective Casey is the person you know as Darryl Brooks in this photograph. [00:41:09] Speaker 3: Objection, I would consent to being caught their name and leading the witness. [00:41:13] Speaker 2: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:41:16] Speaker 3: Yes, he is. [00:41:17] Speaker 2: Please circle, or X, or mark in some fashion. How do you know that's Darryl Brooks there? His back is to us. [00:41:29] Speaker 5: Objection, leading. [00:41:30] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:41:31] Speaker 5: I have watched the video in its entirety, and I have seen his face in the video. [00:41:42] Speaker 2: Okay, that can go down, please. Detective Casey, in total, how many videos do you think were collected by the Waukesha Police Department during this investigation? [00:41:55] Speaker 3: Objection, speculative. [00:41:57] Speaker 2: Overruled. He may answer. [00:42:02] Speaker 5: We have at least 65 to 75 files. Some of those files contain multiple videos, photos. Could be 10 each, so I would say probably 300 to 400 videos we have collected. [00:42:17] Speaker 2: What were the source of those videos? [00:42:21] Speaker 5: Some of the videos came from different people that were at the parade, some of them are from city-owned cameras, and some of them are from fixed surveillance photos, fixed surveillance systems from businesses that were in downtown Waukesha. [00:42:40] Speaker 2: Were all of the videos that were available shown to this jury? [00:42:44] Speaker 5: No, they were not. Overruled. You may answer. No, they were not. [00:42:50] Speaker 2: Have you personally observed and reviewed each of the video files available in this case, sir? [00:42:58] Speaker 3: Objection. Speak with you. [00:43:00] Speaker 2: Overruled. You may answer. [00:43:02] Speaker 3: Yes, I have. [00:43:04] Speaker 2: To your knowledge, sir, did any video ever show a different person behind the driver's wheel of that red SUV? [00:43:13] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. [00:43:14] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:43:17] Speaker 5: I have never seen anyone driving the vehicle besides the defendant in any of the videos that I looked at. [00:43:26] Speaker 2: In any of the videos, were you ever able to see multiple people inside the vehicle? [00:43:33] Speaker 3: Objection. Spank me to you. [00:43:35] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:43:38] Speaker 5: None of the videos that we have looked at showed anyone else in the vehicle. [00:43:46] Speaker 2: Any of the videos at any point show the red SUV coming to a stop, a complete stop, along the parade route? [00:43:55] Speaker 3: Objection. Leading. [00:43:56] Speaker 1: Any aspect with you? Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:44:01] Speaker 5: I've never seen a video that shows the vehicle slowing or stopping while it was on the parade route. [00:44:08] Speaker 2: Do any of the videos show the driver of the vehicle exit the vehicle to check on a person who had just been struck by the vehicle? [00:44:19] Speaker 1: Objection. [00:44:20] Speaker 5: Leading. [00:44:20] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:44:23] Speaker 5: I never observed in the videos the driver of the vehicle to stop and check or exit the vehicle on anyone. [00:44:31] Speaker 2: There was testimony earlier in this case about witnesses observing multiple people running from the car. Do you remember that? [00:44:47] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. [00:44:49] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:44:51] Speaker 5: Yes, I remember that. [00:44:54] Speaker 2: Were there multiple reports like that, sir? [00:44:59] Speaker 5: Initially, there were some reports like that. [00:45:01] Speaker 2: When the vehicle was found on Maple Street, you weren't there. [00:45:08] Speaker 3: Correction. Leading. [00:45:10] Speaker 2: Overruled. His answer may stand. Do you know what police activity occurred when the vehicle was found on Maple? [00:45:20] Speaker 3: Objection. Speculative. Just say he wasn't there. [00:45:24] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. He was asked, what does he know? [00:45:29] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:45:30] Speaker 2: Please tell the jury what happened when the SUV was found on Maple. [00:45:35] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. [00:45:36] Speaker 2: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:45:41] Speaker 5: Initially, Officer Moss went. He secured the vehicle. Did not find anybody in the vehicle. There was an initial report that saw some other people running from the area of the vehicle. After that information was given back to us, we sent detectives down to the area to investigate further to see if we could corroborate and find out if that was true or not. [00:46:05] Speaker 2: After that investigation, did you have other suspects or just one person? [00:46:12] Speaker 3: Objection. Leading. [00:46:15] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:46:19] Speaker 5: Based on the information of what everybody saw on the parade route, and then the detectives that went back down to Maple Avenue and interviewed the people that reported the people running, our investigation determined that there was only one person in the vehicle and there was no other suspects that we were looking for. [00:46:42] Speaker 2: At some point in your investigation, Detective Casey, were you given a Ford key? [00:46:49] Speaker 1: Objection. Leading. Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:46:53] Speaker 5: Yes, I was. [00:46:55] Speaker 2: What was your understanding as to the source of that key? [00:47:03] Speaker 5: My understanding that that key was taken from Mr. Brooks when he was taken into custody and turned over to Detective Stern and Detective Carpenter. Objection. I don't consent to being caught in the egg for the ringer. [00:47:15] Speaker 1: Noted. Overruled. How did you get it? [00:47:19] Speaker 3: Objection. Leading. [00:47:20] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:47:22] Speaker 3: He just stayed. [00:47:23] Speaker 1: Hi, guys. Overruled. He may answer. [00:47:27] Speaker 5: Detective Stern brought me the key the morning after the incident. [00:47:36] Speaker 2: Did you do anything with the key? [00:47:40] Speaker 3: Yes, I did. [00:47:41] Speaker 2: Tell the jury what you did, please. [00:47:44] Speaker 3: Objection. Leading. [00:47:46] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:47:49] Speaker 5: At that point, the vehicle was at the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department secure storage facility. Mr. Johnson was over there processing the vehicle. I went there and I took the key with me and I checked the vehicle to see if the key would work in the car. [00:48:10] Speaker 2: What did you find? [00:48:11] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. [00:48:13] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:48:15] Speaker 5: I found that the key worked the door locks to unlock the car. I also put the key in the ignition and it turned the ignition lock. [00:48:25] Speaker 2: Thank you. Detective Casey, you've heard testimony about the manner in which the defendant was identified by the name of Darryl Brooks. Do you recall that testimony, sir? [00:48:44] Speaker 3: Objection. I don't think it seemed to be called that name. He's leading the witness. [00:48:48] Speaker 1: Overruled. Foundational. The witness may answer. [00:48:53] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:48:56] Speaker 2: Did you endeavor to verify the identification of the subject you had arrested for this incident? [00:49:03] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. Overruled. Yes, I have. [00:49:08] Speaker 2: Did you verify his identity by the name of Darryl Brooks? [00:49:12] Speaker 3: Objection. I don't consent to be called that name. Leading. [00:49:15] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:49:17] Speaker 5: Yes, I have. [00:49:18] Speaker 1: How did you do that? [00:49:20] Speaker 5: Objection. Leading. [00:49:21] Speaker 1: Overruled. [00:49:23] Speaker 5: There were a couple different ways. One way is when a person is taken into custody, we take their fingerprints. We check that against other records that are kept by the state. Those fingerprints matched Darryl Brooks. I've also spoken to three women that he has children with. They verify that that is his name that he has always gone by. I have also spoken to his mother, which states that that's the name that he has gone by always. [00:50:02] Speaker 2: I'd like to put on the screen for the witness only, exhibit 88. Go ahead. Do you see exhibit 88, sir? [00:50:15] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. Objection to this with the relevancy. [00:50:21] Speaker 1: Overruled. [00:50:21] Speaker ?: Overruled. [00:50:21] Speaker 3: Go ahead. Grounds get overruled. [00:50:26] Speaker 1: Relevant. [00:50:28] Speaker 3: In what way is it relevant? [00:50:35] Speaker 1: Two of the counts alleged in this case. [00:50:37] Speaker 2: Go ahead. Can you please identify exhibit 88, sir? [00:50:43] Speaker 5: This is a bail bond through Milwaukee County Circuit Court for Darryl Edward Brooks, the date of birth of 2-21-82. [00:50:56] Speaker 2: To your knowledge, was Mr. Brooks on bail through a Milwaukee County case on the date of November 21, 2021? [00:51:04] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:51:08] Speaker 2: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:51:10] Speaker 5: Yes, he was. [00:51:12] Speaker 2: And what is the date of this bail form? Please leave it near the bottom. [00:51:21] Speaker 5: The date on the bottom. Objection leading. [00:51:24] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:51:29] Speaker 5: 2-21-2021. [00:51:32] Speaker 2: By classification, can you tell us the level of charges that Mr. Brooks was pending on for this bail? [00:51:49] Speaker 3: Objection. You've already made a ruling on it. [00:51:55] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:51:59] Speaker 5: All the charges that I see in here are felonies. [00:52:03] Speaker 2: To your knowledge, was this bail in full force and effect on November 21 of 2021, sir? [00:52:09] Speaker 5: Objection. Overruled. You may answer. Yes, it was. [00:52:15] Speaker 2: And in the middle of the form, do you see the conditions of bail that were set upon Mr. Brooks? [00:52:22] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:52:23] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:52:25] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. [00:52:26] Speaker 2: And I'm looking under paragraph B, the third bullet. Do you see that? [00:52:31] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:52:32] Speaker 2: Could you please read that bail condition to the jury? [00:52:35] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:52:36] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:52:39] Speaker 5: The defendant shall not commit any crime. [00:52:44] Speaker 2: Thank you. Move to admit number 88, Your Honor. [00:52:48] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:52:50] Speaker 2: Exhibit 88 is received. I'd like to display for the... [00:52:54] Speaker 3: It was already speculated too. How is that coming into evidence? [00:52:59] Speaker 1: Overruled. And permission to publish. I'm sorry. I did not seek to publish this, Your Honor. [00:53:04] Speaker 3: Oh, all right. Turn that off. I request illegal finding a fact for that. [00:53:09] Speaker 1: The objection is noted. It's overruled. Continue. [00:53:11] Speaker 2: Turning opera. Thank you. I'd like to display for the witness only, Exhibit 89. Go ahead. Sir, can you please identify 89? [00:53:29] Speaker 3: Objection. Overruled. I don't know if you can see. [00:53:32] Speaker 1: Overruled. [00:53:35] Speaker 3: This is a... This has been speculated to as well. How's it evidence? How's it being in the meeting? [00:53:43] Speaker 1: The objection is noted. It's overruled. The witness may answer. [00:53:46] Speaker 3: I request a legal finding a fact for that, Your Honor. [00:53:49] Speaker 1: Noted. Overruled. Go ahead. [00:53:53] Speaker 5: This is a bail bond through Milwaukee County Circuit Court for Darrell Edward Brooks with the date of birth of 2-21 of 1982. [00:54:01] Speaker 2: Is this a different case than what was displayed in Exhibit 88? [00:54:05] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:54:09] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:54:10] Speaker 5: Yes, it is. [00:54:13] Speaker 2: Are you able to make any observations about the level of charges related to this case, sir? [00:54:19] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:54:21] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:54:24] Speaker 5: It appears that there's four charges to which are felonies. [00:54:29] Speaker 2: Okay. And on the bottom of the form, can you tell the date that this bail was issued? [00:54:35] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:54:36] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:54:38] Speaker 5: Say it's 11-11 of 2021. [00:54:45] Speaker 2: The, uh, directing your attention again to that same location in the middle of the page under paragraph B, the third bullet. Could you please read the conditions of release that were set by the court in that case? [00:55:00] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:55:01] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:55:04] Speaker 5: Defendant shall not commit any crime. [00:55:07] Speaker 2: To your knowledge, sir, was this bail in full force and effect on November 21 of 2021? [00:55:12] Speaker 3: Objection speaking to you, Amy. [00:55:14] Speaker 2: Overruled as to both. The witness may answer. [00:55:17] Speaker 5: Yes, it was. [00:55:20] Speaker 2: Finally, sir, I'd like to, uh, put up one last, uh, item for you, or two items. One second, please. I'd like to display for the witness only, exhibit 13. [00:55:50] Speaker 3: Objection, what's the relevancy it is. I'd like to say, any foundation to test the move. [00:56:01] Speaker 2: I'll give the state some leeway to establish that. Go ahead. Thank you. Sir, do you recognize, uh, the, well, can you tell if exhibit 13 is a video, sir? [00:56:19] Speaker 5: Yes, it is. [00:56:20] Speaker 2: Okay. Have you seen this video before, sir? [00:56:23] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:56:24] Speaker 2: Overruled. Still relevancy. [00:56:26] Speaker 1: Um, the state is asking the foundational questions, the objections a bit premature. Um, I'll take it under advisement. Go ahead, attorney Opper. [00:56:37] Speaker 5: Yes, I have. [00:56:38] Speaker 1: What does this video depict? [00:56:41] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:56:43] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [00:56:44] Speaker 5: Objection speaking to you. [00:56:46] Speaker 1: Overruled. Go ahead. [00:56:48] Speaker 5: This video depicts the backyard at 4014 North 19th Street in the city of Milwaukee. It also, that's the address of Dawn Woods, the mother of Daryl Brooks. And on the low, on the lower left-hand corner, you can see a Ford escape. [00:57:07] Speaker 2: In the lower right. Objection. [00:57:09] Speaker 3: Um, I'm moving to strike that. How, how does he know? What? [00:57:17] Speaker 1: Um, the objection's noted. Overruled. You can ask him on cross-examination. You can question him about that. [00:57:23] Speaker 2: Go ahead. In the bottom right-hand corner of the exhibit, do you see a date and time stamp for this video, sir? [00:57:30] Speaker 3: Objection leading. [00:57:32] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:57:33] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:57:34] Speaker 2: What does it say? [00:57:37] Speaker 5: It says 11 slash 21 dash 2 0 21, and then it says 13 colon 26 colon 18. [00:57:45] Speaker 2: What is, what do those numbers represent, sir? [00:57:48] Speaker 5: Objection leading. [00:57:49] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:57:50] Speaker 5: To me, it'd mean that the video was taken on November 21st, 2021 at 1 26 PM. [00:58:05] Speaker 2: Objection, uh, do you believe this video is a true and accurate representation of the events of that afternoon at that location, sir? Objection spake with you. Um, sustained, if you could lay a little more foundation, please. [00:58:17] Speaker 1: Sure. [00:58:18] Speaker 2: How did you, uh, come into possession of this video, sir? [00:58:25] Speaker 5: The defendant's mother provided it to us. [00:58:27] Speaker 2: And, uh, do you know approximately when it was obtained? [00:58:32] Speaker 5: Objection spake with you. [00:58:33] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:58:36] Speaker 5: The evening of November 21st, 2021. [00:58:40] Speaker 2: Do you know if, uh, the defendant's mother was cooperative with police in providing the video? [00:58:47] Speaker 5: Objection. Got it, Missy. [00:58:49] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:58:49] Speaker 1: The witness may answer. [00:58:51] Speaker 5: Yes, she was. [00:58:52] Speaker 2: Do you know if the video was provided to police when asked? [00:58:58] Speaker 5: Objection. We? [00:58:59] Speaker 2: Overruled. [00:59:01] Speaker 5: Yes, it was. [00:59:03] Speaker 2: Do you have any reason to believe that the video was altered or modified in any way before it was provided to police? [00:59:14] Speaker 5: I do not. [00:59:16] Speaker 2: Move to admit 13, Your Honor, and permission to publish. [00:59:20] Speaker 3: Objection. Where's the relevant to see? [00:59:24] Speaker 1: Noted. Overruled. Exhibit 13 is received. Permission to publish is granted. [00:59:28] Speaker 2: For the record, this is a video. It's 49 seconds in duration. We're going to play it in full. There is no audio. And it will be played at normal speed. [00:59:42] Speaker ?: Don't play yet. [00:59:43] Speaker 2: Oh, hang on. Don't play yet. [00:59:46] Speaker 1: Yes, if the jurors would let me know when the monitors are displaying the video. All right, go ahead. [01:00:16] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Detective Casey, were you able to see any emblem on the front grill of that window? as it drove away? I would have to look at it again. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Let me ask you this. [01:00:44] Speaker 2: Did you see any damage to the front end of that vehicle as it drove away? I would have to look at it again. [01:00:57] Speaker ?: I would have to look at it again. Okay. I'm sorry. Let me ask you this. Did you see any damage to the front end of that vehicle as it drove away? I would have to look at it again. Okay. I'm sorry. [01:01:01] Speaker 5: I would have to look at it again. [01:01:02] Speaker 2: I would have to look at it again. Okay. I'm sorry. Let me ask you this. Did you see any damage to the front end of that vehicle as it drove away? Objection leading. [01:01:10] Speaker 5: Overruled. [01:01:11] Speaker 2: I did not. [01:01:12] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:01:13] Speaker 5: I'm going to put up the state's Exhibit 14 now, please. [01:01:17] Speaker 2: Go ahead. Just to the? Yeah. Just to the witness only, please. Thank you. Do you recognize Exhibit 14, sir? Yes, I do. What is the source of Exhibit 14? [01:01:26] Speaker 5: Do you recognize exhibit 14 sir? Yes I do. What is the source of exhibit 14? This is a still shot taken from the video. The same video we just saw number 13? Yes. Okay. Move to admit 14 and permission to publish your honor. [01:01:56] Speaker 1: The objection is overruled. Exhibit 14 is received. Permission to publish is granted. [01:02:08] Speaker 3: Sir, do you see Daryl Brooks in this photograph? Objection. I don't consider being called that name again for the record. Noted. Overruled. Yes I do. [01:02:20] Speaker 2: Can you identify or excuse me, excuse me, describe the clothing items that you see him wearing in this photograph? Oh, it's not in the jury box yet. I'm sorry. [01:02:34] Speaker 1: You can state your objection though. Overruled. The witness may answer. [01:02:42] Speaker 5: Mr. Brooks is wearing a red t-shirt, blue jeans, and he has blue colored flip-flops on with white socks. [01:02:53] Speaker 2: And what's the date and time stamp for this photograph, please? [01:03:00] Speaker 5: It's 11-21-2021 at 13-26-08 hours. [01:03:06] Speaker 2: And that's what time, sir? [01:03:10] Speaker 5: Jason Lee. [01:03:11] Speaker 2: On the 12-hour clock. [01:03:14] Speaker 5: That's Jason Lee. Overruled. That would be 1-26 p.m. [01:03:27] Speaker 2: All right, thank you. I have any other questions, sir? [01:03:34] Speaker 3: And the two exhibits we just watched, 13 and 14. Do you see anyone driving the vehicle? [01:03:53] Speaker 5: No, I do not. [01:04:01] Speaker 3: Do you know if anyone's in the vehicle at the time that you see it pull away? [01:04:09] Speaker 5: I would assume, based on my training experience, that when the vehicle pulled away, that there was someone inside the vehicle. Because in order to move a vehicle, you have to manipulate the controls, the shifter, the brake, the accelerator. So, my assumption is, is that someone is inside the vehicle doing that. [01:04:27] Speaker 3: That wasn't the question. Do you see anyone in the vehicle? [01:04:33] Speaker 2: That was my objection, Hunter. That was the question. And he's already asked and answered. The question is, anyone can be seen? [01:04:40] Speaker 1: The objections. Not sure what the objection was, but the answer may stand. You can ask your next question. [01:04:50] Speaker 3: Let's go back to Exhibit 175 and pull that up for the witness. [01:04:56] Speaker 1: With the state, please pull that up. Witness only or published? [01:05:04] Speaker 3: Published. [01:05:05] Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Jurors, let me know when it's in the jury box as well. All right. Go ahead. It's in the jury box. [01:05:39] Speaker 3: You just testified that this was the alleged defendant. How do you know that? Can you see a face? [01:05:46] Speaker 1: Which question are you asking? Those were two. [01:05:48] Speaker 3: Can you see the face of the circled individual in that exhibit? [01:05:56] Speaker 5: In this club, I cannot see the face of the person that is circled. [01:05:59] Speaker 3: So, how do you know who it is? [01:06:04] Speaker 5: I can tell who that is because I have watched this video in its entirety, and I can tell that it is you based on all of my contacts with you. [01:06:13] Speaker 3: So, why were there not any other exhibits that can give credibility to you positively identifying the individual in this video? [01:06:25] Speaker 2: Objection, argumentative compound. Browns. Sustained as to the form of the question. [01:06:33] Speaker 3: Is it fair to say that this is the only exhibit photo from the video? [01:06:40] Speaker ?: Go ahead. [01:06:40] Speaker 3: Can you clarify the only one that is shown today or the only one that has ever been taken? [01:06:42] Speaker ?: The only one that ever exists. The only one that is being shown right here today. Is this the only one that is in exhibit being shown here today? Yes, this is the only one that we've shown today. Yes, this is the only one that we've shown today. And you can tell just from this exhibit exactly who that individual is. That is the only one that is in exhibit being shown here today. Yes, this is the only one that we've shown today. And you can tell just from this exhibit exactly who that individual is. I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:06:49] Speaker 5: I don't believe that was my testimony. That is the only one that we've shown here today. Yes, this is the only one that we've shown today. And you can tell just from this exhibit exactly who that individual is. I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:06:58] Speaker 3: I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:07:06] Speaker 5: I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:07:08] Speaker 3: I don't believe that was my testimony. I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:07:14] Speaker 5: I don't believe that was my testimony. [01:07:16] Speaker 3: I'm asking a question. [01:07:19] Speaker 5: From just looking at this, no. But I know from looking at the entire video that it's you. [01:07:26] Speaker 3: We're talking about this exhibit that's being shown right now. Doing your testimony right now at this moment. Strictly that. Could you ask your question, please? [01:07:40] Speaker 1: I'm going to object, ask, and answer. Sustained as to the form of the question as well. [01:07:45] Speaker 3: Would it be fair to say that from this exhibit 175 that they're looking at right now that you cannot tell who the circle individual is? Would that be fair to say? That would be fair to say. Can you clear the circle? [01:08:04] Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. [01:08:09] Speaker 3: And do you recall what date you viewed this video, as you call it? I have viewed this video multiple times. [01:08:18] Speaker 5: I don't recall the specific dates that I've seen it. Was it relatively early on in the investigation? There have been multiple times that I've watched this video, some of them early, some of them as late as yesterday. [01:08:42] Speaker 3: Do you recall seeing this video the same night of the incident or in the days following? [01:08:54] Speaker 5: I did not see it the night of, but it would be the days following that I have seen it. [01:09:00] Speaker 3: No. And at that time, did you have knowledge of who that vehicle belonged to? Yes, I did. And did you have knowledge of the usage of that video, I mean the usage of that vehicle? I'm not sure that I understand the question. Did you have knowledge of who may have been using the vehicle? [01:09:36] Speaker 1: Objection vague as to time. Sustained as to the form of a question, if you could limit or perhaps direct him to a specific timeframe regarding the use of the vehicle. [01:09:46] Speaker 3: At the time of the incident? Yes. And can you clear that? [01:09:53] Speaker 5: And what information was that? The information that I had is at the night of the incident that you, Daryl Brooks, were the person that were operating the vehicle. [01:10:04] Speaker 3: And who did you learn that from? And for the record, I don't consent to that name. [01:10:09] Speaker 1: Noted overruled. For the record. Go ahead and answer. [01:10:14] Speaker 5: Can you repeat your question, please? [01:10:26] Speaker 3: I'm going to go another route on these. [01:10:27] Speaker 1: Are you done with the exhibit, sir? [01:10:29] Speaker 3: No, I'm not. [01:10:33] Speaker 1: So you're withdrawing your question? [01:10:34] Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm going another route. [01:10:36] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. [01:10:38] Speaker 3: You just testified to seeing the entire video that this steel frame exhibit came from, correct? [01:10:49] Speaker 5: Did you specify that this came from the entire video? Correct. You said that you viewed the video in its entirety, correct? The entirety of what we recovered from your social media account. I'm not sure if there is a longer version someplace, but... Did you see the video in its entirety? [01:11:09] Speaker 3: The video that this exhibit came from? [01:11:14] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:11:18] Speaker 3: And are these the only two individuals that you observed in that video? They are the only two that I recall seeing in the video. Did you ever inquire about the identity of this individual? [01:11:36] Speaker 5: No, I have not. [01:11:40] Speaker 3: Can we clear that circle? Thank you, Madam Cliff. Would it be fair to say that from looking strictly at the exhibit that we're viewing right now, that both individuals have the same hairstyle? It would be fair to say. [01:11:59] Speaker ?: Can we clear the X's and clear the exhibit? Go ahead. Thank you. We go back to exhibit 13. Publish. Go ahead. The state would assist, please. [01:12:04] Speaker 5: Yes. [01:12:05] Speaker 3: The state would assist, please. Okay. Thank you. [01:12:09] Speaker ?: Can we clear the exhibit? [01:12:09] Speaker 3: Can we clear the exhibit? Go ahead. [01:12:11] Speaker 1: Thank you. We go back to exhibit 13. [01:12:13] Speaker ?: Publish. Go ahead. The state would assist, please. [01:12:16] Speaker 3: We go back to Exhibit 13. Publish. Go ahead. The state would assist, please. 13. Can you play it? We'll just play it. I'll tell you when to pause, if that's okay. Go ahead. It's not up yet. Oh, thank you. We're going to wait until it's in the jury box. Okay. [01:13:08] Speaker 1: Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Just a reminder, it's 49 seconds long. [01:13:15] Speaker 3: I don't think I'm going to need to. Well, I don't know. I might. Pause. Right there, the individual that you observe. Right here. Do you see them wearing a hoodie? [01:13:38] Speaker 5: The person in that photo is not wearing a hoodie. Do you see a hoodie anywhere present in this video? No, I don't see a video or a hoodie anywhere in the video. Can you take the X down? [01:13:52] Speaker 3: From this angle, it'd be fair to say that you can see the front, very front end of the vehicle, correct? That is correct. Can you see any windows or see inside the vehicle at that time? Or at the time that we're looking at right now? You cannot see inside the vehicle at this time. So it would be fair to say that just by looking at what we're looking at now, you wouldn't know if anyone's already inside the vehicle. [01:14:24] Speaker 2: This has been answered, Your Honor. I'll allow it. The witness to answer. This is a whole different? I'm allowing it. Go ahead. [01:14:34] Speaker 5: That is correct. From this video, you cannot tell if anyone else is inside the vehicle. So it would be fair to say that you're not sure? It's fair to say that I am not sure. Can we pull this down? [01:14:52] Speaker 3: Whoa, wait, wait. I'm sorry, Keith. Pull that back up for one second. [01:14:56] Speaker 1: Same exhibit. Same exhibit, 13. All right. The state would put that back on display. There you go. Do you want any more of it played or just the still? [01:15:08] Speaker 3: We waiting for the jury or do they? [01:15:10] Speaker 1: It's up. [01:15:11] Speaker 3: No, we don't need it played. [01:15:14] Speaker 1: Do you need it to go to a certain point? Yes. All right. Do you know what point? [01:15:18] Speaker 3: I'm about to do it right now. Looking at this house right here. Do you see an address posted anywhere on this house? Do you see the photo that you circled? No. So it would be fair to say that you don't know the address of this house? That is incorrect. You just said that you don't see an address posted anywhere on this house. So from the vehicle, I mean, strike that, not the vehicle. I'm still looking in the corner right here. From the video that we're viewing right now, do you see an address posted anywhere on this house? I do not see an address posted in this photo. So judging by this, well actually it's a video, but judging by this video, how can you know the address of this house? [01:16:24] Speaker 5: Because I've been at this house before to talk with your mother. I've seen the address on the front of the house. Judging by this video. [01:16:31] Speaker 1: You have to let him finish because that was not the question you asked. You asked him how he knew he can answer. Go ahead, Detective Casey. [01:16:38] Speaker 5: I have been at this address before. I have spoken to your mother. I have been in the backyard of the residence. I've seen the address on the front of the house. I know this to be your mother's house. I recognize from this photo to be your mother's address at 4014 North 19th Street. [01:16:54] Speaker 3: Do you recognize the house or the address? Because we don't see an address in this video. [01:16:58] Speaker 5: I recognize this house to be that address, from being there. [01:17:02] Speaker 3: And had you already been there, as you say, and talked to people, as you say, before you viewed this video? [01:17:13] Speaker 5: I believe that I saw the video first, and then I was at the address. [01:17:19] Speaker 3: So at the time that you saw this video, you didn't know whose house that was? [01:17:27] Speaker 5: That would be an incorrect statement. [01:17:31] Speaker 3: You just said that you saw the video first before going to the house. Did you, or did you not say that? Would that be fair to say? [01:17:42] Speaker 5: I guess I'm a little confused in your question. We received the video. We know from getting it from my mother that she said that that is where she lives. So I knew that this was where she lives when I watched the video. That was clarified for you. [01:17:57] Speaker 3: I'll follow you. That clarification wasn't stated before. So that's fair from the clarification of how you just clarified it. Can you clear it to the circle, please? Are you done with this exhibit? [01:18:12] Speaker 1: Are you done with this exhibit? [01:18:20] Speaker 3: Yeah. [01:18:22] Speaker 1: All right. We'll take it down. Thank you. [01:18:36] Speaker 3: You made reference to a key being found. Did you yourself find that key? No, I did not. Did you, were you at the scene where the key was found at the time it was found? No, I was not. So it would be fair to say that you were told that a key was found? Yes, I was told that a key was found. So it would be fair to say that you went off of what you were told? You actually, you actually didn't observe this with your own eyes. [01:19:18] Speaker ?: What are you speaking of? What are you speaking of? The key being found. That is correct. I was told by two officers who I've worked with for a long time and I trust what they tell me to be accurate. [01:19:22] Speaker 3: So it would be fair to say that you went off of what you were told? So it would be fair to say that you went off of what you were told? So it would be fair to say that you went off of what you were told? So it would be fair to say that you went off of what you were told? You actually, you actually didn't observe this with your own eyes. [01:19:31] Speaker ?: That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. [01:19:33] Speaker 3: That's correct. [01:19:34] Speaker 5: I was told by two officers who I've worked with for a long time and I trust what they tell me to be accurate. [01:19:47] Speaker 3: You made reference to there being a couple, was the word you used, a couple ways to identify individuals and you stated that you had spoken with the mothers of the alleged defendant's children. Would that be fair to say? [01:20:18] Speaker 5: I believe I said I spoke with the mother of three of your children. [01:20:23] Speaker 3: At that time, was the alleged defendant already in custody? Yes, he was. Wouldn't it have been easier to just use the fingerprints that were already obtained? [01:20:42] Speaker 5: Like I said before, the fingerprints was one way. We also verified it talking to his family members that his identity. [01:20:51] Speaker 3: Any reason why, or let me back up. Is it fair to say that there was more confirmation needed to identify the alleged defendant at that point? Seeing as how the fingerprints were already obtained? [01:21:10] Speaker 5: We were just being thorough. We were certain that it was Darryl Brooks that we had in custody based on his fingerprints and other information that we had. It was just a matter of being thorough and verifying the person that we had and the name that he goes by. [01:21:23] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:21:24] Speaker 3: It would be fair to say that fingerprints are pretty accurate though, correct? Would that be fair to say? I think that would be fair to say. So it would also be fair to say that there wouldn't be any reason why the alleged defendant that was in custody would be someone else? Wouldn't that be fair to say? [01:21:46] Speaker 2: Objection, that's compound and difficult to follow. It's not compound. It's not difficult to follow. Sustained as to the form of the question, sir. [01:21:53] Speaker 3: Please reference. That was very clear. [01:21:55] Speaker 1: Sustained as to the form of the question. [01:21:57] Speaker 3: And where did the interviewing of the mothers of these children take place, if you recall? [01:22:10] Speaker 5: I spoke to Jessica Macklin in Iowa at her residence. I spoke to Angel Fitzpatrick at her residence in Monaco Falls. [01:22:23] Speaker 3: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Can we strike that? Do the names have to be stated? [01:22:29] Speaker 1: Overall, he was answering the question. His answer may stand. Your request to strike is denied. And the witness may continue answering. [01:22:38] Speaker 5: I spoke to Angel Fitzpatrick in Monaco Falls at her residence. And I spoke to Erica Patterson a number of times at various locations about you. [01:22:53] Speaker 3: You said one of the mothers of these children you spoke to in Iowa. Correct. [01:23:01] Speaker 5: Why would you go all the way to Iowa? Because initially you listed her as a witness on your witness list for court. So we went there and we wanted to verify what information she might have that she would testify to. [01:23:20] Speaker 3: Just for the record, I don't recall listing anyone as a witness. Just for the record. [01:23:27] Speaker 1: For the record, Mr. Brooks, you can't testify at this moment. You'll have an opportunity should you choose. [01:23:34] Speaker 3: I just wanted that clear for the record since what was said. [01:23:37] Speaker 1: It's struck from the record at this point because you're attempting to testify. [01:23:41] Speaker 3: I just wanted the record to show that I have no knowledge of doing that. [01:23:48] Speaker 1: The jury will disregard those statements made by the defendant that he is not testifying and it would be improper at this time for the court to receive them. [01:23:58] Speaker 3: I don't think a record should be made as something that I didn't do. Next question, sir. [01:24:02] Speaker 1: Next question, sir. It's ridiculous. [01:24:04] Speaker 3: So you said you went to Iowa to try to find out what would be testified to. Why? Objection. [01:24:15] Speaker 2: Argumentative. Irrelevant. Impulsory hearsay. Grounds. [01:24:19] Speaker 1: Sustained as to all basis. Next question. [01:24:22] Speaker 3: Was that an attempt to prepare for what might have been said? [01:24:29] Speaker 1: I'll allow that. Okay. [01:24:33] Speaker 5: Go ahead. [01:24:34] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:24:35] Speaker 3: Why would there be preparation involved in someone who might testify on an alleged defendant's have? [01:24:45] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:24:46] Speaker 3: Argumentative. [01:24:47] Speaker 2: Grounds. Overruled. [01:24:49] Speaker ?: I'll allow it. [01:24:50] Speaker 5: We went there to speak with her, so if she came and testified there wouldn't be any surprises. We also wanted to find out if there's any background information that she had about Mr. Brooks that would be helpful in our investigation. [01:25:14] Speaker 3: So you made reference to not being any surprises. Would it be fair to say that there was a little worry there? [01:25:31] Speaker 1: Objection. Argumentative. Grounds. Sustained as to the form of the question. [01:25:37] Speaker 3: What surprises were you referring to? What do you mean by surprises? No surprises. [01:25:42] Speaker 2: No surprises. Yaron, I object to this entire line of questioning. This witness is not expected to testify. It's wholly irrelevant. [01:25:49] Speaker 3: Well, he opened the door by putting the name on the record and saying where you went. [01:25:55] Speaker 1: I will allow one more question on this. Go ahead. You may answer. [01:26:00] Speaker 5: Could you ask a question, please? [01:26:02] Speaker 3: What do you mean by making sure that there were no surprises? [01:26:09] Speaker 5: We wanted to make sure that there wasn't any information that we weren't aware of that may come up later that would be helpful in the trial. [01:26:19] Speaker 3: Do you recall making an attempt to interview the child? Objection. Relevance. Who was seven at the time? [01:26:41] Speaker ?: Sustained. [01:26:42] Speaker 1: Next question, please. Reason for the sustain, Your Honor? [01:26:44] Speaker 3: Not relevant. [01:26:45] Speaker 1: Well, the question was asked, does he recall? Sustained. Next question, please. Grounds for the sustain again? [01:26:49] Speaker ?: Relevance. [01:26:50] Speaker 3: How is it not relevant? Keep going, sir. [01:26:52] Speaker 1: Did you interview the child? Same objection. [01:26:54] Speaker 3: Grounds. [01:26:55] Speaker ?: Sustained. [01:26:55] Speaker 3: Grounds. Sustained. [01:26:57] Speaker 1: Grounds for the sustain again? Relevance. How is it not relevant? [01:27:00] Speaker 3: Keep going, sir. [01:27:01] Speaker 1: Did you interview the child? [01:27:02] Speaker ?: Same objection. [01:27:03] Speaker 3: Grounds. Sustained. [01:27:05] Speaker 1: Grounds for the sustain? [01:27:06] Speaker 3: Relevance. Why would you ask to interview the child? [01:27:08] Speaker 1: Your Honor. Objection. Sustained. [01:27:11] Speaker 3: Grounds for the sustain? Relevance. Why would you ask to interview the child? Your Honor. [01:27:20] Speaker 2: Objection. Sustained. This entire line of cop questioning is inappropriate. Sustained. [01:27:26] Speaker 1: Move on, Mr. Brooks. [01:27:28] Speaker 3: I would object that trying to interview a seven-year-old child is... [01:27:33] Speaker 1: Sir, move on, please. 906-11. It's also not relevant. Assumes facts not in evidence. [01:27:39] Speaker 3: Period. That was a tricky move. You made reference to, in regards to exhibit 88 and 89, which were documents from an entirely different county. Do you work for Milwaukee County? [01:28:06] Speaker ?: No, I do not. [01:28:07] Speaker 3: So, how did Milwaukee County, which is a different county, come into your investigation in Waukesha County? You may answer. [01:28:28] Speaker 1: With the understanding, there are some limited pretrial rulings that still are in play. Go ahead. [01:28:40] Speaker ?: During the normal... [01:28:42] Speaker 3: I'm sorry for interrupting. I was... I started off by saying, in regards to exhibit 88 and 89. That's how I started the question. Just for the record. [01:28:54] Speaker 1: I know. I'm reminding the witness of the pretrial rulings. [01:28:57] Speaker 3: Okay. [01:28:58] Speaker 5: During the normal course of an investigation, we do background on a person to see if they have any open cases or any information that would be helpful. There is a computer system that displays what cases or charges are open for a person. And it is relevant, because if you are charged in one county and you violate conditions of bail, you can also be charged in another county for those violations. [01:29:47] Speaker 3: And in reference to having charges in one county and potentially being charged in another county, in reference to that... Wouldn't you essentially have to violate the conditions in one county and strictly be charged in that county? [01:30:29] Speaker 5: That is an inaccurate statement. [01:30:34] Speaker 3: You being in law enforcement for a very long time, it would be fair to say that you're familiar with the term "devil jeopardy," right? I have heard the term before. And what is your understanding of what that term means? [01:31:03] Speaker 2: Objection, irrelevant, ground, scope of the witness's knowledge, legal conclusion, sustained [01:31:08] Speaker 1: for all those reasons. [01:31:09] Speaker 3: So when did you become the lead investigator in this matter? [01:31:17] Speaker 5: It was about 8:30 p.m. on November 21st, 2021. So same night? Correct. And... [01:31:26] Speaker 3: Whom were you made lead investigator by? [01:31:35] Speaker 5: The command staff or Lieutenant Jerry Habanik. Do you recall why you were tapped to be the lead investigator? Because I was the most qualified person and had the most experience to take care of it. That's what I've been told. [01:31:52] Speaker 3: Any other reasons besides that? [01:31:58] Speaker 5: Also because I was at the parade route a little bit earlier and I had the most information out of anyone. It took a little while for the other staff to come in. So I already had a little bit of a head start with information that I already had learned as being there at the beginning. [01:32:17] Speaker 3: And that would be the information that you said you had more knowledge of than anyone else at that time. Would that be in reference to having an interaction with the vehicle at some point? [01:32:37] Speaker 5: I would say it's the totality of the situation. I was there when the car first went through. I know what the radio traffic was for taking Mr. Brooks into custody. There's also some decisions that were made early on on how to proceed with the case. I was also on scene downtown and took control of the crime scene initially. So a lot of those things were decisions were made even before our command staff started coming in to take over lead on the case. [01:33:07] Speaker 3: When you referenced you were there at the beginning when the vehicle first entered in the parade. What do you recall about when the vehicle first entered the parade? [01:33:24] Speaker 5: I remember a horn beeping, a red for escape, driving around. And then you driving into me and not stopping when I pounded on your hood and window. Driving into you, what do you mean? I meant that I was in front of your vehicle. Your vehicle contacted me, pushed me off to the side and continued driving without stopping. Were you injured in this incident? [01:33:51] Speaker 3: I was not injured, thankfully. And you made reference to a horn beeping. What do you mean a horn beeping? I mean a horn. I mean a horn vehicle was beeping its horn? Yes, the vehicle was beeping its horn. What would be the only time a vehicle would beep their horn? [01:34:06] Speaker 1: Objection, speculation. What else? Sustained. Clause of speculation. Reason. [01:34:11] Speaker 3: Do you know why the vehicle was beeping their horn? [01:34:24] Speaker 1: Same objection, Your Honor. [01:34:25] Speaker 3: Do you know why you would beep your horn? [01:34:27] Speaker 1: He asked do you know why, so he can answer that question. [01:34:30] Speaker 3: Could you repeat the question, please? [01:34:32] Speaker 5: Do you know why the vehicle was beeping its horn? I imagine that the driver was angry and wanted to get through the crowd. And how did you come to that determination? I've been driving a long time. And a lot of times people get angry. They're late. They beat their horn at you in a way that is because they're upset and they're trying to get past you. [01:35:01] Speaker 3: Do you know that for sure? You asked me my opinion. Yes, I did ask your opinion. Now I'm asking you, do you know for sure if the driver of the vehicle you observed was in fact angry? I assume that he was. [01:35:19] Speaker 5: So it would be fair to say you don't know for sure? I do not know for sure. I do not know for sure, but that is my opinion is that he was angry. [01:35:28] Speaker 3: And at that time you had no knowledge who the driver was. Would that be fair to say? [01:35:37] Speaker 5: Well, I had knowledge because I saw your face. I did not know your name. [01:35:42] Speaker 3: Did you know who the driver was? No meaning had you had any prior interactions with them before this incident? That's what I mean by no. Have you had any conversations with him? Talk to him? Hold on. [01:35:55] Speaker 1: Compound question. Ask one. [01:35:57] Speaker 3: I was just giving clarification of no. What I mean by no. [01:36:00] Speaker 1: It's a compound question. Please rephrase. [01:36:02] Speaker 3: Before you observed this vehicle, as you say, this driver, as you say, did you know them? [01:36:11] Speaker 5: I have no memory of meeting Mr. Brooks before that afternoon. [01:36:16] Speaker 3: So it would be fair to say that you're assuming something that you don't know. Would that be fair to say? [01:36:24] Speaker 2: Objection, compound, vague, and argumentative. Sustained. [01:36:28] Speaker 3: Grounds. [01:36:29] Speaker 1: Sustained as to the form of the question. [01:36:33] Speaker 3: How would you know how someone's feeling if you don't know who they are? [01:36:39] Speaker 2: Your Honor, he opened the door to this. It's asked and answered. The witness has given his opinion. It's clear. Grounds. I object. [01:36:47] Speaker 1: Improper question. Grounds. I will allow the witness to answer why he came to that conclusion. Go ahead. [01:36:55] Speaker 5: Like I said before, I've been driving a long time. And a lot of times when people are beeping their horns, it's because they're late. They're angry at something that something happened. And that's why I concluded that the person was probably angry. [01:37:09] Speaker 3: So would it be fair to say that another reason why a vehicle would beep its horn would be to alert people to the presence? Objection. [01:37:23] Speaker 2: Grounds. [01:37:24] Speaker 3: Grounds. [01:37:25] Speaker 1: Irrelevant speculation. Grounds. [01:37:27] Speaker 3: Grounds. [01:37:28] Speaker 1: I'll allow it based upon his training and experience. He may answer. [01:37:33] Speaker 5: It's a possibility. [01:37:37] Speaker ?: Grounds. [01:37:38] Speaker 3: Did you hear this beeping before the vehicle approached you? Yes, I did. You may. [01:37:51] Speaker ?: You may reference to. And I'm referring to. [01:37:52] Speaker 3: You may, you may reference to, and I'm referring to the ring, the ring video obtained in exhibits 88, or, I'm sorry, the ring video obtained in exhibits 13 and 14. You may reference to obtaining that the same night of the incident. Do you recall saying that? Yes, I recall saying that. And it would be fair to say that you yourself have been present for all testimony. Would that be fair to say? That is not correct. How so? I was sick one day and I was not here. Well, I'm referring to, let me clarify. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Pertaining to all testimony since trial began, you've been present for all testimony. Would that be fair to say? I believe I've seen most of it. Do you recall testimony of, and I'm referring to again, so clear for the record, exhibits 13 and 14 ring footage that was obtained by the owner of 4014 North 19th Street, that you testified to obtaining the, the ring footage the same night. Were you aware that, well, let me back up just a little bit. How were you able to obtain that ring footage? [01:40:17] Speaker 5: There was officers that went to Freighter Hospital, where Dawn Woods, Mr. Brooks' mother, was working. They spoke to her, and she's the one that alerted to them that she had ring video at the house and offered to remotely download that video for them. [01:40:34] Speaker 3: And were you there yourself? I was not there myself. [01:40:39] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:40:40] Speaker 3: When did you yourself speak to the owner of that help? [01:41:00] Speaker 5: The last time that I spoke to Dawn Woods was on August 8th of this year. I may have spoke to her a few times before that. I don't recall the exact dates. I'm referring to the first time that you spoke. I don't recall the first time. I don't recall the first date when that was. [01:41:21] Speaker 3: And you did just make reference to the August 8th date. And what was the extent of that conversation? [01:41:29] Speaker 2: Objection calls to hearsay. Browse. Sustained hearsay. [01:41:32] Speaker 3: The August 8th date that you referred to, was that in any way follow-up? Was that a follow-up investigation? Follow-up to what? Well, you stated that you had spoken previously before the August 8th date. So, the question is, was the August 8th date follow-up to the investigation that you were already actively lead of? [01:42:10] Speaker 5: I mean, everything is related to this investigation. The investigation continues every day. It will not end until this trial is over. [01:42:28] Speaker 3: So, what follow-up was needed at the time of the August 8th interview? I'm guessing that's what you were calling it. I don't know. I'm not sure. [01:42:44] Speaker 2: Objection. Still calls for hearsay, Your Honor. Sustained. [01:42:52] Speaker 3: Why did you need to talk to Ms. Woods multiple times? [01:43:00] Speaker 5: Because every time we spoke to her, we got different information. And at that time, we were following up with your niece and nephew of what their testimony would be in this case. [01:43:15] Speaker 3: What testimony are you referring to because I don't recall any nieces or nephews testifying? [01:43:28] Speaker 5: I don't think I'm allowed to say it. [01:43:32] Speaker 2: I think this line of questioning is irrelevant, Your Honor. [01:43:37] Speaker 1: I'll sustain the objection. And at an appropriate break, I can address it further if need be. Please move on to a new topic, sir. [01:43:47] Speaker 3: You made reference to people who were injured at the parade inadvertently. Do you recall that? Yes, I do. To your knowledge, were any of those charged? [01:44:29] Speaker 5: My testimony before is that those people's cases were not charged. [01:44:39] Speaker 3: And were they seen as victims? [01:44:41] Speaker 2: I'm going to object to the form of that question. I think it calls for a legal conclusion, Your Honor. [01:44:48] Speaker 3: It does not. I ask to his knowledge. [01:44:55] Speaker 1: I'll sustain the objection as to the form of the question. If you could please rephrase. [01:45:09] Speaker 3: I'm going to do a different route. [01:45:23] Speaker ?: I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. I'm going to do a different route. [01:46:07] Speaker 3: Do you recall serving a warrant to the Waukesha County Jail on July 1st of 2022? Yes, I do. Do you recall what that was for? Yes, I do. And what was that for? Can you stay for the record in front of the jury? It was for Mr. Brooks' jail cell. And why did you serve a warrant for a jail cell? [01:46:49] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I object pursuant to legal rulings previously issued in this case. I don't think this is relevant. [01:46:57] Speaker 1: I'll sustain the objection. It's not relevant. I'll certainly take it up at a later point if need be. [01:47:10] Speaker 3: What was the warrant pursuant to? [01:47:12] Speaker 1: I sustain the objection, next topic, please. He did answer. I sustain the state's objection. I'm directing him not to answer. We'll take it up separately. I'll have you continue with your cross-exam and I'll take it up later. I'll have you continue with your cross-exam and I'll take it up later. [01:47:50] Speaker ?: I'll take it up later. [01:48:15] Speaker 3: You made reference to this vehicle driving into you, but stated you were not injured. Did you file a claim in this matter? No, I did not. Do you consider yourself an injured party in this matter? [01:48:33] Speaker 5: No, I do not. [01:48:37] Speaker 3: Do you yourself know if anyone filed a claim in this matter? Can you be more specific? Do you yourself know if anyone filed a claim in this matter? Just in general? Whatever your interpretation of that will be? I would say yes. [01:49:09] Speaker 5: I would imagine that there was a lot of injuries from the people. A lot of people had very extensive medical bills. I imagine that they would file a claim with their insurance company to have those bills paid. [01:49:32] Speaker 3: So you had knowledge of what was filed to their particular insurance companies? [01:49:39] Speaker 5: I have no knowledge but my assumption is that they would have filed those bills. So it would be fair to say that you do not know for sure? That was my testimony. [01:49:52] Speaker 3: Is that the answer? [01:49:54] Speaker 5: Yes. [01:49:56] Speaker ?: I would say that they would have filed a claim in this matter. I would say that they would have filed a claim in this matter. I would say that they would have filed a claim in this matter. [01:50:25] Speaker 3: As lead investigator for this matter, are you, to your knowledge, aware of any GoFundMe type of things? Objection for all of it? [01:50:42] Speaker 1: Objection for all of it? I'm sorry. Do you mean as it relates to? [01:50:47] Speaker 3: As it relates to the incident. [01:50:48] Speaker 1: Overrule the witness, my answer. [01:50:51] Speaker 5: I have no direct knowledge but I assume that there are some GoFundMe pages out there. It's typical in something like this. [01:50:59] Speaker 3: And what do you mean by typical? You've seen this before? Is that what you mean by typical? [01:51:05] Speaker 5: We have a very loving and caring community where a lot of times when bad things happen to people, people pull together and offer financial assistance to help people. [01:51:17] Speaker 3: Is it fair to say that there's a lot of communities like that across Wisconsin? [01:51:25] Speaker 5: Yes, I think there are. [01:51:31] Speaker 3: It would be fair to say that you've worked extremely close. With the district attorney's office during the entirety of this matter, would that be fair to say? [01:52:08] Speaker 5: The district attorney's office has been involved in this investigation since the night of. So we have worked closely. [01:52:20] Speaker 3: So would it be fair to say extremely close seeing as how you've been present for the whole trial pretty much? Can you define extremely for me? I would like you to define extremely. [01:52:31] Speaker ?: I'll answer yes if that helps. To your knowledge, do you know if it's typical for a lead investigator to sit right behind the prosecution table or the trial? [01:52:31] Speaker 3: Yes, it's very typical. It happens in. Yes, it's very typical. [01:52:34] Speaker ?: It happens in. most larger cases in. It happens in a lot of cases. [01:52:37] Speaker 5: It happens in a lot of cases. If it's not. It happens in a lot of cases. [01:52:40] Speaker ?: To your knowledge, do you know if it's typical for a lead investigator to sit right behind the prosecution table or the trial? Yes, it's very typical. It happens in most larger cases, especially a case of this magnitude. There would be a court officer. [01:52:52] Speaker 3: So yes, that's a very typical thing that happens. Have you ever done these? Yes, it's very typical. [01:52:59] Speaker 5: It happens in most larger cases, especially a case of this magnitude. There would be a court officer. So yes, that's a very typical thing that happens. Have you ever done these before? I've done this multiple times before. [01:53:17] Speaker 3: And are you the only detective in the investigation that has that honor? [01:53:30] Speaker 1: Objection vague. [01:53:33] Speaker 3: Grouse. [01:53:34] Speaker 1: Sustained as to the form of the question. [01:53:36] Speaker 3: Are you the only detective directly involved in the investigation that sits with the prosecution? [01:53:50] Speaker 5: Are you talking about this case or any case? This particular case. I'm sorry. I'm sorry you interrupted me. Could you repeat that, please? Will it be said this case? [01:53:58] Speaker ?: I'm referring to this case, yes. [01:53:59] Speaker 1: Could you ask a question, please? [01:54:00] Speaker 3: Are you the only detective actively involved in this investigation that sits with the prosecution? In reference to this case? [01:54:16] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:54:17] Speaker 5: In reference to this case? Yes. I'm the only person, the only detective that's sitting with the prosecution during this trial. [01:54:34] Speaker 3: So would you explain who the other officer is in the blue suit over here? [01:54:38] Speaker 2: Objection to the relevance, Your Honor. Grouse. Sustained. [01:54:42] Speaker 3: I just want to know his role. Sustained. [01:54:45] Speaker 1: Next question, please. [01:54:46] Speaker 3: Sustained. Sustained. [01:54:48] Speaker 1: Sustained. Not relevant. [01:54:50] Speaker 3: He's been in the courtroom. The whole trial is not relevant. [01:54:53] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, next question, please. [01:54:55] Speaker 3: Nobody knows who he is. That should be known. [01:55:00] Speaker 1: It's not relevant to the issues that the jury needs to determine. Next question, sir. [01:55:07] Speaker 3: With an accent, we're telling. [01:55:11] Speaker ?: I'm assuming that's asking. [01:55:18] Speaker 3: I don't know what the other one would entail. Do you have a question, sir? Yeah, I do. I would like to get to it. Thank you. [01:55:35] Speaker 1: Please do so. Thank you. [01:55:37] Speaker 3: Oh, I will. So seeing as how you sat with the prosecution for the entirety of this matter, it would be fair to assume that you know who the plaintiff is in this matter? Yes, I do. And who would the plaintiff be in this matter? The state of Wisconsin. Is that an entity or a living human being? It's an entity. How can an entity file a claim? [01:56:17] Speaker 1: Objection. Grounds. [01:56:19] Speaker 3: Legal conclusion. [01:56:20] Speaker 1: Grounds. [01:56:21] Speaker ?: Sustained. [01:56:22] Speaker 3: You are aware that only a living, breathing human being can actually file a claim. An entity cannot walk into anywhere and file a claim if it's not even a real person. [01:56:36] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:56:37] Speaker 3: Move to strike. You are aware of that, right? [01:56:39] Speaker 1: Go ahead, attorney Elmer. [01:56:40] Speaker 2: Move to strike. The statements by Mr. Brooks also object to the question that was asked at the end as irrelevant, argumentative, and calling for a legal conclusion. [01:56:52] Speaker 3: Objection is not calling for a legal conclusion in any way. [01:56:55] Speaker 1: The court sustains the objection. The request to strike the statements made by Mr. Brooks are granted, or the request is granted. The jury will disregard the statement and the question asked for all of the reasons indicated by the stated also as a misstatement of the law. [01:57:13] Speaker 3: No, I definitely object to that, your honor. [01:57:16] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted. I'm going to have the jury stand for a second. They've been sitting for quite some time, and then you can formulate your next question. [01:57:23] Speaker 3: I'll take it. I'll take the exception to that ruling. And would like a legal finding of fact. [01:57:32] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted. It's overruled. [01:57:36] Speaker 3: And that's the judicial determination. [01:57:49] Speaker 1: I think you can be seated. Go ahead, Mr. Brooks. Please continue with your question. [01:58:05] Speaker 3: Have you ever had any interactions with this entity, State of Wisconsin? [01:58:12] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, under 90611, I'm not going to allow the witness to answer. It's vague. [01:58:17] Speaker 3: There was no objection. [01:58:20] Speaker 1: Under 90611, I shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses. Please, next topic. These questions we addressed during the initial cross-examination of this witness. [01:58:34] Speaker 3: They're going to keep coming in. [01:58:36] Speaker 1: And I determined at that time that they weren't relevant. So, next topic. They're going to keep coming in. Under 90611, sir, please move on to a new topic. They're going to keep coming in. Or the cross-examination, I will end. [01:58:51] Speaker 3: Do you see the State of Wisconsin president in the courtroom today? [01:58:55] Speaker 1: Objection. Argumentative. Irrelevant. Sustained. Final warning, sir. Next topic or the cross-examination, I will bring it to an end. [01:59:02] Speaker 3: You all got to keep doing that, Your Honor. You all got to keep doing that. [01:59:06] Speaker 1: It's my responsibility, sir, over this trial. [01:59:10] Speaker 3: I'm informed. Thank you. And I respect that. [01:59:13] Speaker 1: Next topic. [01:59:14] Speaker 3: But it's relevant for the jury to know the truth. They deserve to know the truth. [01:59:21] Speaker 1: Move to strike, Your Honor. Granted, the jury will disregard those last statements. Objection to that. That's not relevant. Mr. Brooks is not testifying. They mistake the law. [01:59:30] Speaker ?: I object to that. [01:59:31] Speaker 3: That's not lawful law. It's truthful. Noted. [01:59:35] Speaker 1: All right. Under 90611, I am now stopping the cross-examination. Any redirect by the State? [01:59:42] Speaker 3: Objection to that. And I would like to go find an effect. Noted. [01:59:46] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper, any redirect? [01:59:48] Speaker 2: Yes. Just very briefly, Your Honor. I would like to display for the witness-only exhibit 178. [01:59:56] Speaker 3: Objection. [01:59:57] Speaker 1: I haven't seen the exhibit yet, so I'll take it under advisement. [02:00:02] Speaker 3: I'm objecting still because the -- [02:00:04] Speaker 1: You may show it to the witness. [02:00:07] Speaker 3: There needs to be an answer to why the jury's not being told information that they deserve to know. [02:00:15] Speaker 1: Go ahead, Attorney Opper. [02:00:17] Speaker 2: Your Honor, for the record, this is a video. I'm going to play about the first five or ten seconds for the witness to identify it before moving on, please. [02:00:26] Speaker 3: And this seems -- objection because this seems like a whole new exhibit. This was never mentioned before. It was never -- [02:00:32] Speaker 1: I haven't seen it. I can't rule on it, sir. So let me see it and I'll take your objection under -- I'll take the objection under advisement. Go ahead. [02:00:40] Speaker 3: I haven't seen this in any of the exhibits that I have, so how could it just be created now and be made an exhibit? [02:00:46] Speaker 1: Go ahead, Attorney Opper. [02:00:47] Speaker 3: I have all the exhibits. [02:00:49] Speaker 1: Go ahead, Attorney Opper. I haven't seen it yet. There's nothing on my screen that I can see. I see it's now planned. [02:00:56] Speaker 3: So now we just create exhibits now. I have all the exhibits, and this was never ending. Oh, man. All right. [02:01:06] Speaker ?: You can stop. [02:01:06] Speaker 2: Sir, do you recognize what's contained in State's Exhibit 178? Objection. [02:01:19] Speaker 3: Overruled. Relevancy. Overruled. [02:01:22] Speaker 2: Go ahead and answer. [02:01:23] Speaker 3: Yes, I do. [02:01:24] Speaker 1: What is it? [02:01:25] Speaker 3: Objection. [02:01:26] Speaker 1: Leading. [02:01:27] Speaker 3: Overruled. Objection leading. [02:01:29] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [02:01:31] Speaker 3: Oh. I'm still going to object. How is it? [02:01:34] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I ask that you honor the ruling that I have been made. [02:01:37] Speaker 3: I have all the exhibits, though, Your Honor. I have a form. Mr. Brooks. You got it to me, and this was never in the exhibit. So how can it just be made an exhibit just out of the blue? [02:01:45] Speaker 1: I'll take this up outside the presence of the jury, but I'm going to allow it. [02:01:48] Speaker 3: Can that be stated for the record? Can that be explained? No. [02:01:51] Speaker 1: The jury will disregard the statements made by Mr. Brooks. They're not evidence, and the statement continues. [02:01:57] Speaker 3: So this exhibit shouldn't be evidenced, then, because it didn't exist before today. Mr. Brooks, the objection's noted. [02:02:01] Speaker 1: It's overruled. Go ahead. [02:02:03] Speaker 5: There was a still photo shown before of Mr. Brooks standing in front of the forest cape. This is the video in which that still photo was taken from. [02:02:14] Speaker 1: Objection. [02:02:15] Speaker 5: How did he know that? [02:02:17] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. I'll give you the opportunity to question him about it when the state's done asking the questions. Go ahead. [02:02:27] Speaker 2: Where'd you get this video from, sir? Objection. [02:02:31] Speaker 5: Leading. [02:02:32] Speaker 1: Overruled. The witness may answer. [02:02:34] Speaker 5: For Mr. Brooks' social media accounts. Okay. [02:02:37] Speaker 2: Your Honor, move to admit 178 and permission to publish. Objection. [02:02:43] Speaker 3: To the relevancy. I'll find that it's relevant. [02:02:48] Speaker 1: I'll receive exhibit 168. Permission to publish is granted for the record. It's 178, Your Honor. [02:02:56] Speaker 2: No. [02:02:57] Speaker 1: Could you please tell me the length of the video? [02:02:59] Speaker 2: The length is 2 minutes 33 seconds. We're going to play it in its entirety but without volume, Your Honor. All right. [02:03:10] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:03:10] Speaker 3: I object to that and I would like to make an offer of proof of my view. [02:03:16] Speaker 1: We'll do that outside the presence of the jury but I will allow the state to play it in its entirety without audio. [02:03:22] Speaker 3: Your Honor, I have all the exhibits they were provided. Mr. Brooks, I'll take that up along with the other two issues I still need to address. But how can you play something that I didn't even have? [02:03:31] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I'll take that up outside the presence of the jury because your objections are noted. This is mind boggling. Mind boggling. This is mind boggling. [02:03:38] Speaker 3: Mind boggling. [02:03:39] Speaker 2: Actually, Your Honor, I changed my mind. I would like to play the audio, please. This is mind boggling. [02:03:45] Speaker 3: Mind boggling. [02:03:46] Speaker 1: Mind boggling. I want to have it played first without and then I'll make a ruling and I'll take that up. Okay. I understand. Thank you. [02:03:55] Speaker 2: So we will play the entire video, Your Honor. Two minutes, 33 seconds. [02:04:03] Speaker 3: I have objection to that. Why does the whole video need to be played? Is this setting the foundation? [02:04:10] Speaker 1: It's relevant. You questioned the officer about it. You questioned the detective about his knowledge. [02:04:15] Speaker 3: I questioned him about the steel frame from the video. The video wasn't even in the exhibits that I received. It actually didn't even receive it. Mr. Brooks, please stop. [02:04:30] Speaker 1: The jury will disregard his statements. He's not testifying. The video's playing. [02:04:43] Speaker ?: It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. It's a play of sound. I'll address that later. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. I don't know what we address widely. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. It's a play of sound. It's a play of sound. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. I don't know what we address widely. It's a play of sound. It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. I don't know what we address widely. [02:05:10] Speaker 3: It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. [02:05:13] Speaker ?: I don't know what we address widely. It's a play of sound. [02:05:15] Speaker 1: I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. [02:05:17] Speaker ?: I don't know what we address widely. [02:05:19] Speaker 3: It's a play of sound. I want to hear it now. I'll address that later. I don't know what we address widely. You too. [02:05:53] Speaker ?: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:03] Speaker 3: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:06] Speaker ?: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:34] Speaker 1: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:37] Speaker 2: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:58] Speaker 3: I don't know what we address widely. [02:06:59] Speaker 1: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:07:02] Speaker 3: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:07:04] Speaker 2: I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. I don't know what we address widely. [02:07:13] Speaker 3: I don't know what we address widely. [02:07:23] Speaker 5: Yes I was. [02:07:24] Speaker 2: As you just watched the entire video again now in court. As states exhibit 178. Did you clearly see Mr. Brooks in that video sir? [02:07:34] Speaker 5: Objection. Lady. [02:07:36] Speaker 2: Overruled. The witness may answer. [02:07:38] Speaker 5: I believe there's no doubt that that's Mr. Brooks in the video. And later standing next to the forest gate. [02:07:44] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:07:45] Speaker 1: I don't have any other questions Your Honor. As to this particular piece of evidence only. Mr. Brooks you may ask questions of Detective Casey. [02:07:55] Speaker 3: Objection. I don't consent to being called that name. Noted. [02:07:58] Speaker 1: Do you have any questions for the witness? [02:08:00] Speaker 3: This. When did this video. When was this made an exhibit? Because I don't have it. [02:08:08] Speaker 2: Objection. That's not a question for the witness Your Honor. That was a question. [02:08:12] Speaker 3: When was this video made an exhibit? When was this video made an exhibit? That is a question. [02:08:23] Speaker 2: I object to the question directed at the witness Your Honor. It's beyond the scope of his knowledge. [02:08:28] Speaker 3: Well he said he saw it. [02:08:30] Speaker 1: But that's not the question. So you can rephrase your question. If you want to. [02:08:34] Speaker 3: When did you see this exhibit? When did you see it? [02:08:37] Speaker 1: With the understanding that you're asking when did he see the video. I will allow the question to be asked. [02:08:42] Speaker 3: When did you see this exhibit? [02:08:44] Speaker 1: With that understanding you may answer Detective Casey. [02:08:47] Speaker 5: Am I answering when I saw the video for the first time? [02:08:50] Speaker 1: Yes. [02:08:51] Speaker 5: Objection Your Honor. Why is something always funny at that table? [02:08:55] Speaker 3: I know. It would be the same thing. I take that as disrespect because they were allowed to say something and I said under my breath that was disrespect. They just did the same thing. [02:09:04] Speaker 1: I would direct both parties to avoid commentary and gestures and faces. [02:09:06] Speaker 3: Can you do that please and acknowledge them because I'm always the one getting admonished. [02:09:10] Speaker 1: Everyone. [02:09:11] Speaker 3: I take that as disrespect too. [02:09:12] Speaker 1: Sir, I'm good. Can I do my job? States directed to avoid laughing commentary. I didn't see it so I can't further comment. I was looking at the witness. [02:09:23] Speaker 3: All these cameras in here. Don't nobody ever see that there. [02:09:25] Speaker 1: However, I'm advising both parties to show decorum. Come on man. This is not fair. Right. To be respectful of this jury's time and attention and to let them do their job by focusing on the testimony and exhibits and evidence that's presented. Go ahead Detective Casey. You can answer the question about when you have seen this video prior to today. [02:09:54] Speaker 5: I saw the video within a few days of Mr. Brooks being arrested. I've reviewed it since then a few times. I reviewed it yesterday and again this morning and now in court again. [02:10:09] Speaker 3: You said you reviewed it yesterday and this morning. If you had seen this video numerous times before yesterday and today, why did you feel the need to view it yesterday and today? Objection, argumentative. [02:10:22] Speaker 2: Grounds. Sustained as to the form of the question. [02:10:25] Speaker 3: Why did you need to review it this morning? [02:10:27] Speaker 1: Objection, argumentative. Overruled, the witness may answer. [02:10:33] Speaker 5: Because I wanted to be 100% sure of the content and if there's any questions that were asked of it, I wanted to make sure that I would be able to answer them appropriately. [02:10:43] Speaker 3: And why was this, to your knowledge, why was this video never brought up in your earlier testimony? [02:10:49] Speaker 1: Objection, that's a misstatement, Your Honor. [02:10:51] Speaker 3: Sustained as to the form of the question. It was not brought up in the earlier testimony. [02:10:55] Speaker 1: It was not in evidence. [02:10:57] Speaker 3: If you had seen it numerous times before today, why did you need to see it again to make sure if any questions were asked or however you refer to it? What would be the need to view again this morning something that you had viewed numerous times before? [02:11:20] Speaker 2: Objection, full objection, compound, asked and answered, misstatement of the facts, argumentative. Sustained. [02:11:29] Speaker 3: Did you view the video this morning because you knew that the video would be made in the exhibit this morning? [02:11:40] Speaker 1: Objection, assumes facts, not in evidence. Sustained. As to the form of the question. [02:11:46] Speaker 3: This is mine, by the way. This is mine, by the way. [02:11:53] Speaker ?: Answered. [02:11:57] Speaker 3: Can you clarify again why you viewed the video this morning? [02:12:00] Speaker 2: Objection, asked and answered. Sustained. [02:12:03] Speaker 3: So you're going to sustain everything? [02:12:05] Speaker 1: It was already answered, sir. Next question, please. [02:12:09] Speaker 3: And I'm asking for clarification. [02:12:11] Speaker 1: Next question, please. [02:12:14] Speaker 3: I don't have any more questions, ma'am. [02:12:16] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. [02:12:18] Speaker 3: This is mine, by the way. [02:12:19] Speaker 1: Detective, you may step down. I'll excuse the jury. [02:12:21] Speaker 3: What you people are trying to do is not fair. Hide things from the jury repeatedly. Don't tell them all the information they need to know. [02:12:28] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I'm going to take up all of your objections outside the presence of the jury. I ask that you honor my decision to do that and you show courtesy and decorum. Because you asked. Mr. Brooks, please. Because you asked. [02:12:39] Speaker 3: Because you asked. That's the only reason. Because you asked. I see what you people are trying to do. It's not right. It's not fair. It's not right. You can have a seat. [02:12:57] Speaker 1: Well, once the jury is outside of the courtroom, I'll take up the objections previously and the evidence. All right. First of all, Attorney Hopper, if you can make a record as to this exhibit and whether it's been turned over previously. [02:13:17] Speaker 2: It was previously included in the initial discovery that was sent initially to the public defender's office and now we have a record that those three boxes were turned over to Mr. Brooks. [02:13:33] Speaker 3: I don't consent to being called that name and it was not in the video footage that I have obtained. That video was not part of it. Do you think I would sit here and be this irritated? Mr. Brooks, I need to make a record. [02:13:49] Speaker 1: So just please sit down. There's no need for you to stand at the moment. [02:13:53] Speaker 3: I feel like standing right now. Please sit down. I feel like standing. All right. [02:13:57] Speaker 1: Based upon the offer of proof provided by the state and it was provided to prior counsel. That says that satisfies me as to that issue. I indicated I would. [02:14:15] Speaker 3: That's inaccurate, Your Honor. Can we can we have the prior counsel to testify to that again? Not at this time, sir. I have not obtained that. Right now, that was my first time seeing that as an exhibit. That's where I raised the issue. [02:14:28] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I presume, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but you're familiar with that video. [02:14:33] Speaker 3: Yes or no? What does that have to do with what we're talking about? [02:14:36] Speaker 1: Because I'm going to make a finding based upon what I viewed in that video that there's absolutely no surprise to you. It appears to me even without the video that that's a music video, that you are in it. That the vehicle that has been the subject of this entire case, that Red Ford Escape with a plate that's been testified to, is in that video. That video is relevant for a number of different reasons. The first of which, it goes to identification of you, identification of the vehicle. You opened up the door through your cross-exam of Detective Casey about his ability to identify you in that video. And when I say identification of you, specifically as it relates to Detective Casey's opinion that that's you in the video. Of course, it's ultimately up to the jury to determine that and what relevance, if any, that evidence have. But you opened up the door for the state to show that video because you directly attacked the credibility of Detective Casey through his knowledge of it and the identification by him of you in it because the still image was of your back. Okay. So that opened up the door and it's proper. There's absolutely no surprise to you that that video exists and that is my finding as it relates to that. [02:16:02] Speaker 3: What do you mean why it's no surprise to me that exists? That was not the issue. The issue was how was it made an exhibit at the last moment? How does it be made an exhibit out of the blue? That was the issue. The issue can't have anything to do with it. [02:16:13] Speaker 1: The state can make an offer of proof on that because obviously they marked it as an exhibit. They had it so go ahead. So go ahead. [02:16:20] Speaker 3: Attorney Hummer. But what I respect my honor here is characterizing what I said and that the record needs to be cleared. The issue that I raised was how does this at the last minute out of the blue become an exhibit. That was the issue. [02:16:31] Speaker 2: Attorney Hummer, go ahead and make your offer of proof on that. Attorney Hummer: Thank you, Judge. And another thing worth noting is the testimony of Detective Casey that this video was obtained from the defendant's own Facebook account as well. The court is well aware. [02:16:44] Speaker 3: Attorney Hummer: Objection. He says social media. [02:16:46] Speaker 1: Attorney Hummer: There's nothing that-- Attorney Hummer: Hold on. Sir, stop interrupting. We have to make a record of it. [02:16:51] Speaker 3: Attorney Hummer: They make the record clear. [02:16:52] Speaker 1: Attorney Hummer: You've interrupted multiple times. I've been abundantly patient with you. Attorney Hummer: Make the record clear. Attorney Hummer: You. Attorney Hummer: Again, another interruption. So you need to be quiet and let the state make a record. Stop gesturing at me. Attorney Hummer: Are you asking me to be quiet? Attorney Hummer: Stop rolling your eyes at me. Attorney Hummer: Are you asking? Attorney Hummer: Stop mumbling. [02:17:07] Speaker 3: Attorney Hummer: I'm looking right at you. I'm not rolling my eyes. [02:17:09] Speaker 1: Attorney Hummer: No, you have throughout. I've seen it and I've made note of it. [02:17:11] Speaker 3: Attorney Hummer: I'm looking at you. Okay, so are you asking me to be quiet or are you telling me to be quiet? [02:17:15] Speaker 2: Attorney Hummer: Go ahead, Attorney Opper. Attorney Opper: Thank you, Your Honor. Attorney Opper: I'm going to take that as asking. Attorney Opper: And just to indicate, Your Honor, this court has been abundantly patient with Mr. Brooks. He challenges the court's authority repeatedly. Attorney Opper: This court absolutely has the ability to tell him to sit down and be quiet. Attorney Opper: And you haven't done that. Attorney Opper: And I know why you haven't done that, Your Honor. Attorney Opper: And we appreciate that. Attorney Opper: He is not in control of this courtroom. Attorney Opper: You are. Attorney Opper: And he needs to respect that. Attorney Opper: This video was relevant based on his questioning of Detective Casey, Attorney Opper: As you just indicated, challenging his ability to identify the person who had their back turned to the camera in the still shot of States Exhibit 175. Attorney Opper: Trials are fluid. Attorney Opper: When he opened the door to that, we came up with the video which Detective Casey Attorney Opper: testified repeatedly on direct examination and cross-examination as to how Attorney Opper: he knew that was Mr. Brooks because he had seen the rest of the video. Attorney Opper: He would not accept that. Attorney Opper: He pushed it and pushed it and pushed it until we played the video. Attorney Opper: The lyrics of that video probably would have been prejudicial. Attorney Opper: Originally, I wasn't going to ask for volume. Attorney Opper: Then I did because he pushed it again and his voice and his mannerism of speech, Attorney Opper: I thought would have assisted the jury in identifying Mr. Brooks as the person Attorney Opper: in the video with the red SUV. Attorney Opper: However, you smartly asked me to play it without the audio. Attorney Opper: And I did that and then I never went back to that. Attorney Opper: This is all to the benefit of this defendant who continues to suggest and impugn Attorney Opper: the integrity of this court and this prosecution without basis. Attorney Opper: He doesn't like it because the evidence is stacking up and stacking up. Attorney Opper: And whenever it does, his response is to accuse you, the court, or the prosecutors Attorney Opper: of being unethical and hiding things. Attorney Opper: There is nothing in law that prevents me from pulling something out of my briefcase right now Attorney Opper: and making it an exhibit if it's relevant. Attorney Opper: You decide what's relevant, what's admissible, not Mr. Brooks. Attorney Opper: There is no law. Attorney Opper: He can cite to no law, no authority whatsoever that says I can't make an exhibit Attorney Opper: essentially on the fly if it's called for. Attorney Opper: And that's exactly what just happened here. Attorney Opper: So I apologize for my tone with the court. Attorney Opper: I don't mean to direct this at the court. Attorney Opper: It is very frustrating. Attorney Opper: The court has demonstrated much more patience than I have with Mr. Brooks. Attorney Opper: Because again, I do not appreciate his impugning the integrity of these proceedings, Attorney Opper: of Your Honor's efforts to run a fair trial, and of our efforts to run a fair trial. Attorney Opper: We have ethical obligations as well to be fair in this courtroom. Attorney Opper: We have respected that entirely. Attorney Opper: The reason I was laughing 30 seconds ago was because the exhibit was mislabeled. Attorney Opper: There was an extra Y and it said Exhibity, E-X-H-I-B-I-T-Y. Attorney Opper: And I turned around to the paralegal and pointed that out, and we laughed over it, Attorney Opper: the word Exhibity. Attorney Opper: That was it. Attorney Opper: There has been no disrespect directed at Mr. Brooks directly in any fashion. Attorney Opper: So, he can object all he wants, and he has made that clear. Attorney Opper: He will continue to object and obstruct the court and obstruct these proceedings Attorney Opper: every last chance he gets. Attorney Opper: But legally, everything has been above board and proper, and this exhibit is no exception. Attorney Opper: I apologize for my tone, Judge. Attorney Opper: Thank you. [02:21:17] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I appreciate that additional record being made. [02:21:21] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I object to that. [02:21:23] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: My previous ruling doesn't change in any way that the exhibit is relevant. Attorney Opper: I indicated I would take it up because, and I'm taking what the state's saying as withdrawing the request to play the lyrics. Attorney Opper: That is correct. Attorney Opper: Alright. Attorney Opper: I have not heard them, but I'll certainly take the state at its word as an officer of the court that it would be prejudicial based upon the lyrics that are in that video. Attorney Opper: But my decision to admit the video without audio stands. Attorney Opper: I do want to take up two other issues. Attorney Opper: There was an objection to questions regarding cross-examination. Attorney Opper: So the objections were by the state. Attorney Opper: One had to do with possible, there was question about possible testimony with his niece and nephew, and then the jail cell search issues. Attorney Opper: So, Mr. Brooks, you asked the questions. Attorney Opper: The state had objected. Attorney Opper: Since you're the proponent of what would presumably come in through the testimony of Detective Casey, what is your offer of proof as to why I should allow Detective Casey to come back on the stand and testify about his interaction? Attorney Opper: I believe it was with your mom and possible testimony of your niece and nephew. [02:22:42] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: It don't matter with Detective Casey. Attorney Opper: He's off the stand. Attorney Opper: He's not going back on the stand. Attorney Opper: No, but I told you I would recall him. Attorney Opper: No. [02:22:49] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I wanted to take it up outside the presence of the jury. Attorney Opper: No. Attorney Opper: How do I supposed to know? [02:22:52] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: So are you withdrawing that, sir? Attorney Opper: How am I supposed to know? [02:22:55] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I think I deserve a chance to rebut what was just said. [02:22:56] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I think I deserve that much if it's a fair trial. [02:23:03] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: What information do you want to provide to me about that last exhibit? [02:23:09] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: About what last exhibit? Attorney Opper: I'm talking about the audacity of the prosecution to just put that on the record when it's stating it's untrue. [02:23:17] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I don't know what you're talking about. Attorney Opper: What's untrue? [02:23:20] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: We just heard her talk for five, ten minutes straight. Attorney Opper: Now don't nobody know what I'm talking about. Attorney Opper: I don't know specifically what you're talking about, sir. Attorney Opper: There's a reference made to what I'm supposed to know about the evidence stacking up and this and that as if that has any bearing on what I still think and what I'm still going to present. Attorney Opper: It doesn't. [02:23:41] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Well, that's not what we're talking about at the moment. Attorney Opper: I made a ruling on an exhibit. [02:23:45] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: She's been laughing and making comments under her breath the whole time during the whole trial and I never said nothing. Attorney Opper: I don't know what's being said, but I can tell that it's directed towards me. Attorney Opper: I'm not an idiot. Attorney Opper: I haven't made any of those observations, sir. [02:24:00] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I didn't say you. Attorney Opper: I didn't say you, your honor. [02:24:02] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: No, no, no. Attorney Opper: What I've observed is as -- Attorney Opper: For her -- listen, please. Attorney Opper: Go ahead. Attorney Opper: For her to sit there and try to play it off as if she's not referencing to me, she must think I'm an idiot. Attorney Opper: Nobody said that, sir. [02:24:15] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: That is very disrespectful to me. [02:24:16] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I haven't said anything about that until today. Attorney Opper: She's done it numerous times. [02:24:21] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: What are you talking about? Attorney Opper: I don't know what you're talking about. [02:24:23] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Her laughing under her breath. Attorney Opper: Her trying to cover up the microphone so they can laugh and he-he and kiki-kiki. Attorney Opper: They've been doing that the whole time. Attorney Opper: Any specific instance, sir. [02:24:32] Speaker ?: Attorney Opper: I didn't say anything about it. [02:24:33] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I didn't say anything about it. Attorney Opper: Any specific instance, sir. Attorney Opper: I didn't say anything about it. [02:24:36] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I have not noticed that. Attorney Opper: What I notice are three attorneys who cover up the microphone so that they're not heard when they're conferring with each other about evidentiary issues or about testimony. Attorney Opper: So why is it always laughing and giggling? [02:24:49] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I haven't noticed that other than the one thing you pointed out. [02:24:52] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Well, we have cameras. [02:24:53] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: That's what the cameras are for. [02:24:56] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Let's refocus our attention on what we're here for and that's this trial. Attorney Opper: Okay. Attorney Opper: And do you have anything you want to put on the record? [02:25:03] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I'm putting it on the record if I get a chance. [02:25:05] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: No, you need to let me finish. Attorney Opper: As it relates to the video and my decision to admit it. [02:25:11] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: She just admitted that she just now came with the exhibit. Attorney Opper: It was not what she just said. Attorney Opper: She just made it an exhibit. Attorney Opper: That doesn't mean it wasn't an exhibit before she made it one. [02:25:19] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: So do you have some legal basis, sir, for your position? [02:25:24] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: What do I mean legal basis for when she just admitted on the record that she just made this exhibit up right now? [02:25:32] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: That is a complete mischaracterization. [02:25:35] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: So she wasn't implying that by saying that she could pull anything out of her suitcase? [02:25:42] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: So that's a figure of speech. [02:25:44] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Okay, so what is it implying to? Attorney Opper: What would that be implying to? Attorney Opper: As attorney -- [02:25:49] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I'm moving on because you're not providing me with any legal basis for me to -- [02:25:54] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I didn't even finish. [02:25:55] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: You told me that I could make the record. Attorney Opper: I'm attempting to make the record. Attorney Opper: Sir, as it relates to the video and my decision to admit it. Attorney Opper: I've just said that you didn't even let me finish. Attorney Opper: You're not letting me finish. Attorney Opper: You didn't let me finish either, Your Honor! Attorney Opper: Because you're not providing me your rant. Attorney Opper: But how do you know I wouldn't get into that if I'd finish? Attorney Opper: You're providing commentary. Attorney Opper: You're not providing me with anything from a legal basis for which I would consider changing my mind. Attorney Opper: So the state's withdrawn their request to play the audio. Attorney Opper: Then why play the video at audio? Attorney Opper: I've already made a ruling on that. Attorney Opper: You're questioning the ruling. Attorney Opper: You're not asking me to reconsider it based on any legal -- [02:26:32] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: There should be a legal reconsideration of it. [02:26:36] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Then you need to provide me with the legal basis for that, sir. [02:26:40] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: So I'm supposed to just come off that with the top -- off the top of my head? Attorney Opper: Yes. Attorney Opper: That's ridiculous! Attorney Opper: You're representing yourself. [02:26:47] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: It's not ridiculous. Attorney Opper: It is ridiculous. [02:26:50] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: So I was supposed to -- I was supposed to already come in here this morning to say, oh, a video is going to be shown off the fly at the drop of a hat. Attorney Opper: Let me try to find some legal thing to combat -- how am I supposed to do that? [02:27:01] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, you open -- the bottom line is you open the door to the playing of that video. [02:27:04] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: We're not talking about opening no doors. [02:27:05] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: And the video was previously provided to you during discovery. Attorney Opper: We're not talking about opening no doors. Attorney Opper: We're not talking about opening no doors. [02:27:10] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: We're talking about being fair. [02:27:11] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: There's absolutely no prejudice to you in terms of surprise. Attorney Opper: With all due respect, with all due respect, if I had done that -- [02:27:15] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I am going to move on from this town. Attorney Opper: If I had done that, it would have been a big thing. [02:27:22] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, I'm advising you -- Attorney Opper: Are you asking me? Attorney Opper: I'm advising you, sir. Attorney Opper: Oh, okay. [02:27:27] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I don't know what that means. [02:27:28] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I'm advising you to sit down and be quiet. [02:27:30] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I don't know what that means. [02:27:31] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: And if you interrupt me again, you are on notice that you will forfeit your right to be present in this trial. [02:27:36] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: So you're holding me content. [02:27:38] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks. [02:27:39] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: For the entire trial? Attorney Opper: Did you say the entire trial? [02:27:42] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I never said any such thing. [02:27:43] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: You said for the trial. Attorney Opper: Please. Attorney Opper: So what do you mean? [02:27:46] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I'm asking, what do you mean? Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, you continue to come at me. Attorney Opper: That is not -- [02:27:49] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I don't consent to being caught that man. [02:27:50] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: You continue to fight with me. Attorney Opper: I'm not fighting with you. Attorney Opper: You are being disrespectful. Attorney Opper: I'm not fighting with you. [02:27:54] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I'm not. [02:27:55] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I'm going to give you one last opportunity to sit down and be quiet so I can make a finding as it relates to other things. [02:28:01] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Are you asking me to do that? [02:28:02] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I don't need to ask him telling you. Attorney Opper: Thank you. Attorney Opper: There were two other issues that came up that I advised the parties I would take up outside the presence of the jury and give, if appropriate, Mr. Brooks the opportunity to ask further questions of Detective Casey. Attorney Opper: There was questioning by Mr. Brooks about possible testimony and why -- it had to do with -- it was in the context of him questioning Detective Casey about speaking speaking with Dawn Woods, his mother, in about a time in August, and there was some reference to his niece and nephew. Attorney Opper: And I sustained the objection. Attorney Opper: I wanted to take it up outside the presence of the jury. Attorney Opper: That's the first issue. Attorney Opper: The second issue was the questioning of Detective Casey by Mr. Brooks related to the jail search. Attorney Opper: Do you want the opportunity to question Detective Casey? Attorney Opper: That's the question Detective Casey about either one of these two topics is my first question. [02:29:10] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Okay, why was it -- why was it an issue we would be bringing -- [02:29:13] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, I'm only going to ask you one more time and if you don't answer it correctly, then I will answer it. [02:29:17] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I'm saying, if I don't understand -- if I don't understand what was the problem in the get-go with the question, how am I supposed to answer it now? [02:29:23] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, listen to me, please. Attorney Opper: I'm going to ask this question one more time. [02:29:29] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Man, I don't like your tone and the way you're talking to me. Attorney Opper: I don't. Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks, sit down. [02:29:35] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I don't care if you don't like my tone. Attorney Opper: No, I'm not going to say that. Attorney Opper: You've been pushing my buttons all day throughout this entire trial. Attorney Opper: Okay, you've been pushing my buttons too? Attorney Opper: And I have shown the utmost of respect for you. Attorney Opper: No, you haven't. Attorney Opper: Absolutely not. Attorney Opper: And I don't appreciate you impugning the integrity of this court. [02:29:48] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I don't. Attorney Opper: If that's what you want to call it, that's fine, but it's not accurate. Attorney Opper: Stop talking. Attorney Opper: What do you mean stop talking? [02:29:53] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I need to make a ruling. Attorney Opper: Okay, I'm purposely not putting you in the other courtroom right now. [02:29:58] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Let's talk to each other like adult steam. [02:30:00] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: Mr. Brooks. [02:30:01] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: Because I've never told you to stop talking. [02:30:03] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: I'm going to ask this question one more time and if he doesn't answer it, I'll take it as a no. Attorney Opper: Do you want the opportunity to question Detective Casey regarding either his questioning or meeting up with your mom and your niece and nephew about possible testimony or the jail, the search of your jail cell? Yes or no? [02:30:24] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: What was the problem with me asking the question about the jail cell? [02:30:29] Speaker 1: Attorney Opper: All right, he's not answered my question. We'll move on. [02:30:31] Speaker 3: Attorney Opper: I'm trying to understand. Attorney Opper: If I don't understand, how do I know? [02:30:34] Speaker 2: Attorney Opper: We're going to take it right. [02:30:35] Speaker ?: Attorney Opper: We're going to take it right. Attorney Opper: We're going to take it right. Attorney Opper: We're going to take it right. Attorney Opper: We're going to take it right. Thank you.