Darrell Brooks Trial — Day 14 (Pt. 1) [The State's Closing Argument]

[00:00:00] Darryl Brooks: 14th Amendment due process rights. I make a reservation for those rights, especially, but all rights at this time. The record to reflect that the [00:00:10] Speaker 2: individual known to this court as Darryl Brooks is present in person in custody. He is appearing today in street clothes. He has a dress shirt and a tie on. He's also wearing a mask. And I don't consent to being called that name [00:00:25] Darryl Brooks: for the record. As this paperwork, I accept for value and return for value as it does not state the correct name. It states the name of my client, the straw man. I am not this name in all capital letters. I do not identify by that name, nor do I know that [00:00:42] Speaker 2: individual. Your objection is noted it's baseless in law. In fact, that is simply a caption on a pleading. That is not my name. Final jury instructions. That is not my name. For the record. All right, the record should reflect. Mr. Brooks, I'm talking. The record should reflect that at 3:23 p.m. yesterday, all of the verdict forms were printed off and provided to Mr. Brooks. I also provided him with an excerpt from the bench book on closing arguments as we are about that time in the proceeding for the parties to give their closing arguments. Of course, prior to that, the court will be reading through the final jury instructions. The parties were also given the updated version following the jury instruction conference yesterday. Your Honor, I accept for value and return for value in the [00:01:40] Darryl Brooks: documents that you just alluded to. I have not seen them. [00:01:49] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, if you haven't seen them, that is by your choice. They were provided to you. I know on multiple occasions yesterday, you threw items into the garbage can. The court retrieved the final jury instructions. I personally didn't. I had someone do it, had them placed on the table this morning and any other items you threw in the garbage. [00:02:08] Darryl Brooks: So is that is that the paperwork that I had to stay here for over an hour for? [00:02:15] Speaker 2: Sir, I'm not going to discuss I'm not going to discuss any further what we did during the jury instruction conference. The jury is going to be brought out a little bit later. [00:02:25] Darryl Brooks: There is a conference. We talking about the proceedings from yesterday or after you have told us we recessed for it. I'm referring to after you call recess for the night yesterday. That's what I'm referring to. [00:02:37] Speaker 2: I was I was I was putting the holding cell for over an hour because they say it was some paperwork that needed to be correct, sir. You were kept there in order for my clerk who had to finalize 76 verdicts to each one not guilty, one guilty and provide those to the parties. Is that so that's why you were kept there. So those could be handed to you. My understanding is they were I would need a bailiff to confirm for me whether he took those back to his cell or if they were put on his desk because he left them in the holding cell. [00:03:13] Darryl Brooks: What holding cell are you referring to your honey? Behind the door. I didn't leave anything in that holding cell. I was just trying to figure out why I was in there so long. [00:03:24] Speaker 2: Are those the verdicts? Yeah. All right. He has those. Thank you. [00:03:28] Darryl Brooks: Is this the paperwork that was just put on my it was paperwork on the desk when I came in that was on top of my folders. [00:03:38] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I know that they were you were given the opportunity to take them to your cell because that is what I was advised, whether you did that or not, I don't know. [00:03:50] Darryl Brooks: That's not they are also on your desk now. I said value return for value. Any documents? [00:03:57] Speaker 2: We did discuss all of the jury instructions and the verdicts yesterday. So what was discussed when I was in the cell for over? There was no discussion, sir. The court was in recess. Madam Clerk was simply finalizing the paperwork based upon the discussion that was held on the record in open court yesterday. I was told that I had to stay there per you. Yes, so that we could provide them to you and you would have an opportunity to take them back to your cell. [00:04:27] Darryl Brooks: Well, can they have been delivered to the jail? [00:04:32] Speaker 2: All right. I don't believe there's any other preliminary issues there are to address other than an advisement. I will have for Mr. Brooks, but let me turn to the parties and ask if there's anything preliminary to this phase of the trial, which is the jury instructions, the verdicts and closing arguments from the state. No, your honor. Thank you. All right. Anything else from you, sir? Yes, there is. [00:04:58] Darryl Brooks: Yesterday, I stressed to the court numerous times about me not understanding the proceedings and essentially how decisions are being made on my behalf without my understanding or giving consent. [00:05:19] Speaker 2: The court made various rulings yesterday. I made findings and ultimately made some determinations. I stand behind the record that was made. I'm not going to explain it further. [00:05:30] Darryl Brooks: So a lot of those decisions were made when I was not present in the courtroom. I was in the other courtroom, correct? That's true, sir. Is that correct? [00:05:38] Speaker 2: The record will indicate when those were made and where you were. [00:05:43] Darryl Brooks: I can't see the record though. How am I supposed to know what the record will affect? [00:05:50] Speaker 2: Sir, the decisions were made yesterday. I'm not revisiting them today. [00:05:55] Darryl Brooks: They need to be revisited and it also needs to be talked about. Subject matter jurisdiction that has yet to be proven for the record. I'm still trying to understand, Your Honor, how you made a judicial determination on my behalf, which I did not give consent to, to, as you say, I forfeited my right to testify, which I never did. I never said I wanted to, I never said I didn't want to, but that decision was made for me. Also, the decision for the defense to rest its case was made for me, which I did not consent to, nor did I say I was ready to rest, or nor did I say I did was ready to rest. None of my answers were unresponsive. I just didn't answer the way that Your Honor wanted me to answer, but I stressed yesterday, if I don't understand something, how am I supposed to answer a question that I don't understand fundamentally? It's not, it's not me saying yes or no, and it's not me saying, Okay, I want to waive this or that right. And I'm not, I'm not trying to make an argument with you in any way. I'm just seeking to understand how these decisions are made. If I'm letting the court know and I'm putting the court on notice, Hey, I don't understand this or I don't understand that. [00:07:30] Speaker 2: Any other things? Otherwise, I'm prepared to address each one of those. [00:07:34] Darryl Brooks: Yeah, if there is a conviction in this matter, there's a mention of sentencing. I know if there is a conviction on my half, people would definitely want to address the court. There'll be a lot of affairs that need to be put in order, obviously, on my side. If it pleases the court, if there is a conviction in this matter, I would like, the, uh, the sentencing to, to not be so quick. I'm asking if it pleases the court for the sentencing to be held off into a later time, not a day or two or a week. Just so that the affairs can be put in order properly. And so that the people that want to come in and speak will have the opportunity to address the court. If that pleases, if that pleases, I think that's a fair request. [00:08:30] Speaker 2: I have no idea how many people would want to speak. I think my inclination would be, again, and I'm, this is not set in stone. If there is a conviction, um, on any of these counts, I may ask the parties to just come back in on Monday, October 31st, with, uh, kind of a proposed plan of how many people do you think will speak on your behalf? How long do you think it will take? Um, so that I can look at my calendar and then, uh, set aside the appropriate amount of time. I certainly don't want to rush anything, and I think that's a fair request that you're making. All right. Um, so with all of that then, sir, subject matter jurisdiction, I decline to address that further. I stand by the written decision, um, that I've made previously, um, as far as the rulings made yesterday regarding, uh, your ability or inability to present further testimony and witnesses and to testify yourself. The court did make various rulings and findings that you had forfeited your right to do so by conduct. [00:09:34] Darryl Brooks: It's still not, I have no understanding to, um, why I wasn't given the opportunity to place certain things into evidence. I have virtually nothing, nothing, zero evidence that I was able to place into evidence, nothing. [00:09:56] Speaker 2: I disagree with that, sir. You called, I think, nine witnesses on your behalf, um, on various issues including, uh, the honking of the horn, the window tinting. You cross-examine many of the state's witnesses about police barricades and the presence of police. So you did present evidence. [00:10:17] Darryl Brooks: I'm speaking to the terms of everything that, um, your honor asked me to do. You told me to, uh, put everything that, um, I needed to present to the courts in writing. You, you, you made that ruling. You told me that's what I needed to do. I did that. [00:10:37] Speaker 2: Um, I, Mr. Brooks, you may have interpreted that. I did not require you to do that as far as evidence. And to the extent that the record does not have, uh, meaning the record before the jury and the evidence does not have certain pieces of information, evidence, or testimony that you, uh, wanted to present, um, you forfeited that opportunity yesterday based upon your conduct. [00:11:03] Darryl Brooks: How did I forfeit the opportunity? [00:11:05] Speaker 2: Again, I'm not going to revisit that, sir. What I will tell you is this. [00:11:08] Darryl Brooks: How did I forfeit the opportunity to be able to place into evidence? [00:11:12] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm not going to debate this further. I'm not, I'm not trying to debate. I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to respect the fact that I've made rulings. [00:11:19] Darryl Brooks: Your honor, that's, that's, you made a judicial determination. It's not my job to explain them to you. I'm not asking you to explain anything. You're misinterpreting what I'm trying to ask you and trying to tell you. You're misinterpreting it. With all due respect, your honor. When you tell me this is what you need to do, I'm going to take it by what you're telling me that I need to do. If I needed to make anything request wise or anything that I needed to present to the court, it has to be in right. You told me to do that. I did it. You also brought up when I asked numerous times before, before, when would I have a chance to present things into evidence? You told me we were not at the evidentiary phase. I took that as saying, okay, well, at some point I will have the opportunity to place things in the evidence that need to be put in evidence for the record. So I'm not understanding how a decision can be made for me to actually forfeit being able to put things into the record that need to be placed into the record. All these things are things that, quite frankly, allow me to put on the things that need to be known. All these things that should be in the record as far as filings, as far as ICFs that I was told by you to address certain ICFs either to you or to the clerk of courts, which I did until last week. There was a few of them that I didn't receive copies for that. I'm still wondering why I haven't received those copies when I received the copies of all the ones before that. But in terms of that, I did what your honor asked me to do. And these are things that were part of my defense that needed to be placed into the record. So where my confusion comes in is not being able to place those things into the record. Things that clearly help my defense. [00:13:17] Speaker 2: I stand by my ruling. I'm not revisiting it. To the extent that you claim lack of understanding or your lack of consent, it's been made abundantly clear on this record, your position on that. I'm not revisiting it. I'm further advising you that when this jury comes out, I expect that you will honor the decisions that were made, not agree, but you will honor them and not interrupt the court for these proceedings as I instruct the jury. [00:13:45] Darryl Brooks: So how am I supposed to put these things in the record that need to be in the record? [00:13:49] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm well aware of the effect my ruling had, and I'm not going to debate it with you further. [00:13:55] Darryl Brooks: I just want to know how am I supposed to get these things on the record? How am I supposed to, because the filings that I gave, you actually filed and gave me the copies back. So are those in the record? [00:14:05] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm no longer going to talk about this. [00:14:08] Darryl Brooks: I'm just seeking to understand. [00:14:09] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I cannot explain procedure or evidence. The filings that I filed. Or the rulings or the law to you. [00:14:16] Darryl Brooks: I'm merely asking a question. The filings that I presented to your honor. [00:14:20] Speaker 2: Any filings with this court are in the court record. That does not mean they're evidence, sir. And I've told you that previously. [00:14:26] Darryl Brooks: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking, are the filings part of the record? The filings that were filed in time stamp that were notarized that I presented to the court. All the filings. The appearance bonds. The statement of particulars. The notice of special appearance. The court docket sheet. Your oath of office. Everything that I tried to present into the record. How am I not able to make them part of the record? [00:14:58] Speaker 2: Sir, they were filed because you presented them to the court during the course of this case. Anything that was not offered as an exhibit and received during the evidentiary phase is not evidence in this trial. [00:15:11] Darryl Brooks: That's what I attempted to do. And you told me that I couldn't. You told me. [00:15:15] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I am bringing this jury up. [00:15:18] Darryl Brooks: With all respect, you told me that we were not at the evident. When I said I have exhibits as well. I have stuff that I want to put into the record. I even asked, I said, can I give an offering to evidence? [00:15:32] Speaker 2: I'm going to stop you once again. I'm not going to have this discussion and debate. The evidentiary phase of this trial is closed. It should not be, though, Your Honor. I understand your lack of consent. Your objection is noted for the record. [00:15:46] Darryl Brooks: Where would I be able to put vital information into the record, which I haven't had the opportunity to do? [00:15:51] Speaker 2: That opportunity has closed for you, sir. [00:15:54] Darryl Brooks: So you're saying basically you're prejudicing my defense by me not being able to present things into evidence, offer into evidence, filings, and important paperwork and documents. [00:16:07] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, you've presented your right to do that by your conduct yesterday, and I stand behind that decision. [00:16:12] Darryl Brooks: I'm going to do the following, sir. I asked before yesterday, Your Honor. I asked this before yesterday. [00:16:16] Speaker 2: You have not honored my request to you that you cease debating me on prior rulings of the court. I'm not trying to debate. [00:16:24] Darryl Brooks: I'm trying to understand why my due process is being violated. [00:16:27] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, the record speaks for itself. [00:16:30] Darryl Brooks: No, the record does not. [00:16:30] Speaker 2: I am going to take a five-minute recess. When I come back out, the jury will also be coming out. I'm advising you. There will be no multiple opportunities where I give you to conform your conduct to the rules of decorum and courtesy. [00:16:51] Darryl Brooks: Well, then just hold me in contempt then, Your Honor. [00:16:53] Speaker 2: You are hereby advised that if you start talking about subject matter jurisdiction or any of these other issues or in any way interrupt the reading of the jury instructions, I will excuse the jury and you will be removed to the other courtroom. [00:17:12] Darryl Brooks: We're talking about the 14th Amendment, section one. [00:17:15] Speaker 2: I'm taking a five-minute break. Your Honor, I don't agree to estoppel. [00:17:18] Darryl Brooks: I don't agree to estoppel, Your Honor. It has yet to be proven for the record. And upon your refusal, that would be looked at as dishonor. [00:17:30] Speaker 2: I'm not addressing it. The jury's coming out. [00:17:33] Darryl Brooks: So is that a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer any questions as a public servant, Your Honor? Therefore, that's dishonor. Are you going to honor your oath of office? [00:17:48] Speaker 2: That's my previous ruling stand. I'm not addressing it. [00:17:49] Darryl Brooks: Are you going to honor your oath of office? [00:17:52] Speaker 2: All rise. [00:17:56] Darryl Brooks: So I'll take that as a tacit agreement that you're not going to honor your oath of office. All right. [00:18:00] Speaker 2: I'm going to have to excuse the jury. Mr. Brooks, I warned you that if you made any interruptions when they came out, you would be removed to the courtroom. That's what I'm doing right now. You're forfeiting your right to be present in this courtroom. Unless you can promise me right now, you'll respect prior rulings of this court and not interrupt this next phase of the trial, which is the court reading the jury instructions without interruption from you. Can you do that? [00:18:40] Darryl Brooks: Have I acted in dishonor, Your Honor? [00:18:42] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I very expressly warned you. [00:18:46] Darryl Brooks: Have I acted in dishonor? [00:18:48] Speaker 2: You have disobeyed a direct order from this court. [00:18:52] Darryl Brooks: Have I acted in dishonor? [00:18:54] Speaker 2: You have disrupted these proceedings. [00:18:57] Darryl Brooks: I have not disrupted these proceedings. [00:18:58] Speaker 2: Sir, can you pledge to me that when this jury comes back out, that you will remain silent and not reference things like subject matter jurisdiction, the court's oath of office, tacit agreements, or anything. Can you pledge that you will respect these proceedings and this jury by not interrupting? [00:19:19] Darryl Brooks: Have I acted in dishonor, Your Honor? [00:19:21] Speaker 2: I will ask you one more time. Can you pledge to be quiet, Sir? [00:19:26] Darryl Brooks: Why should I have to make a pledge, Your Honor? Have I acted in dishonor? [00:19:30] Speaker 2: Because under Illinois v. Allen, I believe you've already forfeited your right to be here, but you can reclaim that as soon as you are willing to conduct yourself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in these proceedings, which at this point in the proceedings, Sir, all I am doing is reading through the final jury instructions. I do not want that process interrupted by statements by you that are frankly misstatements of the law. [00:19:58] Darryl Brooks: If they're misstatements of the law, Your Honor, how come they haven't been proven for the record? And I'm asking, have I acted in dishonor? [00:20:03] Speaker 2: All right, he refuses to answer the questions. Have I acted in dishonor, Your Honor? I have given him an ample opportunity to do so. He has forfeited his right to be present for the reading of the jury instructions, and he is to be removed to the neighboring courtroom. We will be in recess until that takes place. [00:20:17] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, have I acted in dishonor? [00:20:19] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks has been placed in the other courtroom. He is presently on mute so that I can make a record. I do need to confirm that the audio and visual equipment and system is working. I am getting a thumbs up from the bailiff. I'll just ask Madam Clerk to confirm with the clerk that's over there as well. I would note Mr. Brooks has the headphones on. This court certainly doesn't take pleasure in removing Mr. Brooks from this courtroom once again. We are at an important stage of this proceeding where the court needs to instruct the jury concerning all of the law that will guide them in their deliberations, as well as review all of the verdict forms. There's absolutely no reason for there to be an interruption or an objection to this process at this time. The court spent the better part of Mr. Brooks raising issues and prior rulings that this court has spent an abundant amount of time on, including subject matter jurisdiction. He continues to claim he did not consent. That's been noted for the record. He continues to claim that he has a limited or no understanding of prior rulings and decisions of this court. This of course comes on the history in this case with the repeated removals that this court has had to undertake with Mr. Brooks given his conduct and his behavior in this case. I am currently being advised that he would like to come back, that of course is always something that I will give him. As soon as I make my full findings, I will pause and he will be brought back into this courtroom so that he can be in attendance when the jury is brought out. I will further advise him, though, that should he interrupt during the jury instruction phase of this trial by either objecting or raising issues I will consider admonishing him in the presence of the jury or simply removing the jury so that then I can admonish him and then making the appropriate record. All right. With that, since he's asking to come back, we will take a pause. We'll recess. We'll come back in when he is set up in this courtroom. Thank you, everyone. Record to reflect, we are all back in this courtroom. [00:23:11] Darryl Brooks: Before the jury is brought out, can we address subject matter jurisdiction, Your Honor? Absolutely not. Before the jury is brought out? [00:23:16] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [00:23:18] Darryl Brooks: Is that a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer those questions as a public servant, Your Honor? So are you going to act in dissonance? Mr. Brooks? Are you going to act in dissonance? [00:23:30] Speaker 2: I've already addressed your request. [00:23:33] Darryl Brooks: It hasn't been proven for the record, Your Honor. [00:23:35] Speaker 2: The jury is on its way. [00:23:37] Darryl Brooks: They're not out yet, though. [00:23:39] Speaker 2: But they're on the way. [00:23:40] Darryl Brooks: You held me in contempt. I'm not addressing these matters, sir. Have I acted in dishonor, Your Honor? You held me in contempt without me being in dishonor. How have I dishonored the court? Have I acted in dishonor? Have I rose my voice or argued with, Your Honor? Have I disrupted the courtroom in any way? [00:23:59] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, you're back in this courtroom at your request. The jury is coming out. I never should have been. Please be respectful of their time and this process and the dignity of the proceedings. [00:24:09] Darryl Brooks: They weren't even out before when I was trying to address what needed to be addressed before they came out. [00:24:15] Speaker 2: You're just attempting to disrupt the proceedings. [00:24:18] Darryl Brooks: Am I acting in dishonor? So that's a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer questions as a public servant. [00:24:29] Speaker 2: All right. The jury. [00:24:30] Darryl Brooks: No jury's out. [00:24:32] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks. No jury's out. [00:24:35] Darryl Brooks: I was trying to address this before they came out. [00:24:37] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, there, right outside this door, I am not going to do this with you this morning. You either abide by these rules and stay quiet or you will be in the other courtroom. [00:24:47] Darryl Brooks: Am I acting in dishonor? [00:24:48] Speaker 2: Yes, you are acting in dishonor. You are disobeying the direct order of this court to respect the decorum and the dignity of these proceedings. You are merely attempting to delay. [00:24:59] Darryl Brooks: I don't care what you think. That's not accurate. [00:25:01] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I am having this jury out. And if you say one word, when that door opens. [00:25:08] Darryl Brooks: You're making a tacit agreement. [00:25:09] Speaker 2: Then you will forfeit your right to be present. [00:25:12] Darryl Brooks: So you're acting in dishonor, then, Your Honor. [00:25:14] Speaker 2: All right. The jury may come in. [00:25:16] Darryl Brooks: You're acting in dishonor by making a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer any questions as a public servant. You're not holding up to your oath to protect the Constitution. All right. [00:25:26] Speaker 2: The door is open and he's talking. [00:25:28] Darryl Brooks: Okay. So you're going to hold me in contempt? [00:25:30] Speaker 2: The jury cannot come in. [00:25:32] Speaker ?: No mind. [00:25:32] Darryl Brooks: Are you going to hold me in contempt? [00:25:33] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks is going to be removed. We're in recess until then. How am I acting in dishonor? Appearances are as they were before. The record to reflect that Mr. Brooks is now in the other courtroom. I currently have him muted so that I can add to the record. I have confirmed he can hear and see as well. I would note he does have the headphones on while in that courtroom. He just lifted them up as well, or at least part of them. I understand Mr. Brooks is waving to the court. I'll address that momentarily, but the bottom line is there is a history of repeated disruptive behavior by Mr. Brooks. I warned him after he came back in. The first thing he wanted to do was address subject matter jurisdiction. So I warned him. Given the importance of the proceedings and the need for the court to advise this jury without interruption, he was removed once again. I will unmute him so that he can indicate what he would like to say to the court. You are unmuted, sir. Go ahead. [00:26:41] Darryl Brooks: Can y'all hear me? [00:26:42] Speaker 2: We can. [00:26:44] Darryl Brooks: First of all, at 925, I would like the record to reflect that the prosecution was making a disparity of remarks and gestures in pursuant to what just happened. And I don't appreciate it, and I think that that is very disrespectful for the record. And again, I'm trying to figure out how did I act in dishonor to be removed from the courtroom. How have I acted in dishonor? This is a whole nother. How have I acted in dishonor? [00:27:22] Speaker 2: All right. I'm going to mute Mr. Brooks. I'm not going to answer that question. I've made my ruling as far as anything that was done by the prosecution. I was not in the courtroom. The jury was not present. Whatever happened, if anything at all, was done outside the presence of the jury. If there is anything the state wants to put on the record right now, I'll give you that opportunity. Otherwise, I am going to bring the jury out, Mr. Brooks. If you want to come back into this courtroom, you need to write your request down on a piece of paper, and when you do that pledge to this court, that you will not interrupt these proceedings. Without that, I will not bring you back into this courtroom. Anything the state wants to put on the record? [00:28:11] Speaker 3: I don't have anything directly in response to Mr. Brooks' last statement. [00:28:16] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'll unmute. What is it you would like the court to address? [00:28:23] Darryl Brooks: How can you rule that I don't have the right to be present in the courtroom? [00:28:31] Speaker 2: I've answered that previously. I've made my findings under Illinois v. Allen. He continues to interrupt. I intend to have the jury brought out. I need one moment before I do that, and so I'm going to just take about a two-minute recess. At 945, Mr. Brooks sent a note that says, Under Illinois v. Allen, I request for the second to be present at my trial. I never consented to not being present, nor did I act in dishonor, because he has not made a pledge to conform his conduct as is required under Illinois v. Allen. He has not reclaimed his right to be present. He will remain in that courtroom. All rise. All rise. All rise for the jury. Members of the jury, the court will now instruct you upon the principles of law, which you are to follow in considering the evidence and in reaching your verdict. The 38th count of the information in this case charges that Darrell E. Brooks, on or about Sunday, November 21, 2021, which show utter disregard for human life and while using a dangerous weapon. If you find the defendant guilty of count 42, you must answer the following question, yes or no. Did the defendant commit the crime of first degree, recklessly endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon. I've read 41 pages thus far. I am going to take a short comfort break and we'll come back in about 10-15 minutes. This will also give the jurors and the parties a chance to have a comfort break as well. All rise for the jury. All rise for the jury. All right, we are back on the record. The jury has not been brought out just yet. I indicated I would address a note that was passed by Mr. Brooks to the court. In it, he indicates the following, I have reclaimed my rights, parenthesis, that I never gave up or consented to give up, parenthesis, to be present, and you have not honored your oath of office to protect my constitutional rights, specifically my 14th Amendment, Section 1, which references equal protection of the laws. Would you like to explain this on the record or should I? I will if you won't. I would like to make an offer of proof for my appeal on the record. I indicated previously that should Mr. Brooks want to come back into this courtroom pursuant to Illinois v. Allen, he could certainly reclaim the right to be present, but he would need to be willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings. I specifically advise that he would need to pledge to not interrupt the proceedings. He has not done that, meaning he has not indicated he wants to come back or that he will pledge to be courteous and follow the rules of decorum and specifically pledge to not interrupt as I read through the jury instructions. Mr. Brooks will remain where he is at. Anything further he wants to address, he will need to do that in writing as he has done with a note, with a note, but I don't feel the need to give him any additional opportunity to explain that. What I will ask is, is he going to make a request to come back into this courtroom, and if that is true, he can give me a thumbs up sign and then I will address that. All right. I will unmute him. Mr. Brooks, what is your request as it relates to coming back into this courtroom? [00:32:55] Darryl Brooks: I've requested to come back into the courtroom with the first writing that you said I had to write. [00:33:02] Speaker 2: I put that on the record already, sir. You did not pledge to respect the rules of courtesy and decorum and pledge to not interrupt the court. Are you willing to pledge that at this time? [00:33:15] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, with all due respect, I've never had to do that before to reclaim my right. I've always asked, when you've given me the opportunity, when I felt that the time was right, I've always asked to come back. Have I not? [00:33:28] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, given your conduct this morning and your blatant violation of my direct order to you to not interrupt when the jury was being brought out, I felt it important to strictly enforce the language of Illinois versus Allen. I specifically pledged to not interrupt as I go through all of these jury instructions. If you're willing to do that, I will bring you back in. [00:33:55] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, with all due respect, can we at least be fair and say today hasn't been as volatile as other days or as the back and forth between you and I hasn't been what it has been previously? [00:34:11] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, we started the advisement to the jury an hour later than I anticipated, so I would thoroughly disagree with you that it might not have been volatile or loud, but it was nonetheless disruptive. So, I will ask you these questions, sir. If you come back into this courtroom, are you willing to honor my request and order to you that you not interrupt as I read through the jury instructions? [00:34:39] Darryl Brooks: Yeah, I don't understand the question that you're asking. [00:34:42] Speaker 2: Sir, are you willing to refrain from raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction if you come back into this courtroom? [00:34:50] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, with all due respect to your ruling on Illinois v. Allen, that was not part of Illinois v. Allen. I don't understand why that's being made. [00:35:00] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm not going to debate the meaning of Illinois v. Allen with you. I'm simply trying to get you back into this courtroom. You seem to want to be here, but you don't want to pledge to follow the rules of courtesy and decorum. So, that's on you. [00:35:14] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, this has never been done before. It's never been done before, and I've always been able to reclaim my right to be able to be present. [00:35:25] Speaker 2: Are you willing? [00:35:26] Darryl Brooks: Which is what I stated when I first came over here. I've been stating the same thing. I've actually told the bailiff numerous times. [00:35:34] Speaker 2: I have not required the pledge previously. I've allowed you to come back, but given the interruptions this morning and your immediate discussion of things like subject matter jurisdiction and my oath the minute one juror walked through that door, I cannot take that. I will not bring you back in without that pledge. [00:35:59] Darryl Brooks: So, where does it say anything about a pledge, Your Honor? [00:36:03] Speaker 2: Sir, I'm not going to debate the language with you. I am establishing what I believe is a reasonable restriction on your right to come back into this courtroom. It not only preserves the dignity and decorum of this trial, it also, frankly, protects your rights and it minimizes your bad behavior in front of the jury. [00:36:25] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, I didn't interrupt you while you were talking. I'll let you make your record without talking over you or interrupting. [00:36:35] Speaker 2: Thank you. I would agree with you just now. [00:36:38] Darryl Brooks: The way that I'm interpreting when you reference to me with the Illinois versus Island where your ruling is coming from, the way that I interpret that is not the way that you're saying it to me now. That's why I don't understand what you're asking. I'm interpreting that in a totally different way. [00:37:01] Speaker 2: I'll give you one more opportunity, sir. You can come back into this courtroom, but I do not want you to address or attempt to address subject matter jurisdiction or any of the other rulings that I've previously made. I need to continue with the advisement to this jury about the rules that govern their deliberations. That is the stage we are at. And if you violate that in any way by raising any of those legal issues in their presence, that will be in direct violation of the requirement for you to reclaim your right and you will be removed back to the other courtroom. Did you hear me say that, sir? [00:37:39] Darryl Brooks: Sir, I'm informed, but your honor, now you have to, you have to, you just stated on the record if I raise these issues in their presence, but if they're not in the courtroom, it's not in their presence, correct? [00:37:52] Speaker 2: Sir, sir, I can't bring them into the courtroom until you're here. I expect you during that short interval not to raise these legal issues that I've already addressed multiple times. So, yes, I'm telling you, if you come back into this courtroom, I don't even want to have you raise any of those issues. I want to bring the jury right out without interruption. [00:38:15] Darryl Brooks: Now, I'm not, I'm confused because you just said don't raise any issues in their presence and now you're, I'm confused. [00:38:25] Speaker 2: Because you're indicating to me by your statement that you intend to raise them once you get back into this courtroom. And so, I'm making that another restriction and you need to pledge to me that you will not do that. [00:38:38] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, the way that I'm interpreting what you just read to me from the other section that you just read from Illinois v. Allen, it does not have that language. So, I'm not interpreting. [00:38:49] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm not going to debate the language. Do you want to come back in here or not? [00:38:54] Darryl Brooks: I've stated, I've stated numerous times that I shouldn't even have been brought over here anyway that I wanted to come back. But now there's been, what I don't understand about it, Your Honor, is that there's being, there's being rules enforced on. [00:39:08] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, do you want to come back in here or not? It's a very simple question. [00:39:13] Darryl Brooks: I said yes already. [00:39:14] Speaker 2: All right, then I'm going, because then you go on and make other statements and then I can't even effectuate your request. [00:39:22] Darryl Brooks: But I'm trying, I'm trying to tell you how I'm interpreting what you're saying to me. If, if you want me, if you want me to be in court. [00:39:27] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm going to mute you. We're going to go in recess. He can be brought back over. But I will advise you that if you start back in, even outside the presence of this jury, with any of the legal issues I've already ruled on, I'm not, you will go back to the other courtroom. It's that simple. So we'll be in recess, he'll be brought back over, and then we'll start back up. The records reflect that Mr. Brooks remains in the other courtroom, despite what I thought was, he made clear he wanted to be here. He's, my understanding is he is now saying he doesn't understand what this court wants. I've made it very clear, I believe, what this court's expectation is that I continue with the jury instructions without interruption and that he conduct himself consistently with the dignity and decorum that these proceedings deserve. We have lost a significant amount of time now addressing, or not even addressing, but Mr. Brooks really interrupting the flow and the proceedings based upon his responses. And then he attempts to engage with this court on the meaning, for example, of Illinois versus Allen. He needs to make a very clear statement to this court, not an ambiguous one, but a very clear one, that he wants to come back into this courtroom and that he's willing to conduct himself appropriately. And until he does that, he will continue to forfeit his right to be present in this courtroom as I instruct the jury. So with that, I did give him five minutes, I said you have five minutes to decide, I set a timer, it went off, he is still in the other courtroom, we are going to continue. So the jury is to be brought out. I should further indicate he continues to be muted, so as there are not interruptions. And if he wants to address something with the court, he needs to put it, write it on his pad of paper, and I will address it at the appropriate time. Mr. Brooks, you can write it down, I'm not going to interrupt further, the jury's coming out. [00:41:33] Speaker 3: All rise. [00:41:41] Speaker 2: Thank you, everyone, please be seated. Continuing on then with the jury instructions. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three elements of first degree, recklessly endangering safety have been proved as to count 43, you should find the defendant guilty of hit and run as charged in count 70. If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you find the defendant guilty, you must answer the following question, yes or no. And I will specifically address Mr. Brooks at a later point. Count 71. The defendant is charged with two separate counts of bail jumping. The 74th count of the information in this case by B and 939 of the Wisconsin statutes. Bail jumping, as defined in section 946, is committed by one who has been released from custody on bond. If you find that the facts stated and the hypothetical question have not been proved, then the opinion based on those facts should not be given any weight. At this time, I will reserve the instruction on closing arguments because we are going to take our lunch break and then come back after the lunch hour for closing arguments. All rise for the jury. All right, thank you. Be seated. As soon as the door is closed, I just need to put a couple things on the record. I did note that at approximately 1219, it may have been a little bit earlier than that, but I noticed Mr. Brooks was waving his hands. At one point, I did indicate I would address that at a later point in time. I am aware of a number of filings. I addressed two of them previously, but there are two additional. I am going to have copies made of all of these filings for the state so that they have an opportunity to review them. From my perspective, just briefly, he is making some objections to what I am doing, but at no time in those did he ask to be brought back to the courtroom. And certainly within those, he did not pledge to follow the basic tenets of courtesy and decorum, given that I'm moving on to a second part of this, that being the closing arguments. He will be invited back into the courtroom here for those closing arguments. Of course, subject to his conduct, I expect that he will follow the rules of courtesy and decorum and also not raise legal issues in front of the jury when they are here. With that, we will take our lunch recess. We'll take an hour and 15 minutes. Thank you, everyone. All right, it's 2 o'clock. I'll call the case. State of Wisconsin v. Darrell Brooks. Case number 21 CF 1848 may have the appearances. Please. [00:44:45] Speaker 3: Good afternoon, Judge Schlaffer, Leslie Daisy, and Zach Wichow, operating for the state. [00:44:52] Darryl Brooks: I'm here without prejudice by special appearance. Beneficiary, I'm here under fraud, managed, duress, and extortion. Judiciary, Jennifer Ardwell. This is a social security CESDQ trust action, which you are a real party and interest to. As suit jurors and propria persona, this is a military admiralty tribunal and maritime law. And the title for the United States Code Section 1, which you can see, which states placing a fringe on a national flag is within discretion of the discretion of the president acting as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy. Is this a common law court or an admiralty court? [00:45:46] Speaker 2: The records reflect that the individual known to this court as Darrell Brooks is present in person in custody. He is wearing a dress shirt. I know he has a suit coat, but it's not on. He's also wearing a mask. The court is not going to address any of the issues that he is raising, as they are meritless. And I would also say the same as to the notes that he passed while he was in the other courtroom. For the record, I did provide a copy of all of those to the state as well. They are also uploaded into the file and are made part of the record to the extent that he raises objections or lack of consent. It is noted for the record. [00:46:29] Darryl Brooks: I was about to do that and say that I don't consent to being called that name or identity. That is the trust name and it is not me myself. I don't recognize that name or do I consent to being called by that name with our respect. And we still have yet to address subject matter jurisdiction, which has yet to be proven on the record. I accept the value in return for value of this document. And, Your Honor, I requested that I have copies of my filings from earlier time stamped. [00:47:03] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'll provide you with the copies later on. I need to continue with the instructing of the jury and have the parties make their closing arguments. [00:47:16] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, with all respect, the state received copies. How come I can't receive the copies of my filings? [00:47:23] Speaker 2: You know what? I can give you the print-offs, but I can't give you the originals right now. That's what I'm referring to. And you will absolutely get those back. I guess I was mistaken that you wrote copy on it. I thought you retained a copy for your records. So, with that, Madam Clerk will print off from the record. It won't be the yellow copies just yet. I'll take that up later outside the presence of the jury after the case has been given to them. Now, in terms of the closing arguments, I did set a time limit for the parties yesterday. Each side will have a total of one hour. Mr. Brooks, so that you are fully aware, the party with the burden of proof, which is the state of Wisconsin, goes first. Then you, as the opposing party, will have an opportunity to respond and argue. And then, time limit willing, the state also has the opportunity to present rebuttal because they have the burden of proof. And that is provided with the excerpt from the bench book that was provided to you yesterday. It has the purpose of the closing arguments is to summarize the facts, martial arguments, focus the issues for the jury. I just talked about the order of the arguments. And, Mr. Brooks, I will advise you that I certainly will wait and see how you present your argument today. I will certainly wait to see if there are any objections raised. But I also want you to be aware that if I feel the arguments are improper, I may simply, without an objection, say, please move on, as a clear indication from this court that what you are stating is not proper under the various rules and case law that govern closing arguments. [00:49:19] Darryl Brooks: Again, Your Honor, without prejudice, I'm here by special appearance. I don't consent to being called that name for the record. [00:49:26] Speaker 2: It's noted, sir. Oh, go ahead. It looks like Attorney Opper has some issues she wants to raise. [00:49:32] Speaker 3: Yes, I just have one question, Your Honor. Would I have permission to put the easel up and display some of the poster boards? I did confer with Captain Dussault as far as security is concerned, and he agreed to it if the court would give me that authority. Detective Casey would be willing to assist me in removing them when I'm done with them, if that's okay with you. [00:49:53] Speaker 2: I trust it won't block Mr. Brooks' view of the jury. That's right. [00:49:57] Speaker 3: Yeah, I was going to put it right about here so that he could still see me and the jury. [00:50:02] Speaker 2: With that caveat, yes, they will allow that. All right. [00:50:05] Darryl Brooks: Objection. What is that? What is supposed to be put up? [00:50:14] Speaker 3: They were previously admitted, Your Honor, it's Exhibit 15 and 130, I believe. [00:50:21] Darryl Brooks: So are they exhibits? I'm confused to what they are. [00:50:24] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I made a ruling. The state has made a request. I granted it. [00:50:28] Darryl Brooks: Yeah, but I'm saying I don't understand what's being shown. Should not have the right to ask, to object and ask what it is that's actually going to be shown? [00:50:40] Speaker 2: The state's put on the record what it is, it is, or I should say they are exhibits that have previously been received by the court during the course of this trial. That is proper for a party to do that during its closing argument. [00:50:54] Darryl Brooks: So can I put up exhibits? [00:51:01] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I don't know what you have planned for your closing argument. [00:51:05] Darryl Brooks: I'm making the request, the same request. May I be able to put up exhibits? [00:51:09] Speaker 2: Well, I guess it depends on what it is, sir. So I'm not going to take up any more time because what I intend to do is once the state goes through its closing, I may take just a short comfort break depending on how long it is. And if there's something in particular, what are you, you will need to tell me what it is. As long as it's an exhibit from this case, then I don't, I wouldn't have an issue with it. [00:51:33] Darryl Brooks: They would be from this case, obviously. It's just not nothing that the state had. [00:51:41] Speaker 2: I'm not aware of exhibits that the state wouldn't have, that you would have. Everything that's been received, we have a list. So if it's not something that was received during this trial as an exhibit by the court, unless you tell me what it is so that I can make a ruling, I can't see how it would be relevant or appropriate for your closing argument. [00:52:10] Darryl Brooks: That's part of my filings that you filed. [00:52:13] Speaker 2: The filings have no relevance to the issues that are before the jury. The closing arguments are to direct the jury so that they have your arguments so that when they go back to determine the issues in this case, which are related to whether you're guilty or not guilty of the 76 charges, things like subject matter jurisdiction would not be something that would be proper before this jury. Those are legal issues that the court would decide. The jury is the judge of the facts. The court is the judge of the law. That's why I have all of these jury instructions to give to the jury. [00:52:53] Darryl Brooks: I'm not referring to subject matter jurisdiction. [00:52:56] Speaker 2: What are you referring to then? Be very specific so I can make a finding and rule. [00:52:59] Darryl Brooks: I was specific to my other filings. [00:53:03] Speaker 2: That's not specific enough, sir. What are you referring to? Which filing? [00:53:09] Darryl Brooks: Let me know when you're done, Your Honor. [00:53:10] Speaker 2: Which filing, sir? Not generally, but specifically. [00:53:15] Darryl Brooks: Are you done? Are you done? [00:53:26] Speaker 2: Sir, that's very rude and disrespectful. [00:53:28] Darryl Brooks: I didn't know if you was going to say something. That's why I'm asking are you done. [00:53:32] Speaker 2: Which, what filing are you referring to? [00:53:34] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, how come every time I try, even when I try to err on the side of caution, you find some way to make it to be something that it's not? I didn't know if you was going to say something else. [00:53:46] Speaker 2: I've asked a question, sir. So, when I do that, I would hope it would convey to you I'm looking for an answer. So, which filing are you referring to? [00:53:54] Darryl Brooks: All my filings, all my filings, my notice of appearance, my statement of particulars, my bond, the court docket sheet, all of those filings. [00:54:06] Speaker 2: The request to display those to the jury is denied. It's not relevant. [00:54:11] Darryl Brooks: How is it not relevant? Not even your oath of office? [00:54:13] Speaker 2: That's my determination, sir. So, I'll take, I am going to start this. [00:54:17] Darryl Brooks: Not even your oath of office can be shown? [00:54:19] Speaker 2: No, that is not relevant to these proceedings, sir. [00:54:22] Darryl Brooks: It is. [00:54:23] Speaker 2: It's not relevant in front of the jury. [00:54:26] Darryl Brooks: Why is it not relevant? Can you? [00:54:28] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks. [00:54:30] Darryl Brooks: Can you explain why that's not relevant? [00:54:32] Speaker 2: The jury will be able to raise those types of issues and present a closing argument based upon my oath of office, whether I'm licensed to practice law in the state of Wisconsin. I said your oath of office, I didn't say anything. The jurisdiction, whether you consent to this appearance or not, none of those things help the jury determine the issues in this case, which are related to whether you are guilty or not guilty of the 76 charges that have been filed in this case. [00:54:57] Darryl Brooks: The jury should know the truth in their duties, in their rights. They should know that at least. [00:55:03] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm putting you on notice that if you continue with this insistence upon presenting information that's not properly before the jury as evidence in this case, that I will instruct you during your closing argument to move on and potentially ask the jury, have the jury leave so that I can admonish you. And if you keep insisting on that, sir, that will be in direct violation of the court's direction to you. [00:55:31] Darryl Brooks: So they can't even know that I got a shock device on my ankles? [00:55:36] Speaker 2: They absolutely do not need to know that. Why not? So it's not relevant to the determinations of guilt or innocence in this case. [00:55:42] Darryl Brooks: This is the truth? [00:55:43] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, your custodial status is not on trial here. [00:55:48] Darryl Brooks: I would argue that it is. [00:55:50] Speaker 2: No, your conduct from November 21st of 2021 is not on trial. [00:55:53] Darryl Brooks: That hasn't been proven. [00:55:55] Speaker 2: You may not bring up your, the way that you've been shackled. It's not relevant, sir. And if you do so, you do it at your peril. But it's, here's the thing. The jury is specific. It's my right, though. Let me, let me go. Okay. [00:56:10] Darryl Brooks: It's my constitutional right. Just like under the First Amendment, which I preserved my First Amendment right when I came in this morning. I also preserved my First Amendment right. [00:56:22] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, please stop. You do not have an unfettered First Amendment right. That is very clear based upon all the case law. [00:56:27] Darryl Brooks: What do you mean by unfettered? What do you mean by unfettered? [00:56:30] Speaker 2: It means it is not absolute. It can be restricted. [00:56:32] Darryl Brooks: So the Constitution of the United States can be constricted. [00:56:36] Speaker 2: All right. Mr. Brooks, I'm putting you on notice that if you continue with your insistence on raising issues that are really a distraction. [00:56:43] Darryl Brooks: I'm going to raise issues that the jury needs to know, regardless, because they're under the rights of the United States Constitution, which is the law of the land. [00:56:52] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I drop your attention to Closing Instruction 460. [00:56:55] Darryl Brooks: I'm going to let the jury know the truth, their duty, and their rights. Under the First Amendment and under the Sixth Amendment, I have the right to inform them of their rights, of the truth, and of their duties. Under the First Amendment and under the Sixth Amendment, of the Constitution of these United States. You can't, no state law can override that. [00:57:22] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, do you intend to keep this up when the jury comes out? Because I need to have the state. No, I do not. [00:57:27] Darryl Brooks: That's why I'm addressing this before they come out. That's why I'm trying to address this before they come out, so it doesn't become an issue once they're in here. But under the First Amendment and under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which are rights that I preserved the moment we stepped in here this morning when this proceedings started. I preserved those rights, for the record. And now you're telling me that those rights are not, would you say, unfettered? I don't know what you said. I don't even know what that means. I don't even understand that. But any law repugnant of the United States Constitution is null and void. [00:58:09] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm putting you on notice that you can also forfeit by your conduct the right to present a closing argument. I do have an obligation, and I have done my best to ensure that this is a fair trial. However, a fair trial does not mean a defendant has unfettered rights to state whatever he wants, when he wants. You may not present arguments related to such things as jury nullification, subject matter jurisdiction, the court's oath or lack thereof, if that's what you believe, whether this court is a court of common law, admiralty. All of those things relate to your claim as being a sovereign, which are frankly baseless, they're meritless, they've been debunked by many courts, including the court in the Benneby decision that's been referenced by this court previously. The arguments must be based on the law, not as you interpret the law, but as the law is. You must base your closing arguments on the facts that have been established during this case, meaning the evidence, the testimony. As I indicated earlier, the purpose of a closing argument is to summarize the facts, martial arguments, and focus the issues for the jury. If you do not honor the court's rulings, then you will run the risk of forfeiting your right to be present and potentially forfeiting your right to further present your closing argument. With that, I am bringing this jury out to read 160 closing arguments of the parties and then to have the state go first as they bear the burden of proof. [00:59:59] Darryl Brooks: Now, Your Honor, I'll just let you make your record. I didn't overtalk you. I didn't interrupt you. Is that fair to say? I'll let you make the record. With all due respect, when will I be able to make the record? As I've tried to do numerous times by saying I wanted to present an offer of proof for my appeal. That's the chance for me to be able to make the record. [01:00:22] Speaker 2: I'm denying your request to make an offer of proof regarding your appeal. It's not. I'm not allowed to make the record at all, Your Honor. [01:00:29] Darryl Brooks: I'm not allowed to make the record at all, as I just let you did, because some of the issues have been... [01:00:36] Speaker 2: You have told me what you want to do. I told you you can't. I've addressed the request. [01:00:41] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, some of the issues have been me overtalking you and interrupting you. I did not do that. Even though everything that you said, you have not proven for the record, and it's unlawful law. You haven't shown one time that that is lawful for you to do what you've been doing, as far as your ruling. [01:01:00] Speaker 2: Once again, I'm not going to debate with you the prior rulings of this court. There's absolutely no need at this point for you to make an offer of proof regarding my prior rulings or decisions that you disagree with. You will have an opportunity, if convicted, to raise every issue you want on appeal. [01:01:16] Darryl Brooks: I'm going to inform the jury of the truth, their duties, and their rights, as I have the right to do under the First Amendment and under the Sixth Amendment. You can't just disregard the United States Constitution. You can't do that. Again, any law repugnant of the United States Constitution is null and in void. There's no state law that you can cite. There's no federal law that you can cite that overrides the United States Constitution. You know this. [01:01:46] Speaker 2: Mr. Rex, I direct your attention to State v. Anthony, although that case dealt with the right to testify. Okay, so we're not talking about the right to testify. [01:01:55] Darryl Brooks: We're talking about the closing arguments, correct? We're not talking about testifying, which you already made a ruling on. [01:02:01] Speaker 2: Mr. Rex, I'm not going to delay any further than the closing arguments of the parties. With all due respect, I will address your further request. [01:02:07] Darryl Brooks: With all due respect, you already made a ruling about testifying. Did you or did you not? [01:02:12] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks. [01:02:13] Darryl Brooks: So we're talking about now, we're talking about closing arguments that I said, it's my right to be able to inform the jury of the truth, their duties, and their rights. That is my constitutional right. [01:02:27] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, we are at the stage of the proceedings where it is the state's burden of proof where they get to make their closing arguments. [01:02:33] Darryl Brooks: We're talking about me, though. I understand that, sir, but your conduct right now is delaying the court's intention of moving forward with the closing arguments. Your Honor, I just sat there and let you make the record. I didn't over-talk you or interrupt you. I let you say what you wanted to say. I let you make the record. I didn't interrupt you, not one time. [01:02:57] Speaker 2: No, but, sir, you're attempting to disrupt the proceedings by going off on a tangent into all of these other issues from my perspective that is in an attempt to simply delay what we're doing. So you are put on notice. I am done dealing with these issues. [01:03:14] Darryl Brooks: How am I being in dishonor, Your Honor? How am I being in dishonor of the court? [01:03:18] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I've made my determination. [01:03:21] Darryl Brooks: And have I not preserved my rights? [01:03:22] Speaker 2: I'm not going to address this further. [01:03:23] Darryl Brooks: Have I not preserved my rights? [01:03:24] Speaker 2: If you insist on interrupting the court and disrupting the flow of these proceedings by a blatant disregard for the parameters that I've set up, you will forfeit your right to be present in this courtroom and potentially forfeit your right to present a closing argument. [01:03:41] Darryl Brooks: Under what lawful law can you do that? [01:03:42] Speaker 2: Sir, I've made my determination. [01:03:44] Darryl Brooks: I'm totally in contempt by Illinois v. Allen. You've stated that numerous times. [01:03:51] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I want you here for the closing arguments, but you do not want to follow the rules. But you do not want to follow the rules. Apparently you don't. [01:03:54] Darryl Brooks: Apparently you don't, Your Honor, because all I said was it is my right under the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment to inform the jury of the truth, their rights, and their duties. I never once said anything about, oh, I'm going to bring up subject matter, or I'm going to bring up this, or I'm going to bring up that. You're right, sir. [01:04:09] Speaker 2: And I will wait and see what you have to say. But I thought it prudent, given your conduct to date and your insistence on bringing up issues that have no bearing in this case. This is a new day, though, Your Honor. [01:04:21] Darryl Brooks: This is a whole new day. [01:04:23] Speaker 2: That it was prudent on my part to give you some guidance before you potentially do that in front of the jury. But you're right. I will wait and see. [01:04:33] Darryl Brooks: Your Honor, it's still unconstitutional for you to tell me that I don't have the First Amendment right that I preserve, or the Sixth Amendment right that I preserve. [01:04:43] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, I'm going to have the jury brought out. I expect that you will be respectful, courteous, and quiet. And when this door opens, if you insist on making remarks, then I will excuse everyone from this courtroom, and you will be removed because you will forfeit your right to be present for being disruptive. [01:05:02] Darryl Brooks: Under what lawful law? Because I haven't been dishonorable to the court. [01:05:06] Speaker 2: Madam Clerk, please have the jury brought out. [01:05:08] Darryl Brooks: Well, take me to the next courtroom, then. Take me to the next courtroom, because you're not going to override my constitutional rights just because you feel like you can, and you don't have no lawful law to do that. We all have constitutional rights, and you cannot trample on those. [01:05:23] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, what you are raising are essentially issues that you can raise on appeal. [01:05:26] Darryl Brooks: No, I'm raising them now because they need to be on the record now, because you won't allow me to make the record as I've let you do. You've even went so far as to mute me, which you can't even, there's no lawful law to say that you can even mute me. Your Honor, does Illinois v. Allen say that you can utilize the mute button? It does not. [01:05:48] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, the door opens. I expect you to be quiet. [01:05:51] Darryl Brooks: And I expect for you to answer questions as a public servant, Your Honor. You're a public servant. The jury's coming in. You're supposed to serve the people. All right. Take me to the next courtroom. Please. Take me to the next courtroom. Hold me in contempt. Hold me in contempt. Hold me in contempt. Hold me in contempt. I have constitutional rights that are being trampled on, and you're coming up with ways to make a lawful law where it doesn't say in Illinois v. Allen anywhere about utilizing a mute button. [01:06:24] Speaker 2: The records reflect that the jury bailiff is in here, however, the jury is still in the hallway. I'm going to give Mr. Brooks one more opportunity to be respectful of the court's rulings, whether he agrees with them or not. [01:06:33] Darryl Brooks: I haven't dishonored the court. I'm merely exercising my rights under the Constitution, under the First Amendment, and under the Sixth Amendment. [01:06:41] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, your rights do not include you disrupting these proceedings the way that you have through the course of three weeks. [01:06:47] Darryl Brooks: You just told me you don't have to honor my constitutional rights in so many words. [01:06:50] Speaker 2: You're using a mute button that's not even in your decision. Mr. Brooks, the jury is outside this door. They're not brought in here. [01:06:57] Darryl Brooks: I'm informed that the jury is outside the door. [01:06:59] Speaker 2: I'm asking you to be respectful of their time. [01:07:00] Darryl Brooks: They're not in the courtroom. They're not present. [01:07:02] Speaker 2: I'm asking you to be respectful of the court's ruling, whether you agree with them or not. [01:07:05] Darryl Brooks: These are issues that need to be resolved before they're present. [01:07:08] Speaker 2: Mr. Brooks, they will not be resolved to your satisfaction. It's not about my satisfaction. The record has been made. It's about the Constitution. [01:07:13] Darryl Brooks: It's about what's right. Are you going to answer questions as a public servant or while you're making up laws that are not in Illinois v. Allen and never utilized the mute button? It never said anything about a mute button. [01:07:26] Speaker 2: It is clear that Mr. Brooks has absolutely no intention of following the simple rules of decorum and courtesy. He has repeatedly talked over me. He's repeatedly interrupted, even though I've made rulings, he's not respectful of the fact that I made a ruling, even though he disagrees with it. I attempted to bring the jury out, and he continued to talk. So, Mr. Brooks, you have forfeited your right to be present for the state's closing argument. You will be taken to the courtroom next door, and I will invite you back over when it's time for your closing argument. [01:08:01] Darryl Brooks: If you can't invite me back over, I can reclaim my right. So, how can you invite me to do anything? [01:08:05] Speaker 2: All right, the courtroom is to be cleared so that Mr. Brooks can be removed to the next courtroom, and I'll make appropriate findings when he's in the other courtroom when I can do so without interruption. [01:08:13] Darryl Brooks: Yeah, and you'll mute me, which you can't lawfully do. You can't lawfully mute me. So, now you're trampling over my First Amendment right. [01:08:31] Speaker 2: I need it quiet in the courtroom, please. We are back on the record. Appearances are as they were before, except that Mr. Brooks has been removed to the other courtroom. The court did that because we came out on the record at 2 o'clock following the lunch break. Mr. Brooks was brought to the main courtroom, and during that almost 35 minutes or so, he was insistent on raising a variety of legal issues with which this court has either previously addressed or which are meritless and do not warrant. Any further response. This court has been attempting, frankly, all day to get through the reading of jury instructions, to get to the point where the parties make their closing arguments, and ultimately to put this case in the jury's hands. It has been challenging. It has been met by resistance from Mr. Brooks. I would once again describe it as being stubbornly defiant, although at times he may wait for me to make my ruling. He continues to not respect the fact that a ruling has been made, and he wants to argue and re-argue and re-argue points that this court has already gone over. This case has demonstrated that a stubbornly defiant defendant can forfeit even important constitutional rights by conduct. That includes the right to be present. It included the right to present further witnesses and testimony, and it included the right of the defendant to testify on his own behalf. I hope that I do not have to go through a decision that makes a finding that he's forfeited his right to make a closing argument. I will certainly wait and see how that goes. But he has been removed from this courtroom because of his stubborn defiance and disrespect of this court of courtesy and decorum. And what I truly believe is an effort on his part to continue to delay and lengthen these proceedings. We can see him. He can see us. I've confirmed prior to calling the case that the audio was working, that the video is working. I will advise him that once the jury is brought out, I will unmute him. I expect that he will be respectful of them. And I expect that he will not interrupt as the court goes through the couple of final jury instructions I need to go through, including the reading of Jury Instruction 160, Closing Arguments of the Parties. And then I will turn it over to the state, but I will unmute him at that point. So should he have an objection, he will be able to state objection. I will be able to rule on it. And again, I expect him to honor whatever the ruling that is made. And if he does not do that, then I will utilize the mute function. If he doesn't have it, we'll make sure he has the objection sign. And if I see that, I will unmute him to hear what it is and then make a ruling accordingly. All right, with that, the jury is to be brought out. [01:12:36] Speaker ?: Thank you, everyone. Please be seated. [01:12:42] Speaker 2: Consider carefully the closing arguments of the parties, but their arguments and conclusions and opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions from the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to the evidence under the instructions given you by the court. With that, I will ask Attorney Opera to start with her closing argument. Go ahead. Hold on one second. Mr. Brooks, do you have an objection? [01:13:25] Darryl Brooks: I thought I was supposed to be unmuted. You are now. [01:13:29] Speaker 2: All right. [01:13:30] Speaker ?: Attorney Opera, you may start. Thank you, Judge. [01:13:32] Speaker 3: You've watched these proceedings and you've noticed as we sit at our prosecution table, we don't have a client at our table. But rest assured, we do represent someone. We represent the people of the state of Wisconsin. It's an entity. I can't bring it to the courtroom. People enact laws. People want to feel safe. People have representatives in Madison or Washington DC that set standards, rules, that we all are expected to live by. And when those rules are violated, prosecutors step in and enforce the law. Daryl Brooks does not represent anybody. He does not have a client. Daryl Brooks is the client. Daryl Brooks is the defendant. The state of Wisconsin is the plaintiff. It's really that simple. And it's consistent with any other criminal case you've ever heard about at any other time in any other jurisdiction. It runs the same. I'm going to ask you for your guilty vote at the end of my comments. It's up to you. I can't tell you to do anything. Except I'm going to say one thing to you that I wholeheartedly ask you to obey. [01:15:15] Speaker 2: Attorney Upper, I'm sorry for the interruption. Your objection, sir? [01:15:21] Darryl Brooks: Mischaracterization of who I am and the way it was said. I feel like it was talking down. [01:15:30] Speaker 2: Your objection is noted. It's overruled. The statement continue. [01:15:35] Speaker 3: You must not, not, not consider anything about Daryl Brooks other than his conduct in downtown Waukesha on the evening of November 21, 2021. Nothing he's done before that. Nothing he's done since that. Nothing he's done since that. Is he guilty of the 76 counts that he's been charged with? That and solely that should be your topic of discussion. So, what are the charges against Daryl Brooks? Thank you for your patience in listening to the jury instructions. They must be read for each and every count. But sadly, they can be summarized very quickly like this as far as the actual counts. Counts one through six are first degree intentional homicide while armed with a dangerous weapon. Counts seven through 67, first degree recklessly endangering safety while armed with a dangerous weapon. Counts one through seven. Counts 68 through 74, hit and run causing death. Counts 75 and 76, bail jumping. And count 77, battery. [01:16:58] Darryl Brooks: Mr. Brooks, what is your objection? I have 76 charges, not 77. It's a mischaracterization of the charges. [01:17:16] Speaker 2: That is correct. It is sustained. It should be count 68 through 73, I believe. And then 74 through 75 and then 76. [01:17:24] Speaker 3: Thank you, Your Honor. I do apologize for my math skills. We're going to talk about counts one through 67 in detail. Counts 68 through 73, hit and run causing death, in my opinion are easily summarized as this. He never stopped. Never. Bail jumping. He was out on bail for two files in Milwaukee County facing felony charges there. He was ordered to not commit any further crimes. If you believe he was involved in any of the conduct charging counts one through 67, you should find him guilty of bail jumping. Battery. That relates to the split lip and black eye suffered by Erica Peterson. We started with the battery for background. [01:18:23] Speaker ?: First degree intentional homicide. [01:18:24] Speaker 3: Did he act with intent to kill, meaning either the mental purpose to take the life of another or was aware that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of another human being? [01:18:40] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:18:41] Speaker 3: Count one. Count one. Ginny Sorenson. Count two. [01:18:45] Speaker ?: Lee Owen. [01:18:46] Speaker 3: Count three. Tamara Durand. Oh, I got, I got. [01:18:49] Speaker ?: Count four. [01:18:50] Speaker 3: Jane Kulick. Count five. Bill Haspel. [01:18:53] Darryl Brooks: Count six. [01:18:54] Speaker ?: Count six. Jackson Sparks. [01:18:54] Speaker 3: Those are the individuals who lost their lives because of the conduct of Darrell Brooks. From there we go to reckless endangering safety. What is that? In this case, it means that through his reckless driving, he endangered the safety of other people. And he did so demonstrating utter disregard for human life. Never once did Judge Dorough instruct you that somebody has to be physically injured. Now, Detective Casey told you that was the standard we used in deciding of all these hundreds of thousands of people who is included in these charges. And the decision was made by the prosecution team to include people who were physically injured to be efficient in our prosecution. And so, everybody up and down the street, I would argue, had their safety in danger that day. I didn't charge 5,000 counts. We selected 61 counts of people that we can identify by name in Exhibit 15 that were injured by the conduct of Mr. Brooks. Those are the people in green, people in red are the fatalities. And we presented this case to you in much the same fashion that is presented here on Exhibit 15 as to how the injuries occurred going down that street. We are not required to prove any injury to anybody. The question is, was their safety endangered by his reckless conduct, his reckless driving? Now, one of the big things in this case has always been, why did this happen? What was he thinking? Why did he do this? Again, those are things I don't necessarily have to prove to you. His intent, I do have to prove. And I submit, without any doubt, there's overwhelming evidence that this was an intentional act by Darrell Brooks and an act of utter disregard for human life. I say that for these reasons, folks. Number one, first and foremost, just stop driving. That's it. It's really that simple. Not one person had to be hurt that day if he would have just stopped driving. [01:22:15] Speaker 2: Excuse me, attorney operator, your objection, sir? [01:22:21] Darryl Brooks: You specifically, I'm sorry, can I be hurt? [01:22:25] Speaker 2: Your objection, sir? [01:22:27] Darryl Brooks: I didn't know if I was on mute or not. You specifically said in your jury instructions that intent cannot be, you can't look into someone's mind, I think is what it says, to find intent. So how could that be characterized as someone knowing for sure intent or not knowing for sure intent? [01:22:48] Speaker 2: You're making an argument. You'll have an opportunity to do that later. Your objection's noted. It's overruled. The state may continue. [01:22:55] Speaker 3: How do I know it was intentional? Because even Daryl Brooks told Detective Carpenter, I could tell something was going on downtown. No reasonable person would drive upon this area, see the squads with their red and blues on, see the officers in the street with their bright yellow vests, see all the people milling around, see the floats lining up and the participants getting ready and not know to drive safely, slowly, and obey officers. The barricades help us prove it was intentional. The police presence help us prove it's intentional. The parade participants help us prove it's intentional. And the parade spectators help us prove it's intentional. [01:23:49] Speaker 2: Excuse me, Tony Opera, your objections, sir? [01:23:51] Darryl Brooks: Speculation as to what the alleged defendant said he saw, it was never... Sir, your objections noted. [01:24:00] Speaker 2: It's overruled. This is closing arguments, not the evidentiary phase. Go ahead, Tony Opera. So how can speculation be made to what was solved? Your objections noted. [01:24:06] Darryl Brooks: It's overruled. Continue, Tony Opera. Honking the horn. [01:24:09] Speaker 3: Quite interesting that Mr. Brooks asked so many witnesses if they heard the horn honking. Some of them said they did at the beginning of the parade. Yeah, I heard a horn honk. Most of them said they didn't. The horn honking cuts both ways, folks. If he's honking his horn, that means he can see something's in front of him. That means he knows there's an object in the road. You can rely on your common experience in your affairs of everyday life. If you see something in the road and you want to alert the other person to your presence, you will honk. But you do not have the green light to then just keep going if they don't move. He knew they were there. Intent. This is the starting point, or at least near the beginning, right? This is the area. We showed some videos of the groups passing by in this area. We heard testimony from four different police officers standing in four different spots near here, telling of their four different efforts to stop him. Intentional. Sergeant Warner's back here, testified that this red SUV blew by me. I waved both arms over my head. I'm in a police uniform. I have an unmarked squad, but I had my red and blues on. And he blew past me. He gets down here to the corner where Detective Casey is standing. Detective Casey runs out into the street, gets close enough to put his hand on the hood of the car. He keeps going. He comes down, turns onto Main Street, gets in this area of East Avenue to the south and Buckley Street to the north. This is where he encounters Officer Schneider and Officer Buttron. They each make a separate effort to stop him and he keeps going. Four police officers. It's intentional. He had plenty of opportunity to just stop anywhere along the way. One of the officers testified to it. I think it was Officer Schneider. This was an accident and he mistakenly wandered onto the parade route after passing all this. And he had mistakenly wandered onto the parade route at any point. All he had to do was stop. They could have paused the parade. They could have moved the barricades and escorted him out. He didn't. It was intentional. He went on for four blocks. Four blocks. It was intentional. He reached speeds of approximately 30 miles an hour. That's intentional. He plowed through 68 different people. 68. How can you hit one and keep going? How can you hit two and keep going? How can you hit three and keep going? Didn't phase him a bit. He kept going until he got to the end. And there was no more bodies to hit. It's intentional. [01:28:06] Darryl Brooks: Mischaracterization of the evidence. [01:28:10] Speaker 3: Noted. [01:28:11] Speaker ?: Overruled. [01:28:11] Speaker 3: His conduct when he left the parade route. We'll get into this. His flight. His hiding. His panic. His desperation. To run. Get the hell out of town as fast as he could. Before the cops came. That shows his intent. His interview with Detective Carpenter. We spent several hours playing you snippets of that interview. How telling was that? Never once did he say any of these things. Never once did he say, like he told you in his opening statement. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't intentional. Never said that to Detective Carpenter. I ended up with some convoluted story about. I got a ride out here from a buddy in a tanned Kia. And then I left to go meet Erica. And we got into a fight. And then I went back. And the other guy got into a fight. And he was leaving. So I took off on foot. Absolutely nonsensical story. Does not match up with the known evidence in this case. [01:29:21] Speaker 2: Overruled. [01:29:26] Speaker 3: He never stopped. [01:29:27] Darryl Brooks: I didn't need to state the objection. [01:29:30] Speaker 2: This is closing argument. [01:29:35] Speaker 3: She may continue. I'm going to play this slide which is a snippet from states exhibit number 53. Go ahead and play with sound please. That was just a snippet that I selected because I thought it really captured the environment that so many witnesses tried to explain to you. [01:30:01] Speaker ?: Right? It's a Christmas parade. It's a Christmas parade. People are there with their families, their little kids, their grandkids, their neighbors, their friends. Strangers. Standing next to strangers. That's what's going on on Main Street. That's what's going on. That's what's going on on Main Street. That was just a snippet that I selected because I thought it really captured the environment that so many witnesses tried to explain to you. Right? It's a Christmas parade. It's a Christmas parade. People are there with their families, their little kids, their grandkids, their neighbors, their friends. [01:30:04] Speaker 3: Strangers. was just a snippet that i selected because i thought it really captured the environment that so many witnesses tried to explain to you right it's a christmas parade people are there with their families their little kids their grandkids their neighbors their friends strangers standing next to strangers that's what's going on on main street while that's going on on main street this is going on remember this this is the gas station on the corner of barstow and north street while the units are marching down main street entertaining the crowd daryl brooks is driving recklessly he's enraged and he's arguing with erica patterson why is this important this is important because before he even gets to the parade route this is how he's driving he drives the wrong way down north street and then acts like it's everybody else's fault in the world your objection is noted it's overruled he may continue attorney opera when he finally pulls into the gas station he rolls down his window and yells at the driver who's properly stopped at the stoplight that it's somehow that guy's fault that daryl brooks is trying to drive the wrong way down north street we get to this point states exhibit number three the video is playing you can see the pushing match between daryl brooks corey runkle erica patterson and nick kirby watch this he turns to get in the car flips up his hood and goes and gets in the passenger seat i'm sorry driver [01:32:18] Speaker 2: how long are we going to mischaracterize testimony sir's argument i've heard nothing improper your objections noted it's overruled you may continue attorney opera thank you they need to know they can nullify [01:32:31] Speaker 3: that's it he drives off onto the parade route from this moment right here on exhibit 15 you're watching it he's enraged he's angry flips up that hood and he zooms past sergeant warner past officer casey onto the parade route now there's no doubt for the first two blocks he does not strike anyone and as we've discussed some even said he was driving at a reasonable speed at a reasonable speed initially by the time he gets past officer buttron and officer schneider in this area here of uh east avenue past east avenue and clearly once he gets past barstow that's where it starts right that's where it starts nicole white our first victim walking with re-max in the hot air balloon knocks her over keeps going runs up and over the backs of waukesha south band hits the green children spectating on the sidewalk keeps going runs over kelly grabo and her daughter adelia what walking with burris logistics keeps going plows through the entire extreme dance team just before the five points keeps going hits deborah ramirez and her son isaac spectating on the south side of the street keeps going clears the five points area hits jane kulik square on causing her to go up on the hood of the car and then fall off and drives over her body he doesn't stop he keeps going runs through the kids over by the steaming cup where your parents testify about little brinley and kelsey and owen that were standing there outside the steaming cup they were struck by the red suv driven by darrell brooks keeps going plows through the grannies in that zigzag fashion striking most of them injuring them killing them keeps going gets down here to the end and goes through the catholic community the witness uh remember holly burke she testified about that mobile gas station incident she said she was standing down here in this area she said i saw 15 to 20 people fly in the air they look like bowling pins and when you saw the video she's absolutely right it's a terrible description when you think these are human beings but that's exactly what it looked like when does the intent exist doesn't have to be even for a second i'm not telling you who set out that morning to cause this carnage but when he became enraged back here he didn't give a damn who or what was in his way he intentionally went on i'll show you motive i don't know why he did this folks i don't know why other than the rage he's right he's right you cannot read minds neither can i but the law doesn't require you to the law gives you a way to reach a conclusion as to what is somebody thinking and it's right here decided based on his acts words and statements and from all of the facts and circumstances i've already been through many of them i want to show you what i mean look at this was there room for him to get out this is way back at the beginning this is officer buttron squad video way back at the beginning that's buckley street here that you're looking at look at those barricades look at the sparse crowd and there's officer schneider in her uh yellow fluorescent vest on the left side of the picture about to run into the street and stop him intent i'm going to play this video for you because folks for me this is where it becomes crystal clear you watch this video the first thing you're going to see if you direct your attention to the left side of the screen is you're going to see him hit kelly i'm sorry nicole white knock her to the ground and keep going now if that was the end of the story you may sit here and say madam da i i don't know how you conclude intent from that maybe it was an accident maybe he didn't mean to do it but watch what happens in this video after he knocks nicole white down and tell me this does not prove intent please play keep watching the left side of your screen [01:38:37] Speaker ?: oh [01:38:54] Speaker 3: that's intent folks no reasonable person is going to come across a group of teenagers playing band instruments drive over them and keep going that's a still shot of the same thing that's intent i'm sorry to interrupt your objection sir [01:39:21] Darryl Brooks: how can you tell the jury what they're supposed to think proper argument your objections noted it's overruled i will argue that it's i'll say that it's improper and [01:39:32] Speaker 2: mr brooks said made my ruling i'm going to mute you if you don't follow the rules [01:39:38] Speaker 3: exhibit one of this trial exhibit 152 clearly intentional conduct clearly intentional conduct states exhibit 93 we ask the court to take time to have you go look at this car in person because it's remarkably amazing that this damage was caused by human beings that's intent this is an excerpt from states exhibit 154 maybe a little hard to see a lot of that laying in the front part of this uh photo are shoes remember what dr didritsky said about the shoes and the feet the scuff marks on the toes and the ankles look at all the shoes laying in the street this is the area at the end when he ran through the catholic community all the shoes laying there because of the velocity remember the medical examiner talked about the velocity it's not just the speed it's the velocity the power that these people were knocked right out of their shoes that's intent the flight the hiding changing his appearance he had to go through some effort right crawled up in this playhouse ditched his sweatshirt and his sandal the other sandal seems pretty reasonable he dropped it when he was jumping over a fence changed his appearance please play excuse me intent what's he running from what's he running from if he's just a lost guy with no ride back to milwaukee what's he running from as there's cops sirens wailing in the background i'm not going to go through this whole thing folks suffice it to say after officer scolten tried to stop the threat at that intersection at the top wisconsin avenue and he blew through the barricades there and drove south on west avenue over to prospect court cutting through the yards and ditching the vehicle on maple you heard all the testimony about the commotion on maple the eyewitness testimony from officer sailors off-duty police officer who saw this saw the defendant darryl brooks he identified him for you in this court get out and run from this car and how we tracked him through the neighborhood and again the desperation whether he had to ask or use veiled threats like i won't hurt you but i need your phone he was absolutely desperate to get out of there until he took refuge in the home of daniel rider now remember the interesting thing folks none of these witnesses in this area knew anything about what happened at the parade none of them none of them were there some of them tried to help some of them didn't daniel rider did and it's actually probably a really good thing that he took him in because it stalled right it stalled them from keep running kept them in one place until the cops could close in and get there now mr brooks repeatedly asked witnesses who had just watched their loved ones get struck by this suv if they happen to catch a license plate states exhibit 150 there's the front license plate definitely a little blurry but definitely you can make it out states exhibit 151 there's the rear plate states exhibit 175 there's darryl brooks in his music video with the same car and the same license plate there's the key to the ford that was found in darryl brooks pocket there's no doubt darryl brooks is the person responsible for this because this man in this picture is the same as this man in this picture wearing this sweatshirt this is a sweatshirt from the play set that has darryl brooks dna on it according to the crime lab that's him right there that's darryl brooks driving off into the parade that's darryl brooks driving in the parade that's darryl brooks driving in the parade that is also darryl brooks driving in the parade and so is that and he kept asking people about the tents on the window well guess what folks you don't need to see the tents on the window when the windows are rolled down and there's clearly one person in that vehicle in every one of these photos and it's that man and it's that man and it's that man darryl edward brooks jr date of birth 2 21 1982 on his identification card issued by the state of wisconsin in all capital letters darryl edward brooks jr this was in his pocket when they arrested him so this entire shenanigans that he's presented to you through his questioning of witnesses about i'm not darryl brooks and that's my name and i don't know who that is and i don't uh consent to being called that name it's just nothing but a distraction it's darryl brooks it's the man who drove through the waukesha christmas parade and killed people injured people endangered the safety of people [01:46:24] Darryl Brooks: i'm sorry your objection sir uh your honor with all due respect i i would appreciate the uh the quote unquote uh language to what does she mean by shenanigans and this and that and the third [01:46:40] Speaker 2: sir your objections noted it's overruled the state may continue [01:46:45] Darryl Brooks: well okay can she tone that back because if that was me [01:46:49] Speaker 2: if i would have said mr brooks your objection is noted it's overruled these are closing arguments there's nothing improper it's noted it's overruled she may continue i just wanted i just wanted to be fair you'll have an opportunity to respond sir please let her finish so i can i can rebuttal [01:47:07] Speaker 3: go ahead attorney opera thank you i'm going to conclude my comments with this folks i'm going to show you the video a stitch together video of all the carnage caused by daryl brooks and i apologize it's together this is important that you know what he did it's important that you think about the women like nicole white and kelly grabo and her daughter and jane kulik who were just there with friends and co-workers supporting a local business the teenagers marching in the band representing wearing their school colors it's important the boys and girls with the blazers baseball team and their coaches doing nothing more than handing out baseball cards the young girls in the extreme dance team can you imagine how many hours they spent practicing that routine he drove right through them without a care in the world the grannies dancing their way down the street perfect step every one of them catholic community there as father matt said spreading the light of christ in the weeks before christmas he snuffed it out it's time for daryl brooks to stop running it's time for him to stop lying it's time for him to be held accountable for his actions daryl brooks cowardly rammed his way through this parade violently killing and injuring so many people i'm going to stop talking and play this video but please i ask you to add up the evidence use the map 150 i'm sorry 15 you can check off the names we've covered them all walk down that street like we did with you return guilty verdicts on all counts please go ahead [01:49:44] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:50:14] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:50:44] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:51:14] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Before we continue with Mr. Brooks' closing arguments, I'm going to take a short break. All rise for the jury, please. [01:51:45] Darryl Brooks: Am I muted? No. [01:51:52] Speaker 2: No. [01:51:53] Darryl Brooks: The jury should know that they can nullify you. [01:51:59] Speaker ?: You are muted now. [01:51:59] Speaker 2: Thank you. We'll be in recess for about 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you.