Darrell Brooks Trial — Day 14 (Pt. 2) [Brooks' Closing Argument]

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The record should reflect that Mr. Brooks is now present in the main courtroom. Prior to reopening, following the break, I did invite him back into the courtroom, and he is here. I trust you are ready with your closing argument, sir. [00:00:16] Mr. Brooks: I'm ready to address subject matter jurisdiction as well, too. [00:00:19] Speaker 1: That request is denied. [00:00:22] Mr. Brooks: Just for the record, I was addressing it for both courtrooms here and courtroom number, I think it's 20. [00:00:29] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I'm going to bring the jury out of you prepared to present your closing argument. [00:00:36] Speaker 3: I would like for you to prove subject matter jurisdiction on the record, Your Honor. [00:00:42] Speaker 1: I'm not addressing that any further than I've addressed already, sir. There's a written decision. I remind you of that. [00:00:47] Mr. Brooks: And that written decision, did I receive a, well, actually, I didn't receive anything. Was there copies made? [00:00:57] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I'm going to ask you one more time. Are you prepared with your closing argument? I'm going to have the jury brought out. There is no other legal arguments I need to address from you at this time. [00:01:08] Mr. Brooks: I'm informed of what you're saying. I was merely asking, was there copies made of your, you said written decision? [00:01:18] Speaker 1: Sir, my record, my written decision has been filed into the record. That is done electronically. You were provided with a written copy previously. Are you asking for another copy of that, sir? [00:01:31] Mr. Brooks: Yeah, because I don't have it. [00:01:33] Speaker 1: As a courtesy, I'll have my clerk print off a copy and provide that to you. [00:01:38] Mr. Brooks: Is it proven subject matter jurisdiction? [00:01:40] Speaker 1: Your objection to the lack of jurisdiction has been noted repeatedly on the record. It is a meritless argument. I've indicated that in my written decision as to why there is subject matter jurisdiction. And I will continue forward with the final stages of this trial, which I hope include your closing argument and then the final instructions to the jury. [00:02:08] Mr. Brooks: I will hope it proves subject matter jurisdiction on the record, too. [00:02:14] Speaker 1: All right. I will instruct the jury to come out for the record. The written decision is once again being provided to the defendant. [00:02:20] Mr. Brooks: I accept for value and return for value this document. As it is not based in lawful law. And it does not prove subject matter jurisdiction whatsoever. It refers to some complaint that was filed in the name of a trust, not my name. Were you aware of that, Your Honor? [00:02:49] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, the jury has been asked to be brought out. I mean, I've requested that they be brought out. They're on their way. Were you aware of that? Please be prepared with your closing argument. [00:02:59] Mr. Brooks: Were you aware of that, Your Honor? Or is that a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer any questions as a public servant? [00:03:10] Speaker 4: All right. [00:03:12] Mr. Brooks: So that is a tacit agreement. [00:03:17] Speaker 1: Record to reflect. The jury is coming out. [00:03:23] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:03:23] Speaker 1: Thank you, everyone. Please be seated. Go ahead, sir. You may begin your closing argument. [00:03:35] Mr. Brooks: I'm not ready to begin closing arguments. [00:03:39] Speaker 1: So this is your opportunity to provide your closing argument to the jury. Please start. I've started the timer of one hour. [00:03:48] Mr. Brooks: I'm informed of that, Your Honor, but I'm not ready to proceed as I don't understand the reason why the questions asked before the jury was present were not answered. There are issues that needed to be addressed outside of the jury, as you always say, which I don't understand why. The jury deserves to be able to know. [00:04:06] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, this is your opportunity to present your closing argument to the jury. Please do so. [00:04:12] Mr. Brooks: I'm informed of that, but the jury needs to understand the truth, their rights, and their duties as they have not been informed of their truth, their rights, and their duties. [00:04:20] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, the court has begun the instruction process. I read 73 pages this morning, and into the early afternoon, I have another 30-plus pages to read. They will be informed of the law. [00:04:35] Mr. Brooks: Did you inform them that they can nullify the law? [00:04:37] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, you do not have that right to request that. And I'm advising you one more time. This is your opportunity to provide your closing argument. Please begin. [00:04:48] Mr. Brooks: I intend to, when ready, I just want to know if the jury was informed that they can nullify the law. [00:04:54] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, you have no right to make that argument to the jury. [00:04:59] Mr. Brooks: It's true. They have the power. [00:05:01] Speaker 1: Oh, all right. I'm going to excuse the jury. [00:05:03] Mr. Brooks: They should know that they have the power. [00:05:07] Speaker 1: Please rise for the jury. Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. Brooks, you do not have a right. You do not have a right to request jury nullification directly from this jury. While you are not incorrect that the jury has the power to nullify, they don't have the right to do so. And no party has the right to instruct or to request an instruction or to argue jury nullification. You may not argue that the jury should discard the instructions in the law and find you not guilty for that reason. You may not use the phrase jury nullification. You've done that now at least three times in earshot of the jury. Twice while you were in the other courtroom, I was able to mute half of what you said the second time. And then, of course, you raised that once again while in front of the jury just now. You also indicated you weren't ready to give your closing argument. Sir, this is the time has come for you to give your closing argument. If you choose not to do so at this time, then you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument by your conduct. [00:06:27] Mr. Brooks: I haven't made any such choice, so you can't coerce me into a constitutional right waiver when I have not waived the constitutional right. And I will not allow you as a public servant to do that. I have not made a choice. [00:06:46] Speaker 1: Sir, the time has come for you to present your closing argument. [00:06:50] Mr. Brooks: Are you making a judicial determination that you're denying me a constitutional right in open court on record? [00:06:58] Speaker 1: I have not made such a determination as of yet, but you can forfeit your constitutional rights by conduct. [00:07:04] Mr. Brooks: Under what law for law? [00:07:07] Speaker 1: Illinois v. Allen, State v. Anthony. [00:07:09] Mr. Brooks: Illinois v. Allen does not reference anything pertaining to rights when talking about closing statements. [00:07:16] Speaker 1: State v. Anthony, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin referenced both that decision when it essentially extended the reasoning or adopted the reasoning of Illinois v. Allen to then find that a defendant could forfeit an important constitutional right by conduct. In State v. Anthony, it was not the right to be present in the courtroom, it was the right to testify. [00:07:42] Mr. Brooks: Okay, so none of those that you just named have anything to do with the closing arguments, Your Honor. You've used Illinois v. Allen repeatedly when it comes to me being removed from the courtroom. Not one time did it bring up anything dealing with a closing statement or a closing argument. So how is that same statute being used for something that it doesn't even refer to or pertain to? [00:08:10] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, the Allen decision, Illinois v. Allen, and the Anthony decision, which is State v. Anthony, are two examples of cases where a defendant lost a very important constitutional right because that right was forfeited by the conduct of that particular defendant. [00:08:28] Mr. Brooks: And that was to be present in trial, correct? [00:08:30] Speaker 1: The right to present a closing argument is no different. Because it is not evidence, it could be said that it doesn't even rank as high as the right to testify, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. [00:08:49] Mr. Brooks: Which I was denied the right to be able to testify to. [00:08:51] Speaker 1: I'm not prepared to make that ruling here yet today, but I will tell you this, sir. The time has now come for you to present a closing argument. There will be no further delays. It's not a delay. I will not be taking any further adjournments for you to prepare. You were advised yesterday that this court would proceed today with instructing the jury and with the parties making their closing arguments. [00:09:18] Mr. Brooks: And you made that while violating my constitutional rights. It is up. [00:09:20] Speaker 1: Sir, please don't interrupt me because you've now interrupted me a couple of times. [00:09:24] Mr. Brooks: No, once. Twice. So let's make that correct. Once. [00:09:28] Speaker 1: That's the third time. [00:09:29] Mr. Brooks: Okay, now you can say two. [00:09:31] Speaker 1: So, Mr. Brooks, I'm advising you yet again, the time has now come. I don't consent to be in court that day, Mary. That's another interruption. The time has now come for you to present your closing argument to this jury. You were brought back over to this courtroom for that purpose. [00:09:48] Mr. Brooks: I'm going to let them know. [00:09:49] Speaker 1: That's another interruption. [00:09:51] Mr. Brooks: No, I'm going to let them know that they have rights and they should be told, informed of the truth. It's not me trying to give. [00:09:58] Speaker 1: Are you telling me, sir, that you are going to dis... It's not trying to give. Let me ask you a question. God, hello. [00:10:02] Mr. Brooks: I'm not trying to give any jury instruction. [00:10:03] Speaker 1: Sir, you're interrupting me and you haven't let me finish. So are you telling me that you are going to disregard my very clear directive to you to not bring up the topic of jury nullification? [00:10:15] Mr. Brooks: That's not what I said. [00:10:16] Speaker 1: That's why I'm asking you. [00:10:17] Mr. Brooks: I don't understand that question because that's not what I said. [00:10:20] Speaker 1: Sir, you may not argue jury nullification to this jury. [00:10:24] Mr. Brooks: I'm going to inform them of the truth. [00:10:26] Speaker 1: So you're going to inform them that they have the power of jury nullification? [00:10:31] Mr. Brooks: They do have the... You just said on the record that they have the power for... [00:10:34] Speaker 1: Sir, I direct your attention once again. You just said that. [00:10:36] Mr. Brooks: Did you not just say that, Your Honor? [00:10:38] Speaker 1: Sir, the jury... [00:10:39] Mr. Brooks: You said I couldn't instruct them on that. [00:10:42] Speaker 1: The jury has the power but not the right to nullify. [00:10:45] Mr. Brooks: Right. You said the power. You said the power. [00:10:47] Speaker 1: Listen to me, sir. You're interrupting me once again. [00:10:50] Mr. Brooks: So I'm going to inform them that they have the power. [00:10:52] Speaker 1: Are you telling me, sir, that you are going to disregard my directive to you to not raise the issue of jury nullification during your closing argument? [00:11:04] Mr. Brooks: That's not what I said. You just read and said that they have the power to... That's what you just said, Your Honor. [00:11:10] Speaker 1: Sir, although the jury has the power of jury nullification... [00:11:14] Mr. Brooks: Ah, they have the power. [00:11:15] Speaker 1: ...no party has the right to argue for jury nullification. [00:11:21] Mr. Brooks: I'm not arguing for it, Your Honor. I just want them to be informed. In that case, the... [00:11:24] Speaker 1: Sir, you can call it informing, making them aware... [00:11:30] Mr. Brooks: Yeah, they should be aware of the right. [00:11:32] Speaker 1: You are not allowed to make them aware of their power to nullify. That is an improper argument. [00:11:40] Speaker 5: Your Honor, how can I not inform them that they have a power? How can I not inform them of a power that they have? I'm not giving a new jury instruction. That's not what I'm arguing. [00:11:53] Speaker 1: There is no jury instruction for jury nullification, sir, because it's not allowed. [00:11:57] Speaker 5: I'm not attempting to give them a new jury instruction. I'm merely attempting to inform them of the power that they have. That's not against the law. [00:12:05] Speaker 1: I'm advising you one more time. You may not raise the issue of jury nullification before this jury... [00:12:12] Mr. Brooks: I'm going to inform them of the power that they have. [00:12:16] Speaker 1: You are telling me that you are insisting on telling them about jury nullification. That's what I hear you saying. [00:12:23] Mr. Brooks: That's not what I said, though. Don't mischaracterize what I'm saying. You just read and said that they have the power. They have the power to do that. So how is informing them... [00:12:34] Speaker 1: It's an inherent power that they have. They are not to be instructed on it. That is very clear in the law. In addition to... No, let me finish. In addition to the case that I just cited, I'd cite to you from the jury instructions the law note on jury nullification 705. It is improper for a court to allow a defendant or a defense attorney to make an argument or make the jury aware that they have the power to nullify a verdict. [00:13:08] Mr. Brooks: And, Your Honor, you just added this last night. That's why I had to sit there for an hour in the holding cell and wait for you to change the whole paperwork because I brought that up. So you never intended for this to even be an issue. It never was brought up. But then when I raised the issue, Your Honor, let me finish. [00:13:23] Speaker 1: If you think that I'm not prepared to deal with and argue on jury nullification... I didn't say... [00:13:26] Mr. Brooks: That's not what I said. That's not what I said. In all fairness, that's not what I said. [00:13:31] Speaker 1: The record should accurately reflect that you were kept in that holding cell... Why was I kept in here? ...so that my clerk could finish the 76 verdict forms and it's times two because there's a guilt... a guilty and a not guilty for each... No, let me finish. [00:13:49] Mr. Brooks: So how did I have to sit here for that where I could have just went to my cell and had a delivery? We had this at the end of last night before you call recess. [00:14:01] Speaker 1: I'm not going to debate that topic with you further. [00:14:03] Speaker 5: We had a whole conversation about me bringing up about the jury nullification. [00:14:09] Speaker 1: Disregarding this court. You can roll your eyes at me before you want. [00:14:16] Speaker 5: It's ridiculous, Your Honor. You just stated that they have the power to nullify any law... Would you like... If you would like... But then I said... [00:14:24] Speaker 1: I will leave this to you, sir, the part of the case that's important, but you're not letting me get a word in edgewise. I'm trying my best not to remove you to the other courtroom, but that is oftentimes what I need to do in order for this court to make a full record without you interrupting me. But you need to be fully aware that you may not raise the issue of jury nullification in front of this jury. It is not an allowable argument or an advisement or making them aware. However you want to describe that, sir, whatever verbiage you want to put in front of it, you may not do so. And this court has the power and the authority to limit what you say to this jury, even in a closing argument. And if you're telling me through your conduct, through your words, that you are going to disregard that direction, you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument. [00:15:29] Mr. Brooks: Under what law for law? [00:15:31] Speaker 1: Under State v. Anthony. [00:15:33] Mr. Brooks: It doesn't refer to that. [00:15:35] Speaker 1: State v. Anthony may not have dealt with... [00:15:38] Mr. Brooks: It hasn't dealt with closing arguments. [00:15:39] Speaker 1: The right to a closing argument, sir, but the reasoning... You just said it right there. ...none the less is fully applicable. No, you can't change the law, Your Honor. [00:15:49] Mr. Brooks: You can't change the law. That's practicing law from the bench. [00:15:52] Speaker 1: I'm not changing the law, sir, but the general principle... [00:15:53] Mr. Brooks: I know you used to be in legislation, but you can't practice law from the bench. [00:15:57] Speaker 1: Sir, I'm not practicing law from the bench. [00:16:00] Speaker 5: You are, if you're changing, if you're... Your Honor, you're attempting to make a separate case pertain to something here that doesn't even pertain to it. It has nothing to do with a closing argument. Nothing that you just named. Not Illinois v. Allen. [00:16:19] Speaker 1: I would like to make a record. Would you please show the courtesy and respect for me to do that? I will, Your Honor. [00:16:24] Mr. Brooks: I will. [00:16:25] Speaker 1: All right. The guidance from Illinois v. Allen and State v. Anthony, it directly guides this court that a defendant may forfeit a right by conduct by doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right. In this particular case, you are very clearly telling me you are going to disregard what I told you about notifying the jury about nullification. You have absolutely no right to raise that in front of the jury. It is improper. It is improper. And unless you're willing to tell me you will honor this ruling of mine, then you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument. Are you willing to make a closing argument, sir, that does not reference jury nullification? [00:17:30] Mr. Brooks: I'm going to inform the jury of their power. Again, I never stated that I was making a new jury instruction. I never stated anything like that. And every case law that you just stated made no reference to closing arguments. It was all pertaining to being present for the proceedings of trial and for testifying. [00:17:58] Speaker 1: Sir, what I'm telling you- Not one time did you- [00:17:59] Mr. Brooks: Hold on. I'll let, your honor, with all due respect, I'll let you make your record. I didn't interrupt you. [00:18:05] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:18:07] Mr. Brooks: Not one case law that you just cited made any reference whatsoever to a closing argument. Not one. So how is me merely informing the jury of the power and the rights that they have, how is that a forfeiture of being able to give a closing argument? [00:18:32] Speaker 1: I am in creating a rule for your closing argument that you may not raise the issue of jury nullification in any way. [00:18:44] Mr. Brooks: Your honor, hold up. Hold up now. I'm the only one that has to be made rules for for closing arguments, but not the prosecution? How is that fair? How is that balanced? [00:18:58] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, I am squarely faced with your defiance regarding the issue of jury nullification. It's not defiance. That is requiring me to address this issue and to tell you very expressly that that is the rule for your closing argument. [00:19:13] Mr. Brooks: I vehemently object to that. [00:19:14] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted for the record. [00:19:17] Mr. Brooks: May I ask for a legal reconsideration of your ruling? [00:19:20] Speaker 1: That request is denied. [00:19:23] Mr. Brooks: May I respectfully ask for a matter of fact, I reject that ruling and take exception to that ruling. For the record, may I request a legal or factual basis for your ruling, not one pertaining to being present in the courtroom or testifying. One that specifically talks about a closing argument. [00:19:54] Speaker 1: All of those requests are noted. I will not reconsider. I have to put my findings and my reasoning on the record, and I stand by that record. [00:20:05] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I respectfully request a written judicial finding of facts and conclusion of law? [00:20:10] Speaker 1: Denied. [00:20:11] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I respectfully move for interlocutory declaratory appeal on this matter. [00:20:18] Speaker 1: I'm not the form for which an appeal would be sought, sir. I cannot answer that. [00:20:22] Mr. Brooks: You referred to it before. [00:20:26] Speaker 1: You would need to direct your appeal to a court of appeals, not this court. [00:20:31] Mr. Brooks: No, this is, I'm supposed to be in this admiralty court because you haven't, you haven't, is the, if we're under article three, then we should be in common law court. That hasn't even been addressed if we're in a common law court or an admiralty court. [00:20:48] Speaker 1: That's a baseless argument, sir. I don't even need to address it. And what law in fact? [00:20:52] Mr. Brooks: Based on what law in fact? [00:20:53] Speaker 1: It's meritless. [00:20:55] Mr. Brooks: Based on what law in fact? [00:20:56] Speaker 1: Sir, I intend to bring this jury out and give you an opportunity to present a closing argument. If you violate, please let me, sir, you're interrupting me yet again. [00:21:11] Speaker 5: You just tried to put me under a rule that no one else was put under. [00:21:15] Speaker 1: The circumstances require that I implement this rule, sir, given your stubborn defiance on the issue of jury nullification. That's a prejudice to my defense. [00:21:22] Speaker 5: You can't place me under certain rules and not place the, prosecution under the same rules. [00:21:28] Speaker 1: Sir, the circumstances of this case and your insistence on arguing jury nullification has resulted in this court creating this rule. [00:21:36] Mr. Brooks: I haven't argued it. I said that I wanted to inform the jury of their power. I never once said I'm going to make an argument, I'm going to give them a jury instruction. I never said that. [00:21:45] Speaker 1: You may not advise them or make them aware in any way that they have the power of jury nullification. [00:21:50] Mr. Brooks: And why not? Why can't they be informed of their power? [00:21:52] Speaker 1: Because it would violate the bajerkus decision, sir. [00:21:55] Mr. Brooks: Violate what decision? [00:21:57] Speaker 1: All right, sir, I am going to bring the jury out. [00:21:59] Mr. Brooks: And I'm going to inform them that they have the power. [00:22:01] Speaker 1: And if you do that, I will dismiss the jury. And I will declare that your right to present a closing argument has been forfeited based upon how I've outlined that today. I'm not going to declare that at this point because I want to see what you will do. But if you raise the issue of jury nullification, I will immediately dismiss the jury. You will forfeit your right to present a closing argument. [00:22:27] Mr. Brooks: Under what lawful law can you? [00:22:28] Speaker 1: And then if you continue to interrupt me, you will be removed to the other courtroom as I complete the instructions. So I'm being held in contempt again. [00:22:36] Mr. Brooks: Is it civil or criminal? [00:22:38] Speaker 1: You're on. [00:22:39] Speaker 6: Go ahead. I apologize. May I ask the court to consider perhaps an alternative? And I fully respect the ruling the court has just made, and I understand the basis for it. We all know the defendant in his petulance will say jury nullification in the first three seconds. The jury's in the room. [00:23:00] Mr. Brooks: Objection to that? [00:23:02] Speaker 6: Proper thing to do. I don't think that I should be talked down to. Stop interrupting. [00:23:06] Mr. Brooks: I don't think I should be talked down to. [00:23:09] Speaker 6: Allow him to make his closing arguments. I will object if he misstates the law. You can instruct the jury to disregard any misstatements of the law, and we continue in that fashion, if possible, for a reasonable amount of time. And if it comes to the point where there's no reasonable, legal, credible argument that's being made, then the court can decide as to whether or not he's forfeited his right to a closing argument. But we could at least try to, by merely objecting and the court telling the jury to disregard and instructing Mr. Brooks to move on to the next topic, we could try to allow him his opportunity to provide a closing argument. If that's unworkable, if that's unworkable, then I think this record will be very clear as to the efforts of this court. You have told them and you will tell them that closing arguments are not evidence. And I think they will abide by that. So I know it's going to require effort for the court to allow this to allow Mr. Brooks to try and proceed. But I think we should try that or something similar to that in an effort to get through this next step, or else we will continue at this pace forever. [00:24:45] Speaker 1: I'm certainly willing to try that. That's about all we can come up with, Your Honor. I mean, I'm certainly willing to try it in this courtroom, and if he disregards that, to excuse the jury and then have him present from the other courtroom would be the second step, and then third would be a forfeiture. [00:25:06] Speaker ?: Agreed. [00:25:07] Mr. Brooks: Your Honor, I'll object to that. [00:25:11] Speaker 1: Your objection is noted for the record. That will be the course of action that this court takes. The first time you violate the rule, you may be subject to forfeiting your right to be present, where you will give the closing argument from the other courtroom. And if you continue in a blatant disregard of the requirement that you not reference in any way jury nullification, I may make that final determination outside the presence of the jury. [00:25:40] Mr. Brooks: I object to that, Your Honor. [00:25:43] Speaker 1: All right. With that, let's bring the jury out. [00:25:44] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I respectfully request a legal reconsideration of your ruling? So, is that a tacit agreement that you don't have to answer my objection, Your Honor? [00:25:59] Speaker 1: I decline to reconsider. [00:26:04] Mr. Brooks: I reject that ruling and take exception to that ruling, Your Honor. [00:26:09] Speaker 1: Noted for the record. [00:26:10] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I request a legal or factual basis for your ruling, Your Honor? [00:26:16] Speaker 1: Denied. [00:26:19] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I respectfully request a written judicial finding of facts and conclusion of law on this issue, Your Honor? [00:26:25] Speaker 1: Denied. [00:26:25] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I respectfully move for interlocutory declaratory appeal on this matter? [00:26:31] Speaker 1: I'm not the court to address that. [00:26:33] Mr. Brooks: For the record, may I move to state these proceedings until this instant matter is adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which this court has no subject matter of jurisdiction. [00:26:42] Speaker 1: Denied. [00:26:44] Mr. Brooks: Based on what law of fact. [00:26:45] Speaker 1: Based on what law of fact. [00:26:52] Mr. Brooks: Because I'm going to inform the jury of their power. They deserve to know. [00:27:03] Speaker 1: Thank you, everyone. Please be seated. Go ahead, Mr. Brooks. Your closing argument, please. [00:27:13] Mr. Brooks: Good afternoon. It's been a long day. First off, I'd just like to start by letting you guys know that there's a lot of information that you guys should be privy to, I believe. One thing that I believe that you have not been privy to is the truth of your rights and your duties. Being the jury. The fact that you and you alone have the power, not well-prepared DAs with well-prepared and clearly rehearsed speeches and exhibits and a lot of theatrics. Frankly, not the judge. You and you alone have the power. You and you alone decide what is truth and what isn't truth. You should be informed that you have the power to nullify any law that you don't agree with. [00:28:22] Speaker 7: Objection. [00:28:23] Speaker 6: We'll strike a statement. [00:28:25] Speaker 1: Sustained. [00:28:26] Mr. Brooks: Objection. [00:28:26] Speaker 1: I will strike from the record the last statement made by the defendant. The jury will disregard it. [00:28:32] Mr. Brooks: Which is clearly what I've been saying. I believe that not only is it fair, but it's essential that you be privy to all knowledge. Not knowledge that certain people feel that you should hear and shouldn't hear. Disguised under the color of law. The fact of the matter is, just like I did with my opening statements, I don't have a well-prepared or rehearsed speech. I didn't look in the mirror and say certain points to myself over and over again to make sure I have them right or anything like that. I've chosen to speak from the heart. In my opening statements and now I'm going to speak from the heart. What you won't hear me do is argue facts. And the reason you won't hear me argue facts is because I believe that it takes away from what should be recognized. The tragedy of this event. It should be recognized. If you're trying to argue facts of this, facts of that, I'm not going to waste your time doing that. It's a little emotional. I apologize for the long pause. It's hard to keep everything together emotionally. And honestly, I don't believe that I have any more tears left. It's been a hard year for the families, mostly. And that should not be lost on anyone. And it shouldn't be taken away. I said it before and I'll say it again. It's a lot of people that are healing, that are attempting to heal. That opens the door to talk about forgiveness for a little bit. With every healing process, there comes a forgiving process, which you've been hearing from the prosecution. And not to take anything away from them. But let's call it what it is. You've been hearing a lot of reruns. Same things over and over and over. No different than when you turn on the radio and you first hear that song that you don't like when you first hear it. But they play it so much that eventually you start saying the words to yourself before you even realize it. And then you sit and you go, I hate that song. Why am I singing it? That's what's been happening. Rewind. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Attempting to make things stick in your head that simply aren't true. It's not an easy thing for anyone. Why do I say what am I saying? I say look at the testimony. The thing from the prosecution here has been intent, intent, intent, intent. We all know what's been said. We all know the picture that's been painted. Even the prosecution said it themselves. How can you look at somebody's head and say, this is what they intended to do? For a year, I've sat and gone through this feeling so powerless. Letting other people run with the narratives. Sitting back helpless while other people paint a picture that has zero truth. Zero. I understand about healing myself. Tragedy, pain, all that. A lot of it, there's no need to get into. I, myself, in my own life have had to do a lot of healing. As a man with children myself. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's really had conversations with me, spent time around me, would think for one second that this is an intentional act. I've never heard of someone intentionally trying to hurt someone while attempting to blow their horn. While attempting to alert people of their presence. Which brings me to more information that I believe that you should have been privy to. And I'm sure that the prosecution will beg to differ. But the fact of the matter is, the vehicle in question, make a model of 2010, Ford Escape. The vehicle in question, actually 2008, 2009, and 2010 of that model, was in fact recalled. [00:33:51] Speaker 6: Injection, misstatement of the facts, facts, not in evidence, in proper argument, Your Honor. Sustained. [00:33:56] Mr. Brooks: Was in fact recalled. Was in fact a class action lawsuit against Ford. Injection, facts, not in evidence. For those model vehicles. [00:34:08] Speaker 1: Sustained the jurable disregard. [00:34:10] Mr. Brooks: Information that you should have been privy to. That you weren't allowed to be privy to. Why? I don't know. That information. Malfunctioning throttle bodies. [00:34:25] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, move on. [00:34:28] Mr. Brooks: It's information that you should have been privy to. Vehicles that malfunction and accelerate not being able to be stopped. [00:34:36] Speaker 7: It's information, it's information. There's an objection, hold on. Go ahead. Move to strike statements by Mr. Brooks. Sorry for the interruption there. Fact's not in evidence, Your Honor. And it's a complete misstatement. Sustained. [00:34:51] Mr. Brooks: How is it a misstatement when I have the information? [00:34:55] Speaker 1: Mr. Brooks, move on. [00:34:57] Mr. Brooks: This is information that I feel like you needed to know. You should have known. Information that was taken away from you. Why? To prove a case? Information that you definitely should have been privy to. DA says the defendant has utter disregard for human life. Utter disregard for human life. Not realizing that they're talking about someone that has, again, has children. Talking about someone that watched their children come out of the womb and be born into this world. Cut their biblical cord. Held them before their mom even did. Moments that I'll never forget. And yet, they say disregard. Utter disregard for human life. They made reference to a rage. As if they were, or if this particular DA was right there, standing right there. As if this DA is a psychiatrist, I say to myself, with rage, what do you mean rage? How can you characterize that? How can you have the audacity to diagnose what someone's brain is? Where it's at, where it's at, what it's thinking, why it thinks the way it does. DA makes references to blocks of no one being injured, but then says it's intentional. You add that up with the supposed rage, the supposed intent to harm and kill. And it doesn't kick in until well within blocks. And maybe it's just me, but I would think if I was characterizing someone with this intent to kill and this rage and this anger, then why weren't people immediately harmed? Why would someone with intent to kill and rage try to alert people of their presence? Repeatedly honk their horn. You heard a detective, if you recall, testify that the vehicle that he observed was not only honking his horn, but was not speeding. So where does this rage kick in? Where does this insatiable intent to kill kick in? They speak as someone who's known someone for years. Which brings me back to the vehicle. What if the vehicle couldn't stop because of the malfunction? [00:37:57] Speaker 7: Objection fact, not in evidence. [00:37:59] Mr. Brooks: What if the driver of the vehicle was unable to stop the vehicle? Because of that fact, what if the driver may have panicked? Does that make the driver a crazed, or not crazed, a rage? Does that make the driver in a rage, and intent on killing people? DA played an exhibit 17. On that exhibit, you don't see anyone struck. With someone who had this intent to kill, this rage, as she says, if that was their intent, wouldn't they have taken the opportunity to hit as many people as they could? Target people? Mow down people? References made to this vehicle, the damage, says this was all caused by bodies, but then later turns around and says, hits barricades and other objects. Referred testimony about hearing loud crashes and things of that nature, but the DA wants you to believe that this all came from people. Evidence doesn't support that. So I go back to trying to wrap my head around everything that's happened in the last year. Praying for those families, praying for the people that tragically lost their life, because that should not be lost either. The fact that there was lives lost and all the emphasis has been put on the alleged defendant and the people have been disregarded. Makes me wonder, does the DA even care about those people? There's been prayers going up every day. There's been suffering on both sides. There's been threats, hate mail, because of the narratives that's been put out there. The misconceptions that have been put out there. The lies that have been put out there. Lies that have caused my children not to be able to go to school. to be bullied. For my mother to have to leave her home and stay at a hotel because she's afraid for her safety. Because she gets hate mail shoved through her mailbox. My nieces and nephews to fear for their safety. What's been equally hard is not only having to answer the questions from my daughter who was seven at the time. My baby. My baby girl who was seven at the time. Is now eight. Attempting to answer her questions that she's asking and still continue to shield her from what she sees. What she hears. Having a newborn son that I haven't even been able to meet. I haven't been able to hold, touch, kiss. Having to navigate everything that comes with this whole situation are still attempting to wrap my head around me. I can't honestly say how many times I've sat in my cell especially during Lights Out alone where it's just you praying and asking myself how could this happen. Not just for the people but for everybody involved the community too. How could this happen? The hardest questions you can ask is those that don't have an answer. No matter how much thinking you do no matter how much you try to look at it from different perspectives and listen to other outside perspectives and listen to people that you trust and that you love still coming up with nothing. But to think for one second one one one question I never had to ask was if this was intentional. That's something that never even I never asked once because I know it wasn't. As a matter of fact it never even crossed my mind to even attempt to ask myself that because I know it wasn't. And I know sometimes during this trial probably doesn't show. Made me hard to believe but trust me when I say no one outside of the families that had to go through this no one's heart is more in pieces than mine. So again I go back to all these exhibits go back to everything that's been shown everything that's been testified to everything you've heard during this whole process this trial and again I say the same thing that I said earlier same thing I said opening statements not reading from any paper any books everything you've heard in opening statements everything you're hearing now is from right here everything you have the decision you and you alone all of you you have the decision I'm sure you've taken a lot of notes during this process some days are longer than others a lot of movement in and out of the courtroom for various reasons remember the power that you have don't for one second let it be taken away from you I can never understand the position of sitting on the jury in something of this magnitude so I'm sure there's a lot of pressure I pray that the right decision is made the right decision it's almost like that message well not message but that writing when we're in our vehicles and we have that rear view mirror and it said things are closer than they appear but it's also another way of saying sometimes things aren't as they appear I can't speak for anyone else but me myself I believe in Jesus Christ so I was raised that's what I believe in none of us are perfect but I try every day to make sure that I acknowledge him that's why every time I step in this courtroom I have my bible with me everywhere I go I even read it on breaks recesses this is not something that started at the beginning of this incident this is something that has been instilled in me since I came out of the womb this is how my family lives their life this is how we was raised for whatever mistakes that I myself have made in my life I made peace with God made peace I'm happy to say that my conscience is clear and because I believe I trust him with my life nobody would never know why it was his will for this to happen a lot of lives were changed that day mine included God's way is not our own and no matter how much sometimes we want to question we have to have faith look inside yourself look inside yourself and make the right decision look inside your heart you have everything in your hands do what's right don't let the smoke and mirrors take away your power don't let the theatrics take away your power each and every one of you has a decision do what's right make make the right decision it's hard to think about my younger kids getting older and at some point having to explain everything to them kids don't stay kids forever and nowadays kids is frankly a lot smarter than we were when we was kids I'll tell you that much I got a letter the other day my youngest daughter and she's still learning cursive right now so she's the best writer when it comes to cursive she'd rather print she said dad and this is from the letter she said dad why are people saying all these mean things about you I haven't read the rest of that letter yet the rest of that sentence said that's not the dad I know throughout this year I've been called a lot of things and to be fair I am a lot of things a murder is not one of them never has been never will be so before I close my statements I just want to say open your hearts go inside yourself when making this decision have no fear pray and do what you know is right what you know is right think about everything you've heard think about everything you haven't been privileged to hear think about the whole entire picture and above everything whatever whatever you decide make sure you yourself can live with it make sure you can live with it that's the magnitude of the power that you have just like this tissue is in my hand this is everything you have everything be at peace with what you decide have no regrets don't let this decision weigh on you after it's over hopefully we got a long lot of living ahead of us Lord willing don't look back and kick yourself in the behind spend about three weeks with you took a lot of courage and a lot of guts to pause your life for this to put important things on hold to basically stop your life you should be committed for being able to sit up here with this amount of pressure I want you guys to know that's not lost on me I'm sure it's a lot and you all should be committed because it took courage to do this I don't know but I would bet a lot of people wouldn't want to be sitting in your position right now and you guys have the guts to do it thank you for that thank you for taking pretty much a month and setting it to the side for this I know it's probably not proper but you guys deserve a round of applause if you could get one thank you guys sincerely and I know and I have faith and I trust that you guys know what's right ladies and gentlemen I don't think it's fair to just say guys but I believe in your heart you know what's right thank you [00:51:19] Speaker 1: thank you sir before I give the state an opportunity to present rebuttal please stand for a minute so please stand all right have a seat please and attorney opera I did time both closings you have 1328 left [00:51:44] Speaker 7: thank you judge I think that'll be an issue [00:51:48] Speaker 6: folks let me just say this Mr. Brooks stands here and professes to speak to you from his heart he plays on your sympathy he talks about his children he talks about the hardships that he's encountered and his family's encountered and he brushes over the loss to the community he wants to talk about how he's never held his newborn son never once acknowledges the Sorenson family the Owen family the Duran family the Hospital family the Kulik family Sparks family never once it's nice that Mr. Brooks can get letters from his loved ones I don't know why he did this I told you that but actions define a person it's that simple you can stand with the Bible in your hands all day long and profess to be the finest man under God that you can be but when you drive through a parade route and roll over children children with band instruments to the extent that your vehicle heaves up and down your intent is known Mr. Brooks it doesn't have to be guessed it's known you don't have to stand and wonder as he claims to for him to keep going after he drove over those children in the band and have Jackson sparks fly off the front hood of his car lifeless and keep going and have Jane Kulik fly off the hood of his car run her over and keep going I'm not going to go on you get it you need to look in the mirror Mr. Brooks if you want to accuse me of practicing my closing argument you need to look in the mirror sir your actions are that of a murderer you murdered these six people you endangered the safety of 61 others there are 68 victims in this case folks that's not an accident that's not a gee I woke up one day and don't know how I found myself in this position if you have some explaining to do to your children Mr. Brooks I recommend you do it [00:55:02] Mr. Brooks: now [00:55:13] Speaker 1: members of the jury the duties of the parties and the court have been performed the case has been argued by the parties the court has instructed you regarding the rules of law which should govern you in your deliberations the following 76 forms of verdict will be submitted to you concerning the charges against the defendant Darrell E. Brooks after you have reached a verdict the presiding juror will notify the bailiff that a verdict has been reached everyone will return to the courtroom the verdict the verdict the court may ask each of you if you agree with the verdict here are the jury instructions as well for the record it's 624 all rise for the jury as their excuse to begin their deliberations I really will leave it up to them as to how late they want to deliberate before they would want a break and then to retire for the evening they are under a sequestration order so they will be kept separate and apart their electronics have been confiscated and they will not be going home until verdicts have been reached or they are discharged from the court whichever would occur sooner anything else the parties would want me to address at this moment from the state [00:56:46] Speaker 6: anything [00:56:49] Speaker 1: from you sir yep [00:56:50] Mr. Brooks: so essentially I'm going to have to stay here while you're delivering I'm going to be able to go back to my unit use the phone shower here it is shower day for my pod let me get two shower days I [00:57:10] Speaker 1: don't so here's what could happen though sir I don't have a problem with you doing that but they could have questions and then so and then you would need to become available so we could address any questions they may ask for exhibits things of that nature so let me do this let me confer with the sheriff's department I don't initially see an issue with that but I want to make sure that they have a protocol in place and that's what they would like to do as well okay [00:57:40] Mr. Brooks: and one more thing go ahead I was I was curious 61 charges for reckless 61 injured parties did not testify so how does that work how how how how essentially how are charges able to be charged if all the injured parties did not testify [00:58:11] Speaker 1: from my perspective sir the state presented their theory of the case and there was sufficient evidence regarding the charges to go forward to the jury I can't further explain it from there because that would for me that would require me to explain the law and I guess that's all I can really say about it at this point [00:58:41] Mr. Brooks: I got a point though [00:58:43] Speaker 1: I'm sorry I [00:58:44] Mr. Brooks: got a point though [00:58:45] Speaker 1: I'm not going to comment on that sir of course the state bears the burden of proof and they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt for better or for worse sir I was not presented with any motions to dismiss the jury has the case and they will determine their verdicts if there are issues of law that you want to raise after the verdicts are received then you'll have to make that determination [00:59:22] Mr. Brooks: yeah that has to be raised because essentially you can't if no injured party testifies then there shouldn't be a charge [00:59:31] Speaker 1: I disagree with that characterization sir but there is frankly no motion in front of me based in law or fact so for me to comment any further would require me to give an advisory opinion which I'm not willing to do so you [00:59:45] Mr. Brooks: saying I need to make a motion [00:59:46] Speaker 1: so what I will say at this point is I do have one issue that I would like to raise with the parties I frankly would just I need a break a little bit I mean obviously the court has to stay open I know my dinner is coming and I think it's reasonable I need to put a few things together but I do that but I will do that let me confer with the sheriff's department about your request I would like to take about 30 minutes address the issues that I need to address or the issue and I want to find out if that would interfere with your request about taking a shower and all of that so if you can hold tight and stay with us for a little bit that would be great and I'll confer with the sheriff's department and have a more definitive answer for you shortly okay can [01:00:49] Mr. Brooks: I get my file ings [01:00:50] Speaker 1: you want the we have you want the originals back if madam clerk has scanned them all in and they're uploaded I don't have an issue giving you the originals back they will have the date stamp they don't have a time because they [01:01:12] Speaker 6: also so that they were in there printed them after I scanned them in so it has a document number [01:01:17] Speaker 1: so you're getting two copies see [01:01:21] Mr. Brooks: I didn't interrupt you see [01:01:22] Speaker 1: I'm sorry [01:01:24] Mr. Brooks: I said see I didn't interrupt you [01:01:26] Speaker 1: thank you I appreciate that unless there's I would like the parties back in about a half an hour thank you unless they have a question sooner [01:01:34] Mr. Brooks: your honor do I have to [01:01:42] Speaker 1: I wanted to advise the parties that earlier today I received information from the clerk of court that she had received an email the person sending the email had found a post on justice for Daryl on reddit so it's a sub reddit I'm not familiar with how reddit works but and that the thread on the justice for Daryl reddit site was claiming to be a member of the sub reddit called justice for Daryl all those justice the number four and Daryl all no spaces I then had contact with Captain Dussault advised him that this should be investigated and basically turned over the matter to law enforcement for a full investigation at that point I made a determination based upon my review of the information that I would not stop what was happening in terms of trial with the instructions to the jury and ultimately the closing arguments and then turning the case over to the jury for deliberations of course I am concerned about the integrity of these proceedings and I will take whatever action that I deem appropriate once a full investigation is done but but at this point there is no I would say credible information that this is in fact a member of the jury but I will leave that for law enforcement to determine so that's the information I wanted to provide again copies of this information will be provided to the parties and there is a full investigation underway by the sheriff's department and I hope we have the copies for the parties and provide those go ahead [01:03:34] Mr. Brooks: I'll make sure you go ahead what is [01:03:40] Speaker 4: this [01:03:40] Speaker 1: all I can tell you sir is that there is apparently on the internet on a site or maybe it's an application I'm not entirely sure called reddit there's a subreddit that is entitled justice for Daryl and it was on that subreddit that someone wrote an anonymous post claiming to be one of the jurors [01:04:04] Mr. Brooks: except for value and return for value these documents I'm confused I'm was this I'm sorry was this just found out about this morning [01:04:18] Speaker 1: yes the email that was sent to the clerk of court was received at 9 10 a.m. that email about this topic will be forwarded to the sheriff's department their forensic unit is handling the investigation to my understanding attorney offer did you have a question or something to state [01:04:39] Speaker 6: yes your honor I just wanted to state for the record that I have also received similar emails at my office this afternoon they were sent not to me directly but to the district attorney's office website and I only wanted to point out that in viewing the contents of the posting well first of all all the emails refer to the exact same posting and the language is the exact same in all the postings in viewing the contents of the posting we question the veracity of the posting because it refers to things that quite frankly are not true and also upon reviewing it your honor we came to the conclusion that it does not exhibit any material prejudice against Darrell Brooks that may affect the veracity of any verdict that may be returned in this case the posting is largely critical of the court and to some extent the prosecution but the nature of the posting is actually in support of Mr. Brooks that's why it's under a subreddit called justice for Darrell [01:05:57] Speaker 1: thank you I appreciate the additional record [01:05:59] Speaker 3: can I say something your honor go ahead [01:06:03] Mr. Brooks: I do want to state for the record that I have no involvement with this I'm fairly really like shocked like this even came to light just by skimming through it these are definitely things that have been talked about in the court so we'll have to I mean common sense would say that this came from someone that has either been in the court to hear what goes on in the court or a jury member there's no other way [01:06:36] Speaker 6: well because the proceedings are live streamed worldwide your honor are available on youtube worldwide so I don't agree with that assessment [01:06:44] Mr. Brooks: well I mean it's pretty obvious that this will come from somebody who's actually I think it's pretty clear [01:06:57] Speaker 1: well I'm leaving it in the hands of law enforcement at this time it is simply being investigated this was an anonymous post and if either party believes any further action needs to take place as it relates to this particular jury then I trust they'll file the appropriate request with the court so with that the courtroom oh go ahead I'm sorry something else attorney [01:07:25] Speaker 6: a different topic your honor while we're all together I just wanted to address exhibits and what the court's procedure would be we have no objection to any exhibits going back to the jury room if they are asked for and precluding the requirement that we all assemble every time a note comes out asking for one exhibit so as long as we're all here and we have some time maybe we could discuss that do you have any position on that sir [01:07:52] Mr. Brooks: yeah I would object from the standpoint that I would need to see any exhibit that's being asked about and the relevancy of that exhibit being asked for I think that's only fair [01:08:11] Speaker 1: exhibits that have been received a relevance objection would no longer be valid because the court has already ruled on the relevance and the admission of the exhibits the issue is whether it goes back to the jury room [01:08:25] Mr. Brooks: so it would be only the exhibits that's been [01:08:28] Speaker 1: received [01:08:29] Mr. Brooks: received so nothing new nothing's going to come out of the blue and be like oh yeah we're gonna [01:08:34] Speaker 1: only what's been received during the trial if it would be helpful I can have Madam Clerk give you the printout of the exhibit list that shows everything that's been received if you would like [01:08:44] Mr. Brooks: that's about like 7500 there's [01:08:49] Speaker 1: a lot of exhibits [01:08:49] Mr. Brooks: but I'm [01:08:51] Speaker 1: willing to have her printed off if you would like it [01:08:54] Mr. Brooks: I think it'd be helpful just in case I'm guessing at some point that will come into play [01:09:01] Speaker 1: if the jury requests an exhibit do you want the court to rule on it individually or do you agree that if they request an exhibit it can be released to them [01:09:13] Mr. Brooks: a rule on it [01:09:15] Speaker 1: all right fair enough [01:09:17] Mr. Brooks: did you talk to the deputies I did thank you [01:09:23] Speaker 1: for that reminder the jail has asked that I follow the standard operating procedure which is to have you in central holding and not up at your cell but if need be I'm willing to order that they give you a shower later if that's helpful whether it be tonight or tomorrow morning okay so even though you're going to stay close by I'll make sure I'll work with the jail to make sure that you're given that opportunity after we're done for the night okay [01:09:55] Mr. Brooks: at least let them let me take a shower [01:09:57] Speaker 1: so there is a question that will be coming out shortly so don't go anywhere don't [01:10:04] Mr. Brooks: choke me judge what I said don't choke me [01:10:07] Speaker 1: choke you [01:10:08] Mr. Brooks: yeah because you know what I'm about to say [01:10:10] Speaker 1: what are you about to say [01:10:12] Mr. Brooks: subject matter jurisdiction [01:10:14] Speaker 5: you knew I was about to say that [01:10:18] Speaker 1: sir I'm not going to address it I already have all right I need to know the number to tell the parties who the fourth person is because I'm not going to say the name on the record they have a request for three exhibits 15 5 and 55 number 11 is the fourth person [01:10:39] Mr. Brooks: you said 15 5 and [01:10:42] Speaker 1: 55 I was [01:10:45] Mr. Brooks: going to say I don't know I know 15 [01:10:47] Speaker 1: 15 is the map [01:10:48] Mr. Brooks: 15 is the map yeah [01:10:49] Speaker 1: any objection to the map sir [01:10:51] Speaker 5: yeah I want you to rule on everything [01:10:55] Speaker 1: I was going to go one by one so start with exhibit 15 which is the map what's your position on that sir [01:11:08] Mr. Brooks: my position is at this point what is the relevancy of the map I think it's been seen a million times I know of my heart now that's probably the only one I know of my heart [01:11:24] Speaker 1: well what's the state's position [01:11:27] Speaker 6: yes absolutely there's no reason not to send that back there your honor there are 76 counts they need to work through and to assist them in identifying which victim is which and which group they were with and where they were on the road absolutely there's no reason to hide that from them it's helpful to them in their deliberation all right [01:11:49] Speaker 1: I will send exhibit 15 back to the jury room it is an exhibit and there really is no reason not to send it back that has been identified by the parties all right the next exhibit is exhibit five that is the photograph of Erica Patterson [01:12:09] Mr. Brooks: I definitely object to that seeing as how it was supposedly two incidents one one of which didn't even happen which the prosecution sent paperwork to acknowledge that it never happened so I don't even it's too dicey with that what incident would five be referring to one of which battery count and then one I don't even know what I'm looking at if I look at five [01:12:53] Speaker 1: what's the state's position on five [01:13:02] Speaker 6: again judge there's no legal basis to exclude that from the jury there's nothing prejudicial it's a single photograph I should say overly prejudicial it's a single photograph of a single person showing the injuries that are alleged to be associated with count 77 it's directly relevant to their deliberations [01:13:26] Mr. Brooks: there is no count 77 count [01:13:28] Speaker 1: 76 you are correct it is count 76 not 77 see [01:13:33] Mr. Brooks: why I'm confused [01:13:34] Speaker 1: well there is an amended information and I clearly instruct the jury in 76 counts be that as it may I'll find that it is proper for exhibit five to go back to the jury and that will be sent to them now exhibit 55 is a video how long is that video 15 seconds any objection to playing for the jury exhibit 55 what [01:14:03] Mr. Brooks: exactly is in the exhibit 55 I don't I don't [01:14:07] Speaker 6: it's a video from curry insurance facing eastbound showing the grannies being struck we can put it up if you want to preview it your honor [01:14:17] Speaker 1: go ahead and we would watch it at the same time as they're viewing it theirs is just being in the jury room but I'll preview see it first all right your response sir [01:14:31] Mr. Brooks: I don't know I'll just let you rule on it there's so many videos it's kind of like the same video anyway [01:14:45] Speaker 1: exhibit 55 will be played for the jury two times hyphen the clip is 15 seconds [01:14:50] Mr. Brooks: that's [01:14:54] Speaker 1: my practice at least on short video clips so [01:14:59] Mr. Brooks: what about what what about if they request for a long video [01:15:01] Speaker 1: then I'll make a determination then [01:15:04] Mr. Brooks: I'll set for value and return for value these documents right [01:15:10] Speaker 7: thank you you can [01:15:22] Speaker 1: turn it off and all right the video was played twice we'll wait and see if they have any other questions [01:15:28] Mr. Brooks: your honor yes sir about this reddit is that how you say it reddit [01:15:35] Speaker 1: that's my understanding [01:15:37] Mr. Brooks: this is that the email was sent from the person at the top of the page [01:15:45] Speaker 1: that's the email that has the 910 AM that's my understanding yes [01:15:54] Mr. Brooks: were they identified to have any connection with the trial in any way [01:16:00] Speaker 1: I'm leaving the entire investigation in the hands of the sheriff's department I'm not I can't answer that I'm sure they're looking into it though because that's a good question all right I'm going to step off obviously the courtroom remains open and we'll let you know if there are any additional questions [01:16:25] Mr. Brooks: subject matter jurisdiction your honor [01:16:29] Speaker 1: I decline to address that will we [01:16:32] Mr. Brooks: be addressing it for the record what's the significance of seeing it as different speeds was that in the question [01:16:40] Speaker 1: they just said can we see exhibit 55 at 40 percent speed obviously I don't recall specifically if this video was shown at a reduced speed but many of the videos were shown at reduced speed during the trial that was allowed I think it's proper to also show a video clip to the jurors if they request it at reduced speed so I'll grant the request what [01:17:12] Mr. Brooks: would be the significance the [01:17:15] Speaker 1: significance is the jury's requesting it sir [01:17:18] Mr. Brooks: I'm saying at that speed [01:17:20] Speaker 1: that's their request I can't tell you the significance for them I don't want to speculate but I think it's proper given the technology that we have available and what was done during the trial so I will allow it [01:17:35] Speaker 3: because [01:17:41] Speaker 1: that's what I'm required to do sir [01:17:43] Speaker 3: but you're not required to address subject matter jurisdiction which hasn't been proven for the record I'm allowed to answer any questions I ask Mr. Brooks [01:17:56] Speaker 1: I'm not going to relitigate your case right now [01:17:58] Speaker 4: and [01:18:00] Speaker 1: I've made my decision on subject matter jurisdiction so your request that I address it once again is denied [01:18:05] Speaker 4: of course of course it's denied of course because you can't prove it on record come on now has yet to be proven [01:18:14] Mr. Brooks: it has to be proven at some point or do I gotta go through the song and dance to get it proved that's 40% speed [01:18:26] Speaker 3: yay nay [01:18:30] Speaker 1: the video clip is now ended with the state just confirmed the speed at which it was just played yes [01:18:43] Speaker 6: 40% your honor thank you [01:18:45] Speaker 1: there's another question the court is going to step off obviously we'll remain open the four person provided a question through the bailiff we request exhibits three and four exhibits three and four are videos they are the videos from White Rock I believe elementary school door one and door two [01:19:09] Speaker 6: yes correct [01:19:11] Speaker 1: how long are each [01:19:13] Speaker 4: six minutes is six [01:19:16] Speaker 7: minutes and 58 seconds seven minutes [01:19:19] Speaker 1: okay my inclination would be to play each one one time since they're a little bit longer and play them one after the other from the state agreed from the defense [01:19:31] Mr. Brooks: objection [01:19:32] Speaker 1: noted for the record any specific reason sir [01:19:36] Mr. Brooks: the significance of both videos [01:19:43] Speaker 1: their evidence sir and the jury's requested to look at them so they will be playing them for them we'll do exhibit three first and then exhibit four shortly thereafter [01:19:59] Speaker 3: will you be addressing subject matter jurisdiction on the record [01:20:04] Speaker 1: no I will not [01:20:08] Speaker 3: is that a judicial determination your honor [01:20:12] Speaker 7: I can't oh you're asking me is that a [01:20:18] Speaker 3: tacit agreement your honor [01:20:19] Speaker 1: right there ready [01:20:21] Speaker 3: go ahead and [01:20:27] Speaker 1: play exhibit three in its entirety [01:20:29] Speaker 7: I think [01:20:33] Speaker 1: you might want to stay close by we are in the record [01:20:38] Mr. Brooks: so as a matter of jurisdiction [01:20:40] Speaker 1: I decline to address that further sir [01:20:43] Mr. Brooks: will it be proven for the record [01:20:44] Speaker 1: sir my earlier decision I stand behind it my written decision [01:20:50] Mr. Brooks: your written decision that's not based in any law or fact yes I thought it was two people that got excused from the jury [01:20:58] Speaker 1: three there were 15 [01:21:01] Mr. Brooks: no I'm saying I thought it was two from the 16 [01:21:05] Speaker 1: no only one [01:21:07] Mr. Brooks: well you did say two you said one had got excused before and then another one was getting excused [01:21:14] Speaker 1: no I only excused one we've had 15 since the first year was excused [01:21:23] Mr. Brooks: so what happened to that second one that had the COVID scare Mr. Brooks [01:21:30] Speaker 1: I addressed all of that on the record I'm not rehashing that now [01:21:33] Speaker 3: no need to get in your feelings it's been a long day I'm tired too [01:21:40] Speaker 1: I would agree but I'm not just letting you know I'm not going to rehash that stuff [01:21:49] Mr. Brooks: I was just I just thought you said two you said two on the record [01:21:53] Speaker 6: all rise [01:21:58] Speaker 1: for the twelve who have already started to deliberate do not deliberate unless you're in the jury deliberation room and that will mean from when you are discharged here tonight until you come back tomorrow to decide the case solely on the evidence offered and received at the trial with that you are all excused for the evening we'll see you back here tomorrow at 830 a.m. all rise for the jury all right thank you everyone we are in recess we'll see everyone tomorrow morning at 830 830 a.m. I trust that the jail will give you a shower so whether that's tonight or tomorrow morning before you come back to court but I will order that [01:22:54] Speaker 4: 830 [01:22:57] Mr. Brooks: that's [01:23:04] Speaker 1: when we start court every morning sir