Darryl Brooks representing himself

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
#1
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...f-waukesha-christmas-parade-trial/8175121001/

There's an old saying that says anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. I don't know why the judge keeps putting up with his constant disruptions when she doesn't have to. Just let him sit in jail for about a month for contempt and then if he comes back and shows that again, let him sit in jail for another month. Keep repeating this process until he gets the point
 
Oct 20, 2022
352
121
43
#2
That trial is an abysmal insult to jurisprudence.

The judge is remiss in not assigning legal counsel.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
#3
That trial is an abysmal insult to jurisprudence.

The judge is remiss in not assigning legal counsel.
I don't know if a judge can deny someone a right to represent himself even though it's a terribly bad idea, unless maybe if the defendant was an actual attorney he could probably pull it off
I think she finally resorted to just putting him in another room and then muting his microphone until it's his time to speak
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,182
2,488
113
#4
I don't know if a judge can deny someone a right to represent himself even though it's a terribly bad idea, unless maybe if the defendant was an actual attorney he could probably pull it off
I think she finally resorted to just putting him in another room and then muting his microphone until it's his time to speak
Yes. He knows full well and good that he is never getting out of jail. So his choices are reflecting that. Delays in the trial get him more time in a more comfortable jail...he gets better food, showers, accommodations and less interactions with real prison...where he likely will be subject to beatings and/or stabbings and overcrowding.

On top of this his many requests and outbursts and antics are great ground for a fumble by prosecutor or judge and grounds for a real attorney to seek an appeal.

These are the actions of a man without hope...he has none.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
#5
I think the reason she's not holding him in contempt is because she just wants the trial to hurry up and be over.
The jury is probably thinking can we hurry up and finish this so we can vote guilty already
The jury deliberation will probably take about 5 minutes
 
Oct 20, 2022
352
121
43
#6
I don't know if a judge can deny someone a right to represent himself even though it's a terribly bad idea, unless maybe if the defendant was an actual attorney he could probably pull it off
I think she finally resorted to just putting him in another room and then muting his microphone until it's his time to speak
I was watching Court TV. They said the judge can revoke his self representation when he demonstrates a strong level of incompetence that jeopardizes his rights.

In my view he's achieved that long ago and is only getting worse.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
#7
Actually ask her supreme court, a judge can hold someone in contempt indefinitely so if a judge says you're going to sit in jail until you apologize, you will spend the rest of your life in jail if you don't apologize
But I can understand why she's not putting them in contempt because she wants to hurry up and get this over with
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,182
2,488
113
#8
Actually ask her supreme court, a judge can hold someone in contempt indefinitely so if a judge says you're going to sit in jail until you apologize, you will spend the rest of your life in jail if you don't apologize
But I can understand why she's not putting them in contempt because she wants to hurry up and get this over with
Nope....only a year. After that it has to be reviewed by an appellate court.