Lawyer Reacts To Darrell Brooks Call For Jury Nullification - Criminal Defense
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2023
- A reaction to Darrell Brooks call for jury nullification - criminal defense attorney reacts #darrellbrooks #lawyerreacts #criminaldefense
This video is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
I’m glad he represented himself. His defense didn’t cost taxpayers a cent, and he convicted himself.
There's no way this jury even considered using nullification for this monster.
In his ignorance and crazy behaviour, Brooks didn't realise that the jury won't even necessarily know what the hell nullification means. And he never got to the point to give a list of the laws that he wanted the jury to nullify.
None whatsoever. He was getting convicted and that's it.
He was going to be convicted anyway, but he may have been sent to a psychiatric institution, which was what his original legal team wanted, or he may have been given concurrent sentences, instead of consecutive. @@edwardspruill8788
If some defendant wants to argue for jury nullification before being sent to life in prison or death row, let'em. Just give'em a time limit.
New Hampshire is the best state where defendants and lawyers are allowed to ask for jury nullification to the jury.
OK. I will take that you know that you are talking about. I understand that in Wisconsin it is not allowed for anybody to even mention nullification. My comments during the trial was that "Dorow could have allowed him to talk all he wanted to the jury about jury nullification. I don't think it would have made much difference the way this train wreck of a trial. " @@americanswan
The jury in this case would not have wanted to nullify anyway. It took them only as long as needed to fill out the forms to come back with guilty on all counts.
I’m actually glad that he told the jury that because it further proved what kind of demon he was
She did her best to hear his ignorant arguments outside of the presence of the jury. She’d have never allowed the jury in, if she sent them out every time he made a ridiculously stupid argument.
He knew they weren’t going to nullify. Just like everything else he did, he tried to get the case adjourned on a technicality. If he was told he couldn’t, he did for that reason.
He brings up things more and more in front of the jury
Nullification implies he thonk thw jury WANTS him to go free
I have served on a jury where we let 2 walk because we liked the defendants and while they were guilty of the crimes they were charged with, most people don’t care about child molesters getting chased down and beat up for being in a park with a splash pad taking pictures. 🤷🏽♂️ That being said, the jury in this case was never going to entertain for a moment letting him walk. I watched this whole trial and his conduct was appalling, at no point did he express anything but anger, resentment and contempt for the precedings. Refused to respect the ruling of the court and on top of that he never showed an empathy for the victims or their families and not once did he apologize to anyone
He was a total clown
That judge definitely deserves an award for patience.
@@colawyer An award for the judge? She was against informing the jury of their right to nullify. In a trial it is We The People who are in charge and have the final authority over the verdict. Her trying to hide this from the jury should never be condoned.
@@bubbajones4522 is this darrell brooks burner account !? hahaha
@@bubbajones4522This power is irrelevant to the case. Juries are supposed to make determinations of guilt based on facts of the case, not whether or not they agree with the law.
@@Quinntus79 no, jury nullification is a thing. We did it for a bogus DUI case. They guy was asleep in his back seat and technically guilty as the law is written however We the People disagreed.
I salute you Judge Dorow.
Darrell was out of control during this entire trial.
Thank God for Sue
I think once his defense witnesses solidified the states case Brooks pushed nullification more. His defense was confusion and chaos to cause a mistrial. The Judge covered his butt with dismissing the jury a lot. Kudos to the Judge & prosecution for that, they were precise and always a step ahead.
I think a good example of jury nullification would be when the jury refused to find The Rocks character in Walking Tall guilty of his rampage at the casino.
He thinks after him makingnthem walk back and forth him belittiling the victims judge and state,never apologizing ,, and not saying sorry unless he adds himself in the sorry too.. Plus there is too much footage and witnesses that seen him and how he lied everytime he spoke no one in thier right mind woukd nullify for this man baby
He did tell the jury about nullification in his closing. The Prosection objected and the Judge sustained. But the jury heard it anyway.
That’s wild. Sounds like the judge gave this guy a tremendous amount of latitude.
@@colawyer Exactly. That's the benefit of the Self Represented Litigant. They are not subject to the rules of Ethics and Professionalism that BAR Attorneys are. Remember, if the Judge doesn't allow him to speak, then he has grounds to appeal on First Amendment issues, and denial of a Fair Trial. I watch the trial. There are a multiple of different appealable issues. Pro Se litigants give Judges a lot of problems. Especially if they are educated to the process. And with the Internet today, more and more people are educating themselves to the process.
A fundamental principle of fairness in litigation is that the rules of procedure apply to all parties, including pro se litigants. While courts ultimately adhere to this concept, many will exhibit great patience with pro se parties who fail to strictly adhere to the rules, in the interest of assuring them the same access to justice as represented parties, even if that comes at times at the expense of procedural efficiency.
@@colawyer After a discussion of 20 minutes, Sue Opper, the leading prosecutor, offered herself to object to any misstatements of the lay on Brooks' parts. So the judge stated that she would react three times with an increasing punishment: the first time the objection by the prosecution will be sustained, the second time Brooks would have to present his closing from other court room through video and the third time the judge would rule that Brooks had forfeited his right to a closing argument.
@@colawyerHUGE AMOUNT. IT WAS SICKENING. SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A SITUATION LIKE THAT AND THEY NEEDED SOMEONE WITH MORE BALLS. EVEN IF ANOTHER JUDGE HADN'T DEALT WITH THAR EITHER, THEY STILL NEEDED ONE WITH A MORE STEN DEMEANOR.
There would be no jury on this planet that would “nullify” anything for that sorry waste of oxygen
He did it! Facts and videos prove it!
He has the right to inform the jury has the right to nullify a law, but in this particular case its laughable at best. 😂
Jury nullification arguments are legal in New Hampshire.
Can you imagine if somehow the jury did nullify this in an OJ-Simpson like manner because of his race or something. The backlash the judge would have gotten for not holding Brooks in contempt and cracking the whip harder on him would have been absurd. She only did not do that because she knew nullification did not pertain to this case because no juror in their right mind would not convict this clown.
She had to kiss his ass a little bit so as not to give him any grounds for appeal. it wasn’t for his benefit but to ensure a conviction
Comtempt please people HE IS ALREADY IN JAIL
That is not why she did things not, she gave him the rope to hang himself and not have the case overturned. She did a great law.
I dont know why he is dumb enough to believe that he will just say and ignore evidence and let him go dummy
That POS really tryly believed that they would ignore the law for his sorry azz. He knew it was over for him and he tried to walk away with his last trick. It was epic to see his face when the first guilty verdict was read and so forth. If anything. He made an azz out of himself in front of the jury. He showed them over and over again the anger and rage he had inside of himself. Yayyy, to the jurors. 😊
"relevancy" is not the reason judges don't want juries to hear the word nullification - and YOU FUCKING KNOW THAT.
Anyone who bears arms against tyranny the jury should nullify but that's not the case here
You're the first person who said he right in any way😂
And he is underneath the prison for 1,000 years!!! How bout that???
The jury wouldn't nullify anything for him hes the lesst likable person ive ever seen.. His ooening and closing statements were do what's right lol and that they did guilty on alk.charges ..he never could say sorry without making himself part of it .."there has been suffering on both sides " like anyone cares that u did this cuz u weren't able to best up s woman again got so mad and left like that he was scared of kori more than nick ...t he idiot had the jury going in an out every ten minutes cuz dumb stuff like this... He never had a single defense his defense was to get his ex on the stand and try to make her look bad things king if she looks bad they'll drop the charges smh tp
Like what jury would nullify all that he did? She shouldn’t have been worried about that because he had a snowball chance in hell to get that.
Well, I think it's safe to say that he's in hell right now. lol.
But in all seriousness, no matter how obvious something is, you'll sometimes have someone who doesn't understand because, in their mind, they think that it's not true or give some excuse for their actions. Or they just flat out feel sorry for that person.
When would telling a jury that they can nullify the law be relevant except for right then and there?!! Some bull****
Jury nullification for this case would be tremendously scary
Nullification may not be in Darrell's favor. The jury "could" nullify the "laws" regarding the death penalty and the define the method of execution. How about calling it "death by stoning"?
The jury was not in the courtroom when this discussion was taking place.
they actually were in this instance, she said she was going to excuse them
No jury or juror with any intelligence would EVER consider nullifying any law that would benefit any monster who committed such acts as this defendant had. He thought the jury should have known everything in the trial except what his momma’s SUV looked like after he rammed half the town with it…The jury view of that vehicle was the only thing he fought for the jury NOT to know!! Hahaha
Yes, but the jury should be informed of their right to nullify.
@@bubbajones4522 No. The jury should not nullify any laws. Laws apply to everybody - they cannot ignored at somebody's needs.
@@LisaSimpsonRules In the USA, We The People are in charge of determining guilt or innocent not the judge or the law as they can be oppressive and evil. We The People have the right and duty to have the final say on what is just and what is evil in a courtroom.
It sounds like you've been indoctrinated into authoritarianism where an authoritarian thinks that the people should submit to the authority of the government where as an American think the government should submit the the authority of We The People. Our forefathers knew that any government is like a monster so they bound it into servitude with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They also knew that if it gets off its chains it will try to kill us all which is why they gave us the 2nd Amendment as a failsafe.
Why do we have to playcate these savages
I don’t understand how somebody can say it’s irrelevant for a jury to be notified that they have the ability to nullify a law.
Because it’s ignorant. A jury cannot nullify a law. If they did in this case, it doesn’t make the crimes he committed nullified, just his verdict. Those laws still remain intact.
If he ranover your kid would you feel that way
@Jblog100 it doesn't change the law, but the jury can judge and throw out charges. That's basically what jury nullification is.
@@256Nato and if he didn’t, I wouldn’t. That’s the fucking point dummy.
@@Jblog100 yes. A jury absolutely can. And as long as the jury is lawfully allowed to do so, I don’t see any issue with the defendant having an opportunity to inform the jury of their rights.
You can only argue on grounds of fairness. That's something you supposed to know as an american, not something for court
Doesn’t the mere mention of nullification to the jury mean there can be a mistrial?
If so, he could’ve been trying to mention it to the jury, not because he thought they would actually nullify, but because he thought he could get a quick route to mistrial?
He brought it up during the jury’s presence. He had discussed it while jury was out prior to this. The Judge at that time him he could not bring it up in front of the jury and first chance he got he ran with it.
Jury nullification should be required in every jury instruction. The jury has the absolute unfettered right to judge the law as well as the application of the law. The fact that that is kept from the jury is unconscionable.
Why should some defendants be afforded that protection and others not?
Just because a legislature can conceive of a law, pass it and get it signed into law doesn't mean that the citizens have to support a criminal conviction based on that law. Plenty of people are tried convicted and imprisoned under laws and processes which are later found to be unconstitutional.
There's no point to having a trial by jury if the jury just get shepherded aoong by the professional bar association and judges who gatekeep the processes to the enrichment of all involved.
This defendant was clearly guilty, was incompetent at his defense, but he has every right to speak to the jury in any manner he sees fit to persuade them to acquit him.
The legal industrial complex in this country needs dismantling.
When is a good time to inform the jury of nullification? And why don’t the courts want to let the jury know about it?
No the jury was NOT there when this was going on
They were, actually. Darrell Brooks would always cause commotion and controversy forcing her to send them out. I counted about 50 times over 18 days of trail.
Who told this guy about nullification??
Funny how judges don’t like the jury being informed about their powers.
All ot takes is one juror to be sympathetic and bring up nullification, if they cannot come to a unanimous conclusion, and it'll mean that the whole jury has nullified the law brought against the defendant.
Being aware of nullification isn't something you should state out loud if you're part of a jury due to double jeopardy laws in criminal trials. Nullifying the law and returning a not guilty verdict means that the plaintiff or "the people" need to find new evidence to bring up charges against the defendant. Repeatedly nullifying the law brings issues in this sense, as it makes it more difficult to prosecute.
Although it should be something we are aware of, it holds a lot of placement in regards to prejudice, protest, favourism and general disregard for justice.
Giving jurors the belief that it's A or B without providing option C means that they have to come to a unanimous decision.
@illeatthat They should be informed regardless. Not giving full disclosure of the power the jury holds is shady.
@skylinefootball that's true, nd they can do so as a jury, and the judge cannot over rule unless there is evidence of tampering of the jury.
It is every citizens right to be aware of their rights, but it is never anyone's obligation to inform another person of what rights they have - even when the people are part of a group who will evaluate evidence and form a just consequence against a defendant.
@illeatthat It should be considered freedom of speech. The fact that someone was prosecuted and convicted is abhorrent. I think nullification should be a legitimate legal argument. Let the chips fall where they may.
@illeatthat I'll even extend an olive branch and say that if nullification is your legal argument, you have to get 50% of the jury to see it your way to get a hung jury.
Usually these arguments happen outside of the jury's hearing, but Brooks was a loose cannon, and he would go off at any moments. it also happened that the jury was returning and immediately they had to be asked to leave because Darrell Brooks was going off once again.
All trials should inform juries about their right to nullify defendants.
Hoping 12 people are just gonna let you walk, huh?
nice try Darrell Brooks. Or is this Dawn Woods
@@DomMiller-gg4ckor co-defendant mommy's boyfriend...the one who gave little DEB (Darrell E. Brooks) all this Sovereign Citizen cr*p...nightly
I agree they should also be informed of the punishment.
AND NEVER TRUST A BAR ATTORNEY!
It should not be relevant for this case anyway. They need to get his ass out of the court
He's just trying to get a mistrial. He's smart but not smart enough.
Nullification is real, you just can't talk about it in court? People have even been arrested outside of the fed court in Denver for handing out booklets on it, outside, on the sidewalk. Bs.
Because advocating for Jury Nullification is considered Jury Tampering.
Nullification is a power, but not a *right*.
You have not watched this trial, there is no way the jury would nullify
Thats a nice suit you are wearing ❤
For the life of me, I can't figure out what law he thinks the jury should nullify.
and then even at that they can’t. They can nullify a verdict but the law will still remain in effect.
I have a case where it is relevant. Let me present my case and if I’m right you help me out!
No, the jury was not present when they talked about nullification.
They were.
The only time that I can think of when nullification was a good thing is back decades ago when there were racist laws specifically against blacks. There were at least some decent whites that recognized that those laws were actually unjust. Thankfully, we’ve struck down those laws.
but at the same time was used even more so on the flip side to acquit obviously-guilty white offenders for crimes against black people
Blacks. ...
@@256Nato
Whites
Pinks
@@dreamcream3738
She is an awesome musical artist. Isn’t “Just Like a Pill” a great song?
Nullify Duh-rail and his appeals.
Brooks' suggestion that the jury has the power to nullify the law was during the first few seconds of Brooks' closing argument!
Judge Dorow thinks that was Brooks' whole plan, and that's why he never settled on an actual defense! Yeah, Brooks brought up jury nullification, but seriously, there was no way the jury would have chosen to do that with the massive amount of physical evidence against Brooks!
I watched a bunch of that and I know the guy is guilty as sin but that judge was a crappy judge and I think she definitely violated a bunch she was pissing me off throughout that trial she is not the only authority in court people should be able to say whatever they want to say you've trusted 12 people to know right from wrong and if they know that then nothing else matters I think she took too many chances that he could get a mistrial on her behavior and that sucks because he's guilty