A Wisconsin man accused of killing six people and injuring many others bydriving an SUV into a Christmas parade last yearNovember has been found guilty on more than five dozen counts against him, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide.
Darrell Brooks faced 76 charges in all, including homicide, reckless endangerment, bail jumping and more in the Nov. 21, 2021 tragedy in the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha.
Watch NBC 5 Chicago news stream free, 24/7, wherever you are
Each homicide count carries a mandatory life sentence, and each reckless endangerment count carries a maximum sentence of 17 1/2 years in prison.
Investigators maintained that Brooks drove into the parade route after fleeing a domestic disturbance with his ex-girlfriend, though police were not pursuing him at the time. At trial, the evidence against Darrell Brooks was overwhelming, and included videos showing his red Ford Escape plowing through the parade and witnesses testifying they saw him behind the wheel.
Six people were killed, including 8-year-old Jackson Sparks, who was marching in the parade with his baseball team, and three members of the Dancing Grannies, a group of grandmothers that dances in parades. Dozens of other people were hurt, some severely.
Brooks, who opted to represent himself, had pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease earlier this year. He then withdrew the plea without explanation, and psychologists determined that he was competent to stand trial.
Brooks' trial began earlier this month. After two and a half weeks of testimony, jurors reached the guilty verdict after only one hour. According to court documents, Brooks' bond has been revoked, and a sentencing is scheduled for next week.
Here's an overview of what took place during the trial.
Wisconsin Parade Suspect Says He Will Represent Himself
Brooks took the unusual step ofdismissing his public defenders just days before his trial beganthis month, electing to represent himself. At times, Brooks has refused to recognize his own name and become so disruptive that Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow ordered him removed from the courtroom. He frequently has muttered under his breath about the trial not being fair and objected to almost every question prosecutors have asked of witnesses, usually to no avail.
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter here.
Brooks began his side of the case with a rambling opening statement. Brooks told jurors he hadn’t rehearsed anything and would speak from the heart. However, he didn’t lay out his version of what happened, allude to how he would defend himself or reveal who would testify on his behalf.
Opening statements are usually when prosecutors and defense attorneys offer the jury a roadmap of their version of the case, often presenting their theories about guilt or innocence and noting which witnesses will take the stand and what they’ll say.
Brooks called what happened at the parade “a tragedy” while reminding jurors that there’s two sides to every story.
“It’s easy to look at the magnitude of something like this and form opinions,” he said. “I think it’s easy to disregard a lot of factors. ... It’s easy to forget the other side of the coin.”
He then started choking back tears and dabbing his eyes with a tissue. He said the entire community is suffering, including his family.
“There’s been a lot of words thrown out there about the alleged, lot of speculation, lot of ridicule. Words like ‘demon.’ Words like ‘molester,’” he said.
Brooks had been wearing a surgical mask in court, but removed it during his speech. “It’s important that you see me for who I am. No mask. For who I am. This is the moment for that. I pray that your eyes and ears remain as open as possible,” he told jurors.
Finally, he broke down in tears, sat down at the defense table and bowed his head.
Dorow then called a short break to allow Brooks to gather himself.
When court resumed, Brooks called the state of Wisconsin to the stand. Throughout the proceedings he has maintained the government doesn’t have jurisdiction over him and only a “living human brain” can bring a claim against another in court. When told the state isn’t a person, he asked that the case be dismissed.
Defendant Disrupted the Trial at Multiple Times
He stripped his shirt off in court. He complained that the prosecutors are “slick.” He wouldn't let the judge get a word in. He wouldn't even answer to his own name.
The Wisconsin man accused of killing six people by driving his SUV through a Christmas paradehas worked to disrupt his trial since he decided to represent himself, dragging out a painful proceeding that appears destined to end with his conviction.
The evidence against Darrell Brooks is overwhelming and includes videos showing his red Ford Escape plowing through the parade and witnesses testifying they saw him behind the wheel. He would face multiple mandatory life sentences if convicted.
Brooks will certainly appeal any conviction, legal experts say, and his courtroom antics could be a ploy to frustrate Judge Jennifer Dorow into a misstep that would strengthen his case at that level. But they say Dorow has handled Brooks professionally and hasn’t given him much to work with on appeal.
“I’m unaware of any issues that Dorow has created or anything like that,” said Thomas Grieve, a former prosecutor who now works as a criminal defense attorney in Madison. “I think the judge has done a fantastic job of patiently addressing all of Mr. Brooks’ issues, which seem to have no end. He has gotten what he wanted. He has made his bed and tucked himself into it throughout this entire process. Now he’s facing the consequences of it.”
People representing themselves in civil matters is not uncommon. But it’s relatively rare for criminal defendants to act as their own attorneys and risk matching wits with trained, experienced prosecutors.
According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, 4.8% of defendants in felony cases in the state were representing themselves when their cases ended last year. A number of high-profile criminals across the country have tried to represent themselves, though, including serial killer Ted Bundy and John Allen Muhammad, who was accused of launching sniper attacks in Washington, D.C., in 2002. Both Bundy and Muhammad were convicted and executed.
Dorow had little choice but to allow Brooks to represent himself, since he has that right under state law if he’s mentally competent. Dorow noted that psychologists found he has a personality disorder but is competent.
Refusing to Answer to His Name, Shouting at the Judge and Ripping Off His Shirt
During the lead-up to jury selection, Brooks often engaged in shouting matches with Dorow, insisting that his name isn’t Darrell Brooks and that the state has no jurisdiction over him.
Things got so bad that she removed him from the courtroom several times and placed him in another room where he could watch the proceedings via video but she could mute his microphone if he became disruptive. One day,he stripped off his shirtand stuck a sign, given to him to signal objections, down his pants.
His behavior suggested painful cross-examinations with witnesses who had been hurt in the parade were on tap when testimony began. That hasn’t materialized; Brooks has been largely respectful of every witness. He has mostly reserved his ire for Dorow. He has started most mornings demanding that she show him proof that the state has jurisdiction over him, resulting in Dorow and Brooks shouting at each other.
Each time anyone calls him by name, he interrupts to say he doesn’t recognize Darrell Brooks. He has objected to almost every question prosecutors have asked witnesses, only for Dorow to shut him down and move on as he demands explanations.
He can often be heard muttering under his breath that the trial is unfair, at times calling it “mind-boggling” and griping to himself about how District Attorney Susan Opper pulls “slick” tricks. His cross-examinations, while respectful, have been meandering.
Frightening the Judge
At one point Brooks asked to have the case dismissed, reasoning that the state of Wisconsin can’t physically testify and that only “a living human brain” can bring a lawsuit.
On Friday, he said he couldn’t call a witness because he’d lost his file on that person. Dorow forced him to call the witness anyway, prompting Brooks to accuse her of violating her oath of office. Later that morning, he began screaming at her that she was treating his trial like a game.
“Nothing about this is a joke. That’s what you don’t understand. It’s unfair. Your life is not on the line,” he said. “I don’t care what you talking about.”
At one point, he fixed Dorow with an angry stare that, she told the court, frightened her so much she had to call a recess.
Dorow often talks over Brooks, accusing him of trying to delay the trial, telling him to sit down and ordering him to stop talking.
But since testimony began, she has mostly opted to take short breaks rather than moving Brooks to an alternative courtroom. She often recites the number of times he has interrupted her, notes that she has given him every opportunity to remain in the courtroom and issues him warnings to behave. She has avoided giving him lengthy legal explanations defending her rulings.
“To say that this has been the most challenging of my career would be an understatement,” Dorow said Friday in court. “I’ve done my best, I believe, to be fair, to be unbiased, to protect the rights not only of Mr. Brooks as it relates to this trial, but those of witnesses, those of the victims, and of course, last but not least, the jurors. ”
“Judge Dorow is a smart person,” said Julius Kim, a criminal defense attorney and former Milwaukee County prosecutor. “She has figured out how to approach Mr. Brooks so the case can run more smoothly. ... She’s protecting the record so it shows she’s doing her best to recognize he is a pro se defendant and at times latitude needs to be given to him.”
Grieve said an appeal is a foregone conclusion, given the weight of the sentences Brooks potentially faces. Brooks could raise any number of issues, including whether he was competent, whether Dorow should have appointed an attorney to stand by and take over if needed and whether removing him from the courtroom was proper. But Dorow has managed to avoid giving him any additional fodder, he said.
“If he’s going to disrupt the proceedings, as long as she doesn’t jump the gun, which in my view she has not, there shouldn’t be any issue,” Grieve said. “You’re entitled to a fair trial. You’re not entitled to create your own mistrial.”
Prosecutors Alleged That He Intended to Hurt People
Waukesha County District Attorney Susan Opper focused on Brooks’ intent during her closing arguments as Brooks’ monthlong trial wound down. His failure to stop after hitting the first person in the parade shows he intended to kill people, she said.
“Just stop driving. That’s it. It’s really that simple. Not one person had to be hurt that day if he would have just stopped driving,” Opper said. “He plowed through 68 different people. Sixty-eight. How can you hit one and keep going? How can you hit two and keep going? How can you hit three and keep going? It didn’t faze him a bit. He kept going until he got to the end and there were no more bodies to hit.”
She concluded her remarks by playing a video of what she said was “the carnage” Brooks caused in the parade.
The judge allowed Brooks to give his closing arguments to the jury in person on Tuesday. He tried to argue that the SUV had been recalled due to a throttle malfunction. After Opper objected — a Wisconsin State Patrol vehicle inspector testified earlier in the trial that the vehicle was in good working order, including the brakes — he suggested the driver might have panicked. He noted that some witnesses testified they heard the SUV’s horn honking.
He didn’t quite acknowledge he was the driver but said that at night when he’s alone in his cell he often asks questions how “this” happened. But he has never asked himself if “this” was intentional because he knows it wasn’t. He didn’t explain what he was referring to with the word “this.”
“Throughout this year I’ve been called a lot of things,” Brooks said. “And to be fair I am a lot of things. A murderer is not one of them.”
“You need to look in the mirror, Mr. Brooks,” Opper said during her rebuttal. “Your actions are that of a murderer. ”
