Posted on 10/14/2022 10:26:48 AM PDT by Steely Tom
Liermann told the court he got a good look at the driver of the SUV – describing him in detail. Liermann then talked about how the SUV drove right through the Catholic Community of Waukesha group on the parade route.
"When he drove through that group, he struck many of them, run over. I could see people come out from under the vehicle," Liermann said.
Liermann told the court he never saw the vehicle slow down, never saw brake lights, and never heard a horn honking from the SUV.
"There was no panic, no distress. It seemed to me like he was excited about what he was doing," Liermann said.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox6now.com ...
100 hours community service and a suspended license for 6 months. Isn’t that about what we expect?
I have been following this on Court TV. The judge should get a medal for patience.
I’d have this guy hog tied and gagged, by now. He objects to everything said by anyone but him.
I wish somebody would just “brain stem” him while he’s sitting there...
Brooks used the novel defense strategy, “I ain’t me.”
Yeah. He’s a classic example of why you need a real lawyer when you go to trial. It’s actually painful to watch.
The Colin Ferguson Strategy. Updated by Ronnie Oneal III.
“I’d have this guy hog tied and gagged, by now. He objects to everything said by anyone but him.”
I was thinking the same thing. I could be wrong - but IIRC, it wouldn’t be w/o precedent to do this.
Maybe there are some legal Freepers wo know differently though.
To restrain him in court would undoubtedly be grounds for an appeal, which this judge definitely does not intend to provide.
I highly doubt that any lawyer could get him out of this one. From what I understand, the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.
I think he probably is being coached to make him look like he’s insane and he’s hoping for a juror to sympathize with him.
Agreed on the competency issue.
But in the cause of representing himself, is he really doing that? He’s not. He’s really just trying to stir up and agitate matters.
One can argue that it’s within his right - but is it really? Is this justice? He’s being extraordinarily difficult and obstructive. The families of the victims are there to see justice. Are they getting it?
"I realized what had happened at that point. There was extreme damage to the vehicle that point. Damage you’d see in a traffic crash between two vehicles," said Scholten. At that point, between all the screaming I heard, everyone calling for ambulances and help, I knew now people had been hit by a vehicle. At that point, I thought it was a terror attack at the parade."Scholten said as the vehicle navigated southbound it accelerated towards him.
"That is when I knew I had to use deadly force to stop the threat," said Scholten."
seems his whole case is, that the trial is illegal, not that he dint it do it...
at least till it’s his time to talk
he’s latched onto a few phrases and his constant use of “Hearsay” objections to direct questioning is humorous
every trial lawyer in the country will now prolly think twice when using “is it fair to say” wiout smirking
but his i am NOT Darrel Brooks/sovcit routine must have them all on the edge of their seats...
The judge has to give a lot of latitude to the defense, even if "the defense" consists only of the hate-filled, murderous, career-criminal defendant himself.
I'm sure there are plenty of very physically-fit deputies present in the courtroom to make the witnesses feel as safe as possible.
I think we are seeing — in farcical "defense" cases such as this — the consequences of allowing TV cameras in courtrooms.
A very impassionate report concerning a racially motivated mass killing. This kind of stuff usually has the media shrieking.
the jury will feel sorry for him because he had a boob for a defense lawyer, and give him a slap on the wrist, but compensate the terrible punishment by giving him a CDL license
Typical of most jail house lawyers
at least till it’s his time to talk
he’s latched onto a few phrases and his constant use of “Hearsay” objections to direct questioning is humorous
every trial lawyer in the country will now prolly think twice when using “is it fair to say” wiout smirking
but his i am NOT Darrel Brooks/sovcit routine must have them all on the edge of their seats...
Ronnie Oneal (the third) put on a defense (in a Tampa courtroom) that consisted of passionate ranting and raving about conspiracies and that he was entirely innocent of murdering his wife and one of his two children (he tried to murder both children, but one survived).
His performance as a defense attorney — some of which is visible (I won't say "watchable") on YouTube, looks like a silly child trying hard to imitate a courtroom scene from the Law And Order franchise, while in fact obviously having no idea what he's doing.
You can be sure his appeal will include a charge of ineffective counsel. I think this is why the judge seems to be going along with this fiasco. This disaster of a defense was all demanded by Brooks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.