I’ve bee watching the Brooks vs state trial, and before he makes his closing argument, the judge tells him NOT to inform the jury of their power to nullify the law.
In: 20
Theres cases where a defendant according to the law would be found guilty. But if it was done in say good faith or in self defence or something like that. Then the jury can decide that its simply not fair that someone who had no choice but to break the law should be punished. The laws are meant for when you do something wrong with intent. Not for circumstances that are not reasonable within your might.
Ive watched the entire Darrell Brooks case as he is quite famous in anti sovereign citizen communities.
He had some delusional idea that he could appeal to “Sure I ran my moms car into over 70 people and killed 8 or so of them… But IVE been hurting as well. Please feel sorry for me.”
In Wisconsin theres apparently no death penalty. But I guarantee you that the jury would have given him that if they had any ability to do that.
Even without him trying really really hard to provoke Dorrow so he could get a mistrial.
She did a perfect record on everything and that case is going to be used as teachings on how to act in court.
The judge wasnt stacked against Brooks. Facts were. I guess the “shaggy defense” dont really play well when the prosecutor can literally press play on a video and you see the defendant clearly sitting in his car as it runs into people. Brooks never gave any coherent defense. He tried going in various ways but never followed through. And most his questions had no defense value.
Latest Answers