Darrell Brooks Commentary Part 135 He is a petulant child

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of the D Brooks Saga. On today's episode, we're going to see Dell keep struggling to get to his closing statement, which is going to be an event. Uh, but first, I want to say sorry guys for not posting a lot. It's been a quite a difficult month for me, but um I hope that I can continue to post videos frequently. Also, uh I would like you guys to give me your suggestions because um like I said, it's been a rough month for the channel. Over the past month, I lost subscribers, which is not something that you want to see. So, uh in the sense that I haven't gained any. So, I would like to correct that and give you guys content and give content that can bring more people. So, if you guys have any suggestions, I would really appreciate it.

[00:00:53]Yeah, thank thank you always. Thank you to my members for supporting me. Thank you for everyone who gives the video a like. It it really helps a lot. And let's let's try to grow. I I would like to to get to 3,000 subscribers. That's always that's been my goal for the year.

[00:01:07]And we still have a lot of time. So, I'm sure we can get there. All right, let's let's do the video.

[00:01:16]>> For the record should reflect that Mr. Brooks is now present in the main courtroom. Uh, prior to reopening following the break, I did invite him back into the courtroom and he is here.

[00:01:28]I trust you are ready with your closing argument, sir.

[00:01:32]>> I'm ready to address subject matter jurisdiction as well, too.

[00:01:36]>> Okay. So, he say he's ready to to address it as well. That means that he's ready for his closing statement.

[00:01:44]>> That request is denied.

[00:01:46]Just for the record, I was addressing it for both courtrooms here in courtroom number I think it's 20.

[00:01:53]>> Mr. Brook Caris Brooks.

[00:01:56]>> I'm going to bring the juryard. Are you prepared to present your closing argument?

[00:02:03]>> I would like for you to prove subject matter jurisdiction on the record. Your honor, >> what you like doesn't matter. She addressed it. She has it on the record.

[00:02:13]You don't you just don't care to read their page. One page. It's all you have to read to get why she's not doing any of that.

[00:02:23]>> I'm not addressing that any further than I've addressed already, sir. There's a written decision. I remind you of that.

[00:02:28]>> In that written decision, did did I receive uh Well, actually, I didn't receive anything. Was there copies made?

[00:02:37]>> Why did you mean you you had a copy? I think you had two because you ripped one of them in front of the judge. So there is a record of you getting that page.

[00:02:50]>> Mr. Brooks, I'm going to ask you one more time. Are you prepared with your closing argument? I'm going to have the jury brought out. There is no other legal arguments I need to address from you at this time.

[00:03:02]>> I'm informed of what you're saying. I was merely asking was there copies made of your you said written decision >> sir my record my written decision has been filed into the record that is done electronically you were provided with a written copy previously are you asking for another copy of that sir >> yeah I don't have it >> as a courtesy I'll have my clerk print off a copy and provide that to you >> is approved >> that that shouldn't he shouldn't address this. She's only enabling him to spend ways more time on the clock and we are ready just to close this out and get the jury to deliver >> moving subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:03:49]>> Your objection to the lack of jurisdiction has been noted repeatedly on the record.

[00:03:55]It is a meritless argument. I've indicated that in my written decision as to why there is subject matter jurisdiction and I will continue forward with the final stages of this trial which I hope include your closing argument and then the final instructions to the jury.

[00:04:16]>> I will hope it it proves subject matter jurisdiction on the record too.

[00:04:22]>> All right. I will instruct the jury to come out for the record. What the page is going to tell you is why doesn't need to be proven that it's already been that's the reason why you're sitting at a courthouse right now. If they didn't have jurisdiction over you, why are you there?

[00:04:41]record. The written decision is once again being provided to >> I accept for value and return for value this document as it is not based in lawful law and it does not prove subject matter jurisdiction whatsoever.

[00:04:56]>> You haven't even read it. That's the part. He hasn't even read that enough to understand what's in it.

[00:05:05]And you can tell that he's lying about not having that paper because apparently he knows all about it. He knows all that is in it.

[00:05:14]>> Refers to some complaint that was filed in uh the name of a trust, not my name.

[00:05:26]Were you aware of that, your honor?

[00:05:29]He's asking the judge who has been working on this case way longer than the trial that if she's aware of something.

[00:05:37]Yes, she she does and she knows what she's doing.

[00:05:42]>> Mr. Brooks, the jury has been asked to be brought out. I mean, I've requested that they be brought out, but they're on their way.

[00:05:48]>> Were you aware?

[00:05:49]>> Please be prepared with your closing argument. Were you aware of that, your honor, or is that a tassid agreement that you don't have to answer any questions as a public servant?

[00:06:03]>> She's been answering your questions. You just don't like the answers.

[00:06:07]>> All right.

[00:06:08]>> So, that is a tested agreement.

[00:06:18]>> Record to reflect. The jury is coming out.

[00:06:22]Thank you everyone. Please be seated.

[00:06:29]>> Go ahead sir. You may begin your closing argument.

[00:06:32]>> I'm not ready to begin closing arguments.

[00:06:35]>> You you just said that you were at the very beginning. You said you are he you're ready to uh discuss subject marriage jurisdiction as well. So you should you said that you were.

[00:06:50]Sir, this is your opportunity to provide your closing argument to the jury.

[00:06:54]Please start. I've uh started the timer >> of 1 hour.

[00:06:58]>> I'm informed of that, your honor, but I'm not ready to proceed as I don't understand the uh reason why the questions asked before the jury was present were not answered.

[00:07:09]>> She told you that she had no legal issues to discuss with you. So, we we move on. There there are issues that needed to be addressed outside of the jury as you always say, which I don't understand why the jury deserves to.

[00:07:23]>> Mr. Brooks, this is your opportunity to present your closing argument to the jury. Please do so.

[00:07:29]>> I'm informed of that, but the jury needs to understand the truth, their rights, and their duties as they have not been informed of their truth, their rights, and their duties.

[00:07:37]>> Mr. Brooks, the court has begun the instruction process. Uh, I read 73 pages this morning and into the early afternoon. I have another 30 plus pages to read.

[00:07:50]>> Did you inform >> they will be informed of the law?

[00:07:52]>> Did you inform them that they canify the law, >> Mr. Brooks?

[00:07:56]>> But that's that's a very bad argument.

[00:07:59]Like yes, they can do that, but they they they they don't need to and they don't they shouldn't. Like this is asking like a professional baseball player that he can he can by his own will stop playing. like he doesn't have to play, but he signed up to be a baseball player. That means that he's going to play. He's going to do his best. And the jury is doing the same. They sign up for this. Well, they they were summoned and then they were chosen to this, but they are doing their job.

[00:08:36]The fact that you haven't done a job for more than two months doesn't mean that they're going to do the same as you, you know?

[00:08:45]people, normal people like to work, like to do what they like, earn money or do their if you don't, if you're in it for the money, just do it because you like it and then contribute that to society.

[00:08:59]But he doesn't grasp that concept.

[00:09:02]>> You do not have that right to request that. And I'm advising you one more time. This is your opportunity to provide your closing argument. Please begin.

[00:09:12]>> I intend to when ready. I just want to know if the jury was informed that they can nullify the law.

[00:09:17]>> Mr. argument to the jury.

[00:09:22]>> It's true. They have the power.

[00:09:24]>> Um, all right. I'm going to excuse the jury.

[00:09:26]>> They should They should know that they have the power.

[00:09:30]>> Please rise for the jury.

[00:09:32]Thank you. Please be seated.

[00:09:35]Mr. Brooks, you do not have a right to request jury nullification directly from this jury. I direct your attention uh to the Berserkus case BJ E KS.

[00:09:50]That's State versus 163 Wisconsin 2nd 549. While you are not incorrect that the jury has the power to nullify, they don't have the right to do so. Yeah, that that's a very distinct uh they're they're very different concepts like do being able to do something doesn't mean that you can do it and he should know like being able to drive through a parade doesn't give you the right to just go for it. There are normal tacit you can say rules that we all follow that we don't necessarily sign up a paper and be like I agree to all of this but that we know that they exist just by being a normal normal behavior human being >> and no party has the right to instruct or to request an instruction or to argue jury nullification.

[00:10:51]You may talk in terms of fairness in general terms, but you may not go further. You may not argue that the jury should discard the instructions in the law uh and find you not guilty for that reason. You may not use the phrase jury nullification. You've done that now at least three times in earshot of the jury uh twice uh while you were in the other courtroom. I was able to mute half of what you said the second time and then of course you raised that once again while in front of the jury just now. Um you also indicated you weren't um ready to give your closing argument. Sir, this is the time has come for you to give your closing argument. If you choose not to do so at this time, then you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument by your conduct. I haven't made any such choice.

[00:11:49]>> Yeah, that's what she that's what she's literally explaining to you that if you don't do it, the choice will be made for you.

[00:11:58]>> So you can't coorse me into >> coorse me?

[00:12:04]Where is the horse, Brooks?

[00:12:08]a constitutional right uh waiver when I have not waved the constitutional right and I will not allow you as a public servant to do that. I have not made a choice.

[00:12:18]>> Sir, this the time has come for you to present your closing argument.

[00:12:23]>> Are you making a judicial determination that you're denying me a constitutional right in >> No, she has she she hasn't even done that. The only thing that she's saying to you is that if you don't do all of that, if you don't present your closing argument, you this guy Dar Brooks is going to forfeit that right.

[00:12:50]>> I have not made such a determination as of yet, but you can forfeit your constitutional rights by conduct. Uh, >> she just explained that she she cited the case.

[00:13:03]>> Illinois versus Allen, State versus Anthony. Illinois versus Allen does not reference anything pertaining to uh rights when talking about >> state versus Anthony court of Wisconsin referenced both that decision uh when it essentially extended the reasoning or adopted the reasoning of Illinois versus Allen uh to then find that a defendant could forfeit an important constitutional right by conduct in state versus Anthony. It was not the right to be present in the courtroom. It was the right to testify.

[00:13:39]>> Okay. So, none of those his name have anything to do with the closing arguments. Your honor, >> but it means he wants the thing that he doesn't get is that law can be interpreted like judges, people that are really smart go through all those cases and get conclusions out of those. He the thing that he doesn't the thing that he that he wants is one case where it says that they can do exactly what they're doing right now and that's not how the law works at all. Like how how will the first person be um present like you know something needs to happen first and then that stays as president and then it can be applied to the next one. so that she can make a ruling with you that hasn't been done on the past and then that you will be president for the next one.

[00:14:38]>> You you've used Illinois versus Allen repeatedly to >> I hate that Illinois. It's not Illinois.

[00:14:44]Even I know that it's not Illinois.

[00:14:46]Illinois >> when it comes to me being removed from the courtroom. Not one time did it bring up anything dealing with a closing statement or a closing argument.

[00:14:58]>> Well, no, because we were not at that point yet.

[00:15:04]We were not talking about closing arguments at the beginning of the trial.

[00:15:09]>> So, how is that same uh statute being used for something that it doesn't even refer to or pertain to?

[00:15:18]>> Mr. Brooks. The Allen decision, Illinois versus Allen, and the Anthony decision, which is State versus Anthony, are two examples of cases where a defendant lost a very important constitutional right because that right was forfeited by the conduct of that particular defendant >> and that was to be present in trial.

[00:15:37]Correct.

[00:15:37]>> The >> it was anything any right can be applied.

[00:15:42]right to present a closing argument is no different because it is not evidence.

[00:15:50]Um it could be said that it doesn't even rank as high as the right to testify which is guaranteed by the constitutions >> which I was denied the right. prepared to make that ruling here yet today. But I will tell you this, sir.

[00:16:07]>> The time has now come for you to present a closing argument. There will be no further delays.

[00:16:15]>> I will not be taking any further um adjournments for you to prepare. You were advised yesterday that this court would proceed today with instructing the jury and with the parties making their closing arguments. You made that while violating my constitutional right.

[00:16:32]>> Sir, please don't interrupt me cuz you've now interrupted me a couple of times.

[00:16:35]>> No, once. So, let's make that correct.

[00:16:38]Once.

[00:16:39]>> That's the third time.

[00:16:41]>> Okay, now you can say.

[00:16:42]>> So, Mr. >> Oh my god, this is a child. This is worse than a child. Like, I What are you talking about?

[00:16:50]He's bickering about the number of interruptions, which I know it's maybe more than that.

[00:16:58]But anyway, his reasoning is flawed.

[00:17:01]He's he's even a normal person can tell you that can hear those words, everything this conversation has been going through and tells you that he's not right.

[00:17:12]>> Brooks, I'm advising you yet again. The time has not. That's another interruption. The time has now come for you to present your closing argument to this jury.

[00:17:26]>> You were brought back over to this courtroom for that purpose.

[00:17:30]>> I'm going to let them know.

[00:17:31]>> That's another interruption.

[00:17:32]>> No, I'm going to let them know that they have rights and that they should be told informed of the truth. It's not me trying to tell me, sir, that you let me ask you a question. I'm not trying to give any jury interrupting me and you haven't let me finish. So, are you telling me that you are going to disregard my very clear directive to you to not bring up the topic of jury nullification?

[00:17:56]>> That's not what I said.

[00:17:58]>> That's what she's asking you. What she answers the question.

[00:18:02]>> Ask that's why I'm asking you.

[00:18:03]>> I don't understand that question cuz that's not what I said.

[00:18:06]>> Sir, you may not argue jury nullification.

[00:18:09]>> I'm going to inform them of the truth.

[00:18:12]>> So, you're going to inform them that they have the power of jury nullification. They do have the you just said on the record that they have the power for >> Yes. She said that they have the power but also the thing that he's not saying is that she said that they also doesn't have they don't have the right to do so.

[00:18:31]So he's omitting that very important part.

[00:18:35]>> I direct your attention.

[00:18:36]>> You just said that. Did you not just say that your honor?

[00:18:39]>> Sir, >> you said I couldn't instruct them.

[00:18:42]>> The jury has the power but not the right to nullify. Right. You said the power.

[00:18:47]You said the power.

[00:18:48]>> Listen to me, sir. You're interrupting me once again.

[00:18:50]>> Why is he Why is he only listening to the first part? It It's so hard to just listen a little bit.

[00:18:57]>> So, I'm going to inform them that they have the power.

[00:19:00]>> Are you telling me, sir, >> I'm not telling you no such thing. I just told you what you just said.

[00:19:04]>> My directive to you to not raise the issue of jury nullification during your closing argument.

[00:19:11]>> That's not what I said. you just read and said that they have the power to that's what you just said your honor >> sir state versus bjerkus says and stands for the proposition that although the jury has the power of jury nullification >> ah they have the power >> no party has the right to argue for jury nullification >> I'm not arguing for it your honor I just want them to be informed I just want them merely to be informed >> you call it informing making them aware.

[00:19:43]>> Yeah, they they should be aware of that.

[00:19:45]>> You are not allowed to make them aware of their power to nullify. That is a proper argument.

[00:19:53]>> Your honor, how can I not inform them that they have a power?

[00:19:56]>> How can I not inform them of a power that they have?

[00:20:01]>> I'm not giving a new jury instruction.

[00:20:04]you. He's being so obuse about the wording. But she she read to you the decision and that can be interpreted very easily as a you know as a decision that needs to be followed. But his brain is so tiny like his body is tiny but his brain is also so tiny that he cannot comprehend more than two words. He hears they have the power, but that's where his brain space ends. And then you can she tells him that they don't have the right and that's he that's not processing for him.

[00:20:41]>> That's not what I'm >> There's no jury instruction for jury nullification because it's not allowed.

[00:20:46]>> I'm not attempting to give them a new jury instruction. I'm merely attempting to inform them of the power that they have.

[00:20:53]>> That's not against the law.

[00:20:54]>> I'm advising you one more time. You may not raise the issue of jury nullification. I'm going to inform them of the power that they have.

[00:21:05]>> I'm not giving them I'm not giving them a jury instruction.

[00:21:08]>> I'm telling them about jury nullification. That's what I hear you saying.

[00:21:12]>> That's not what I said, though. Don't mischaracterize what I'm saying.

[00:21:15]>> That's exactly what you're saying. And also, it's really funny that he's trying to bring this tactic again because, as you know, um he's doing this with Erica Patterson a ton. a a ton of times where she he does something to her, she complains, and then either him or his mom pressure Erica to not testify against him. So, they throw the case out. That's the only reason why his uh crime history is less than that, because he's been able to get away from a lot of stuff by intimidating people around him.

[00:21:53]And that's what he wants the jury to do.

[00:21:55]He wants them to he wants them to know this possibility of getting getting him off the hook which will not be it will be just a myth trial and they will have to do another uh trial but he doesn't get that. He believes that if one of the jurors just throws away the case that he will get out. That's not how it works.

[00:22:18]Brooks, >> you just read and said that they have the power.

[00:22:24]they have the power to do that. So how how is informing them >> inherent power that they have they are not to be instructed on it. That is very clear in the law. In addition to No, let me finish. In addition to the case that I just cited, I'd cite to you uh from the jury instructions uh the law note on jury nullification 705.

[00:22:47]Um what that says, sir, is I'm not going to read it all. It's many, many pages.

[00:22:52]But the bottom line is it is improper for a court to allow a defendant or a defense attorney to make an argument or make the jury aware um that they have the power to nullify a verdict.

[00:23:07]>> And your honor, you just added this last night. That's why I had to sit there for an hour in the holding cell and wait for you to change the whole paperwork because I brought that up. So you >> No, no, she No, she didn't.

[00:23:20]She had to correct a lot of stuff that if you were paying attention, you would know, but you you were just trying to read the Bible or whatever. But he doesn't get that. He He truly doesn't get how procedure works. And also, the judge can bring up any case law at any time to explain their decision. They don't have to explain it, but they have to base it on something, and she does every time.

[00:23:44]>> He never intended for this to even be an issue. It never was brought up. when I raised the issue that I'm not prepared to deal with and argue on jury notic that's not what I said >> that's not what I said in all fairness that's not what I said >> the record should accurately reflect that you were kept in that holding cell I kept there so that my clerk could finish >> adding a jury instruction that was not there >> six verdict forms and it's times two because there's a guilty and a not guilty for each note let me finish interrupting How did I have why did I have to sit here for that where I could have just went to my cell and had it delivered?

[00:24:25]>> We because you're a crybaby and you leave uh documents on the holding cell all the time. So, she wanted to make sure that this very very very important paperwork was in your hands the day before so you can read it.

[00:24:43]But I guess you don't care about that.

[00:24:45]had this at the end of last at the end of last night before you called recess.

[00:24:49]>> I'm not going to debate with you. We had a whole conversation about >> Mr. Brooks, you >> me bringing up about the jury nullification >> disregarding this court.

[00:25:00]>> You can roll your eyes out because you want it's ridiculous. Your honor, you you you just stated that they have the power to nullify.

[00:25:10]>> Would you like to read this to you, sir? the part of the case that's important, but you're not letting me get a word in edge-wise.

[00:25:18]I'm trying my best not to remove you to the other courtroom, but that is often times what I need to do in order for this court to make a full record without you interrupting me.

[00:25:30]>> Right?

[00:25:31]>> But you need to be fully aware that you may not raise the issue of jury nullification in front of this jury.

[00:25:42]It is not an allowable argument or an advisement or making them aware. However you want to describe that, sir, whatever verbiage you want to put in front of it, you may not do so. And this court has the power and the authority to limit what you say to this jury even in a closing argument. And if you're telling me through your conduct, through your words, that you are going to disregard that direction, you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument >> under what lawful law?

[00:26:19]>> We just cited all those laws. What? What do you mean under what lawful law?

[00:26:25]>> Under State versus Anthony.

[00:26:27]>> That's that it doesn't refer to that.

[00:26:29]State versus Anthony may not have dealt with >> it hasn't dealt with closing arguments >> to a closing argument, sir, but the reasoning nonetheless >> is fully applicable because the more you can't change the law, your honor. You can't change the law. That's practicing law from the bench.

[00:26:46]>> But the general principing law from the bench. I He has no idea what practicing law from the bench means.

[00:26:59]If you're changing if you're your honor, you're attempting you're attempting to make a a a separate case pertain to something here that that doesn't even pertain to it. It has nothing to do with a closing argument.

[00:27:14]>> Nothing that you just named. Not Illinois versus >> I would like to make a record. Would you please show the courtesy and respect?

[00:27:22]>> I will, your honor. I will.

[00:27:23]>> All right. So, looking at the Anthony case. All right.

[00:27:28]And that case starting at headnote 7 paragraph 54 says the following. And you need to let me get all the way through it. We have recognized two distinct ways in which a defendant may give up his rights. Waiver and forfeite. State versus penal is the first citation that they reference. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. Multiple citations there. I won't repeat them all.

[00:27:55]Waiver typically applies to those rights. so important to the administration of a fair trial that mere inaction on the part of a litigant is not sufficient to demonstrate that a party intended to forego that right.

[00:28:06]State versus sodto forfeite on the other hand often involves the failure to make the timely assertion of a right. That's a site >> timely assertion of a right. That's a great phrase. You you don't get to decide when it's timely. They do >> to the Dena case and Olano rights that are subject to forfeite are typically those whose relinquishment will not necessarily deprive a party of a fair trial and whose protection is best left to the immediiacy of the trial such as when a party fails to raise an evidentary objection. However, there is a second aspect of forfeite. doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right. State versus vaugh 2012 Wisconsin appallet 129 citing Illinois versus Allen 397 uh US 337.

[00:29:07]They went on the court that is the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Anthony as previously noted we have held that the right to testify is subject to waiver not forfeite in so far as a defendant's inaction in asserting the rightest concern. We now conclude that the right to testify may in appropriate cases be subject to forfeite or conduct incompatible with the assertion of the right is at issue. They go on to discuss Allen which was not a right to testify but was a right to be present.

[00:29:40]And I am utilizing the guidance from Illinois versus Allen and State versus Anthony. It directly guides this court that a defendant may forfeit a right by conduct by doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right. In this particular case, you are very clearly telling me you are going to disregard what I told you about notifying the jury about nullification. You have absolutely no right to raise that in front of the jury. It is improper. And unless you're willing to tell me you will honor this ruling of mine, then you will forfeit your right to present a closing argument.

[00:30:30]That is my ruling.

[00:30:31]>> And that's a very good ruling. And what Darla Brooks doesn't understand and just just like she quoted those two cases that reference what the the one before, if he didn't present a closing statement, which he did at the end. But if he didn't, then someone else in the future if this situation presented, they will quote uh Wisconsin versus Darl Brooks in order to in enforce that ruling. So yeah, it's fair. It's it's it's proper.

[00:31:04]>> I object to that ruling, your honor.

[00:31:11]>> I object to that ruling.

[00:31:14]>> All right. So what is the basis? What is the resolution that you want out of that?

[00:31:19]>> You willing to make a closing argument, sir, that does not reference jury nullification.

[00:31:25]>> I'm going to inform inform the jury of their power.

[00:31:30]Again, I never stated that I was making a new jury instruction. I never st in uh stated anything like that. And every case law that you just stated made no reference to closing arguments. It was all pertaining to uh being present for the proceedings of trial and for testifying.

[00:31:53]>> Not one time did you Hold on. I let your honor, with all due respect, I let you make your record. I didn't interrupt you.

[00:32:00]>> Go ahead.

[00:32:02]>> Not one case law that you just cited made any reference whatsoever to a closing argument.

[00:32:09]Not one. So, how is me merely informing the jury of the power and the rights that they have?

[00:32:22]How is that a forefeiture of being able to give a closing argument?

[00:32:28]>> She she spent like she spent like 20 minutes trying to explain that to you in many words and we all understand and distribute it. Well, in addition to the cases I've just cited, sir, I'd also point you to state versus bejerkus 163 Wisconsin second at 549. That's a court of appeals case.

[00:32:50]>> Yes, that's a lot of cases, but and that's because you keep adding, you keep asking, you keep uh you want her to prove stuff to you. So, she's quoting all these different cases that refer to her decisions. So, she's going to bring them up >> from 1991. That is the first publish appellet decision in Wisconsin to consider directly several issues relating to the jury nullification issue. In that particular case, the court very clearly said that the defense council in that case was allowed to talk in terms of fairness in general terms, but not to go further and could not argue that the jury quote should disregard the instructions and the law and find her not guilty because it seems fair. That's a description of jury nullification. to use the words jury nullification would run a foul even more. And so I am telling you that given my inherent authority in controlling the mode and order of this court to ensure courtesy decorum and civility and to ensure that this jury is presented with arguments that are proper under the law. I am hereby telling you I am in in creating a rule for your closing argument that you may not raise the issue of jury nullification in any way.

[00:34:25]>> Your honor, hold up. Hold up now.

[00:34:28]>> Oh, the mask came off now. Now, now it's all to the races. Like he the he's doing the he took off the gloves now. I'm the only one that has to be made rules for foreclosing arguments, but not the prosecution. How is that fair? How's that?

[00:34:45]>> Because you're the one that's saying that's going to break the rules. They didn't they they they didn't broke the rules. They they didn't she didn't need to make a ruling because they didn't threaten to say something inappropriate.

[00:35:01]>> Gallings.

[00:35:02]>> Mr. Mr. Brooks, I'm squarely faced with your defiance regarding the issue of jury nullification that is requiring meant to address this issue and to tell you very expressly that that is the rule objecting argument.

[00:35:17]>> I vehemently object to that.

[00:35:19]>> Your objection is noted for the record.

[00:35:21]>> May I ask for a legal reconsideration of your ruling?

[00:35:25]>> That request is denied.

[00:35:27]May I uh respectfully ask for uh matter of fact, I reject that ruling and take exception to that ruling.

[00:35:34]>> He got he got a little ahead on the script and he had to walk it back.

[00:35:41]>> You're >> for the record, may I request a legal or factual basis for your ruling? Not one pertaining to being present in the courtroom or >> not one of the five that you just brought up. Another one >> testifying one that specifically talks about a closing argument.

[00:36:04]>> No, >> all of those requests are noted. I will not reconsider. I've put my findings and my reasoning on the record and I stand by that record. For the record, may I respectfully request a written judicial finding of facts and conclusion of law?

[00:36:26]>> Denied.

[00:36:28]>> For the record, may I respectfully move for interlocatory declaratory appeal on this matter.

[00:36:34]>> I'm not the form for which an appeal would be sought. Sir, I cannot answer that.

[00:36:38]>> You you referred to it before.

[00:36:42]>> You would need to direct your appeal to >> I'm confused to a court of appeals, not this court. No, this is I'm supposed to be in this admiral court because you haven't you haven't is the if if we're under article three then we should be in common law court that hasn't even been addressed if we're in a common law court or a court.

[00:37:04]>> But why are you saying that we are in an admiralty court or whatever you said if you don't even know what we are how you can tell that is an admiralty court? I don't know. It's a baseless argument, sir. I don't need to law and fact. Based on what law and fact?

[00:37:20]>> It's meritless.

[00:37:21]>> Based on what law and fact?

[00:37:23]>> Based on there's no law or fact backing that statement.

[00:37:30]>> Sir, I intend to bring this jury out and give you >> an opportunity. I'm informed of that >> to present a closing argument.

[00:37:38]>> You violate. Please let me. Sir, you're interrupting.

[00:37:42]You just tried to put me under a rule that no one else was put under.

[00:37:47]>> Everyone is put under that rule by by default.

[00:37:52]>> Circumstances require that I implement this rule, sir, given your stubborn defiance under my defense. You can't place me under certain rules and not place the prosecution under the same rules. Sir, the circumstances of this case and your insistence on arguing jury nullification has resulted in this court creating this rule.

[00:38:12]>> I haven't argued it. I said that I wanted to inform the jury of their power. I never once said I'm going to make an argument. I'm going to give them a jury instruction.

[00:38:20]>> You may not advise them or make them aware in any way that they have the power.

[00:38:26]>> And why not they be informed of their we just we just went through all of them.

[00:38:31]We've been going through this the entire time. He's still asking why not >> violate the bjerkus decision. Sir, >> violate what decision?

[00:38:42]>> All right, sir. I am going to bring the jury out >> and I'm going to inform them that they have the power. And if you do that, I will dismiss the jury and I will declare that your right to present a closing argument has been forfeited based upon how motion for >> I'm not going to declare that at this point because I want to see what you will do. Uh but if you raise the issue of jury nullification, I will immediately dismiss the jury. You will forfeit your right uh present a closing argument.

[00:39:12]>> Under what lawful law can you >> and then if you continue to interrupt me? What? Lawful law.

[00:39:17]>> You will be removed to the other courtroom as I complete.

[00:39:20]>> So, I'm being held in contempt again.

[00:39:22]>> Oh my god.

[00:39:22]>> Is it civil or criminal?

[00:39:25]>> Go ahead.

[00:39:25]>> I apologize.

[00:39:27]>> May I ask the court to consider perhaps an alternative? And I fully respect the ruling the court has just made and I understand the basis for it. We all know the defendant in his petulence will say jury nullification in the first 3 seconds. The jury's in the room.

[00:39:45]objection to that.

[00:39:48]>> That's that's true. She she knows him well enough that she and she and he also doesn't know the meaning of petulant >> proper thing to do. I think >> stop interrupting attorney down to >> I think that you should >> allow him to make his closing arguments.

[00:40:06]>> I will object if he misstates the law.

[00:40:09]You can instruct the jury to disregard any misstatements of the law. And we continue in that fashion if possible for a reasonable amount of time. And if it becomes to the point where there's no reasonable, legal, credible argument that's being made, then the court can decide as to whether or not he's forfeited his right to a closing argument. But we could at least try to by merely objecting and the court telling the jury to disregard and instructing Mr. Brooks to move on to the next topic. We could try >> to allow him his opportunity to provide a closing argument.

[00:40:51]If that's unworkable, then I think this record will be very clear as to the efforts of this court.

[00:40:59]And I think um there there is materials in the benchbook or I'm sorry the jury instruction 705 um that talk about a jury instruction this court could even give um telling the jury that they are not at liberty to disregard the law. But we're not going that far yet because um frankly you have told them and you will tell them that closing arguments are not evidence.

[00:41:28]>> Yeah. and um I think they will abide by that. So I know it's going to require um effort for the court to to allow this to um allow Mr. Brooks to try and proceed.

[00:41:47]But I think we should try that or something similar to that in an effort to get through this next step or else we will continue at this pace forever.

[00:42:00]Very nice. Very I love I love Susan Opera. She's great. Like she she she done a a very good job this entire trial and she continues to do so.

[00:42:13]>> I'm certainly willing to try that.

[00:42:16]Yeah, >> it's about all we could come up with, your honor. I >> mean, I'm certainly willing to try it in this courtroom and then if he disregards that to excuse the jury and then have him present from the other courtroom would be the second step. And then third would be a forfeite.

[00:42:33]>> Agree.

[00:42:33]>> Agreed.

[00:42:34]>> Your honor, I object to that.

[00:42:37]>> Why are you objecting to that? She's She just helped you. She allowed you to present a closing statement. Why? Why are you objecting to that?

[00:42:48]>> Your objection is noted for the record.

[00:42:51]That will be the course of action that this court takes. The first time you violate uh the rule, you may be subject to forfeiting your right to be present where you will give the closing argument from the other courtroom. Um, and if you continue in a blatant disregard of the requirement that you not reference in any way jury nullification, I may make that final determination outside the presence of the jury. I >> object to that, your honor.

[00:43:19]>> Doesn't matter. All right, we're going to come back next time with the closing statement, but thank you guys for watching. I'll see you in the next one to remember that you're great, that you matter, and that I'm really happy that you're here. I'll see you next one. Have a fantastic day. Bye-bye.