By SAM CALDWELL and TREY GARRISON
Waukesha, WI – On the sixth day of the trial of accused anti-White terrorist Darrell E. Brooks, the court continued to introduce witnesses ranging from law enforcement personnel to civilians personally harmed by the attack. While Brooks continued to pursue his campaign of sovereign citizen legal defense strategies and hyper-focusing on irrelevant details in an attempt to cast doubt on eyewitness testimonies, the court continued to baby the defendant and help him every step of the way.
The state’s more than 70 felony charges against Brooks include six counts of first-degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon, 61 counts of recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon, six counts of hit-and-run involving death, and two counts of bail jumping. He also faces two misdemeanor counts of domestic abuse-battery.
Brooks, a known career criminal, and a registered sex offender is charged with murdering six and seriously wounding more than 60 people in the deadly 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack in Waukesha, the mostly White town 30 minutes west of Milwaukee. Brooks’ SUV plowed through parade marchers, and the targets were White people.
Once again, the prosecution studiously avoided any mention or questions about Brooks’ extensive, documented history of anti-White statements and hate, all of which preceded the attack on the Waukesha Christmas parade, where White people were specific targets for what many perceive as racially-motivated violent extremism.
Brooks Apologizes To the Court
The day began with a shift in defensive strategy by Brooks, opening things up by addressing Judge Jennifer Dorow and the court with an apology. While donning a suit, Brooks acknowledged his string of outbursts and overall courtroom antics that occurred the previous week and offered an apology before the jury was brought inside. It appeared to lack sincerity, given the defendant’s long track record of courtroom fumbles and self-indulgent outbursts.
“I just want to state this for the record that I would like to issue the court an apology from me in regards to my actions last week during the trial…I just want the court to understand it’s very emotional right now, not only for just the whole situation of the trial, the families here that have to go through, you know, everything that’s going to be involved with the trial, but also my family, as well, myself. It’s very, very emotional but not to excuse my actions, and I should carry myself with better respect. I wasn’t raised that way, and I owe you, your Honor, and the court an apology.”Darrell Brooks, arrested for his alleged role in an anti-White terror attack which killed 6 and injured more than 60 others.
First Witness: Thomas Casey
Thomas Casey was the first witness called Monday, who was the subject of Brooks’ cross-examination. Casey is a 25-year veteran detective with the Waukesha Police Department.
In his opening question, the danger of representing oneself was apparent when Brooks asked Casey, “Do you recall any disturbances that afternoon?” Casey responded, “You mean when you drove through the parade routes and…?”
A defense attorney would have objected and had the answer stricken, but Brooks is Brooks.
Casey kept referring to Brooks as “you,” and the only objection was Brooks’ “sovereign citizen” tactic of refusing to recognize his own name, which came up regularly throughout the day.
Brooks then clumsily tried to undermine the detective’s testimony but to little avail. He engaged in lots of simple wordplays and repeatedly opposed objections on “grounds.” He also objected to witness first-hand testimony as “hearsay,” which it was not.
Judge Dorow, who many say has been lenient to Brooks in order to limit his later attempts for appeal, went overboard handholding Brooks throughout the day’s hearings. The most generous reading is that she had trust in the prosecution to undo any confusion Brooks’ actions may have caused the jury.
Second Witness: Officer Bryce Butryn
Officer Bryce Butryn of the Waukesha Police Department testified for the prosecution that he witnessed Brooks driving through the parade at about five mph.
Butryn testified he attempted to stop the vehicle and was almost struck. He also testified he saw Brooks behind the wheel, and the vehicle strike a number of parade marchers.
On cross-examination, Brooks asked the same kind of meandering, clumsy questions at first, trying to muddy the waters to little avail, and then veered again into sovereign citizen territory. In trying to nitpick Butryn’s testimony, Brooks had video of him smashing through the parade played again for the jury, the emotional impact of which doesn’t help his case.
Brooks rolled again into “sovereign citizen” territory, asking about Butryn wearing his uniform, or whether he was a “party” to the trial or had a “claim.” He also went on about the state of Wisconsin and whether it was a person or an entity.
Sovereign citizens’ frivolous, quasi-legal arguments hold that only individual people can bring legal action in court, not governments acting on behalf of their citizenry in the form of municipal, state, or federal prosecution or action for criminal or civil allegations.
Third Witness: Officer Sonia Schneider
Waukesha Police Officer Sonia Schneider, a three-year veteran, testified for the prosecution about the events she witnessed that fatal night. She said they heard reports of a knife fight, but nothing came of it.
She said when Brooks drove into the parade with his red SUV, which targeted White people in the parade, she tried to get it to veer off by standing in its path but dodged when Brooks didn’t swerve.
In fact, Schneider said that Brooks seemed to speed up to hit paradegoers.
Schneider also testified about the injured, including an adolescent White girl who was seriously injured when Brooks struck her, which Brooks objected to as “irrelevant.” He was overruled.
She was then directed to stand guard over one of the deceased in Brooks’ anti-White attack, one of the “Dancing Grannies,” to preserve the scene.
He also asked whether she’d heard about a knife fight prior to the parade attack, and she said yes, but she heard nothing after that.
Brooks went so far as to suggest that because Schneider didn’t actually witness him shaving the long dreadlocks, he sported in December 2021, which he had since shaved, she couldn’t properly identify him. That line was handily dismissed.
Fourth Witness: Jim Haakenson
After a recess, Brooks returned to complain about various sovereign citizen issues, including what name he could identify as. Judge Dorow even indicated she would give him some “leeway” on that subject.
The state then brought Battalion Chief Jim Haakenson to the stand. He testified to receiving an alert of a vehicle vs. pedestrian situation that grew in severity as more reports of additional people struck started to come in. In response, the WFD (Waukesha Fire Department) upgraded their alarm to allow for all five stations to respond.
During Haakenson’s testimony, Brooks attempted numerous objections, all of which were overruled. In his cross-examination, Brooks again fixated on the claim of the initial knife attack, and in response to another question, Haakenson clarified that 24 victims were initially taken to the hospital, with an additional 49 taken afterward. Brooks brought up that the power went out in Waukesha and had Haakenson confirm that this was unrelated to the alleged attack. It is unclear why Brooks zeroed in on these mostly unrelated aspects of the case.
Fifth Witness: Nicole White
The state then called Nicole White, the first person who Brooks allegedly struck during the attack. White was visibly emotional while watching a clip of herself marching immediately preceding the attack. White testified that she had no warning or knowledge of the speeding SUV before being struck in the back. Assuming it was an accident, she recalled that she expected it to stop, but instead observed it continue driving along the route.
White said she was unable to walk after being struck, having sustained an injury to the knee, and that the scene was surrounded by chaos. A police officer then picked White up and transported her to Waukesha Memorial Hospital for treatment.
The state then showed a brief video of White being struck. The collision resulted in White tearing two ligaments in her right knee, having two vertebrae compressed in her lower spine, as well as suffering an injured tailbone.
Brooks then moved to cross-examine, peppering her with questions about whether she could identify Brooks as the driver of the red SUV, what speed the SUV was going, and if she had filed a report after the attack place.
It’s worth noting the absurdity of a lengthy, inept cross-examination of a severely distressed woman by the person that allegedly struck her with his own vehicle.
Sixth Witness: Sarah Wehmeier-Aparicio
The next witness was Sarah Wehmeier-Aparicio, the Waukesha South High School Band Director. Aparicio described the general marching formation of her band on the day of the alleged attack and then identified all the students that were affected.
Aparicio recounted seeing a vehicle driving through the route, assuming it was a part of the parade or an emergency vehicle trying to get through, before realizing the car wasn’t attempting to avoid people. After the car struck band members and sped away, she recalled seeing her students laying in the street.
The state played a video clip of the red SUV driving through the parade and striking the high school band members; their screams were audible. They then had Arparicio identify herself in a video still.
Aparicio noted that her students suffered broken bones, internal bleeding, dental damage, stitches, cuts, abrasions, sprains, and torn ligaments. Additionally, she testified that she was able to identify Brooks through the window of the red SUV.
The state showed this photo again, and Aparicio testified that had the driver made an attempt to stop, his head would not have been looking forward as it was here.
After a brief recess, Brooks went on to cross-examine Aparicio. His attempt at getting her to question the stated speed of the vehicle backfired when she testified that although she isn’t good at estimating speeds, it was going fast and accelerating. He then got pedantic about the technicalities of exact times, positions, and sounds in a series of meandering questions.
Seventh Witness: Kyle Jewell
The state then brought Kyle Jewell to the stand, a spectator of the parade along with his family. He testified that after the Remax van passed, he heard people shouting, “Stop the car!” He recalled seeing the SUV drive over people, specifically the Waukesha south marching band, at a speed of between 30 and 40 miles per hour.
Jewell stated that he intended to pursue the SUV in an attempt to enter and stop it, but was unsuccessful due to being on foot.
During cross-examination, Brooks followed suit in his previous line of questioning. He accused Jewell of assuming that Brooks allegedly accelerated after running over the marching band.
Eighth Witness: Thomas Greene
The final witness to testify was 38-year-old Thomas Greene. He attended the parade along with his wife and three children. Two of them, Lily, 11, and Charles, 9, were both struck and sustained injuries, with Charles sustaining nerve damage in his knees.
When he was 21, Mr. Greene was previously convicted of a misdemeanor in 2006 for what amounted to criminal trespass on a construction site. Despite the state’s attempt to exclude the ‘irrelevant’ conviction, Brooks argued that he had the right to ask about it, citing his own lengthy record for comparison.
After providing several minutes for Brooks to review the relevant statute, Judge Dorow-surprisingly-allowed Brooks to bring it up on cross-examination without divulging the contents of the conviction. Mr. Greene and Brooks had several testy exchanges on cross-examination.
Brooks: “Do you remember which direction the vehicle swerved in?”
Greene: “To the left—towards [sic] me and my family.”
Brooks: “And did it swerve away from your family at that point.”
Greene: “After it hit my family yes.”
When describing Brooks on direct examination previously, Mr. Greene referred to him as dark-skinned. Brooks attempted to make hay of this on cross-examination when Greene described the driver as ‘tan-skinned”. When asked to clarify, Greene, with a slight smirk on his face, responded: “They both seem the same to me.”
Despite objections from the state, Judge Dorow shockingly indulged Brooks’ attempts to ask about different shades of people, finally eliciting a statement from Greene that while he couldn’t determine exactly what dark skin was, he knew it was darker “than Caucasian.”
During cross-examination, Mr. Greene’s facial expression revealed what appeared to be a deep resentment for the man questioning him, the same man who apparently harmed his innocent children just last year. One anonymous telegram commenter, who was following the Livestream agreed, saying: “When Brooks was cross-examining him it looked like it was taking all of his strength to not jump out of the stand and beat him to death.”
Brooks finished his cross-examination by asking Mr. Greene why he failed to quickly render medical aid or seek professional help for his injured children.
After Mr. Greene stepped down, the prosecution, Brooks, and the judge discussed his witness list and the proper procedure for how to fill out subpoenas. Despite her repeated statements that she could not provide legal advice, Judge Dorow offered a lengthy explanation of the right way for Brooks to fill them out.
A live stream of the trial is available here. For background on Brooks and his alleged anti-White hate crimes, read a summary report by Justice Report’s Jack McKraken. To view the National Justice Party/Media2Rise documentary on Brooks and the Waukesha attack, click here.
The Justice Report’s ongoing reporting of the trial of Darrell Brooks is ongoing and will continue to be updated until sentencing.