By MARTIN HEIDEGGER and TREY GARRISON

On day 13th of the trial of accused anti-White terrorist Darrell E. Brooks, a chronically unruly and difficult Brooks wasted the opening 90 minutes arguing that the jury should be tested for COVID and verbally sparring with Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Dorow. He also claimed that the jury shouldn’t be allowed to view his red SUV because he didn’t “consent” to it. On top of this, he also continued to focus on legal non-issues and demanded the court return his “original filings,” not xeroxed copies.

Brooks, a black career criminal, and a registered sex offender, is charged with intentionally driving his red SUV through the annual Waukesha Christmas Parade on Nov. 21, 2021, striking dozens of White spectators and participants. Six White people died, and 61 were injured and maimed as the self-described anti-White terrorist accelerated into the barricaded parade route and veered into crowds for five blocks.

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.

As with almost every day, Brooks continued his sovereign citizen arguments in his cross-examination of the state’s witnesses. Sovereign citizens believe only individual people, not governments, can bring legal action, so any state-led prosecution of crimes is inherently illegitimate. These arguments have never been supported in any court of law.

The prosecution continued its trend of steadfastly refusing to bring up Brooks’ extensive and documented history of anti-White hate.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Witnesses

Steven Schlomann, the IT director for the Waukesha School District, testified to the accuracy of video from security cameras at the school that captured Brooks after the parade attack.

Robert Stone II, a resident of Waukesha on Dunbar Avenue, testified to the accuracy of his home security camera system and the video it captured the night of the parade attack.

Andrew Amerson, also a resident of Dunbar Avenue, testified to the accuracy of the video captured by his home security cameras. He also testified his grandchildren had to get counseling after the traumatic attack, which was paid for by a community fund. Brooks actually tried to imply this represented a financial interest on Amerson’s part.

Leonard Miller, a Waukesha resident, also testified about video footage captured from his home security system, showing Brooks on the streets after abandoning his vehicle.

In all four cases, the men turned their footage over to the Waukesha police as evidence in the prosecution’s case, placing Brooks at and near the scene of the crime.

5th Witness: Kyle Becker

Waukesha police ward specialist Kyle Becker testified he was part of the search team canvassing the area after the attack to look for evidence. He testified to finding one of Brooks’ flip-flop shoes in a yard next to a chainlink fence on Maple Avenue not far from the abandoned red SUV.

Becker also testified to finding Brooks’ grey “NASA” hoodie, which he abandoned in his attempt to flee the scene of the crime, as well as Brooks’ other flip-flop.

Brooks’ cross-examination meandered into questioning how his name was known, failed attempts to question Becker’s police work, and finally, his sovereign citizen chicanery.

Jury Site Visit

At about 11:40 am CT, the jury was taken to a garage adjacent to the courthouse to view Brooks’ impounded red SUV. Brooks was allowed to attend the viewing of this key piece of evidence as well, and every manner of fairness was employed by Judge Jenniffer Dorow in ensuring he had ample access to the same areas the jury and prosecution did.

6th Witness: Justin Rowe

Waukesha police detective Justin Rowe testified he was part of a team that searched the neighborhood around where Brooks abandoned the red SUV after the parade attack. He was part of the team that found Brooks’ flip flops and asked homeowners and businesses if they had video from the night of the attack.

He verified the video the police recovered, which showed the route Brooks took through the Maple and Dunbar neighborhoods. The footage included audio and video footage of Brooks, barefoot and wearing a red t-shirt, as sirens blared in the background.

The state also produced a map that Rowe verified, wherein he traced every step from the time he was captured on film to his arrest outside Daniel Rider’s house.

On cross-examination, Brooks showed himself to be the learned legal mind he’s presented throughout the trial, muttering under his breath that the judge was being “ridiculous” and warning her, “Don’t try to be slick.” Despite the veiled threat, he received no pushback from the judge.

7th Witness: Bryan Schultz

Next to the stand was veteran Wisconsin State Patrol officer, Bryan Schultz, a mechanical inspector for the department’s crash investigative team.

Mr. Schultz was tasked with inspecting the Ford Escape that Brooks allegedly used to kill six and injure more than sixty others. The state took the chance to introduce the crash report created by Schultz. Mr. Brooks objected because the copy presented to him wasn’t marked with an exhibit number (83). The judge suggested that any numbering issues could be resolved later without the jury being present. Brooks responded by muttering that the process “wasn’t fair.” His irrelevant commentary was stricken, and testimony resumed.

Schultz noted that while the rear tires were 1.5 inches too large, this would not impact a vehicle traveling below highway speeds. The witness also said that the breaks were in good working order. He also said that it was completely functional despite one loose ball joint in the power steering system. There were no “trouble codes” indicating any other type of malfunction.

Throughout cross-examination, Brooks peppered Schultz with questions regarding various vehicle systems. Uncharacteristic of Brooks thus far, he refrained from asking Schultz any questions regarding his knowledge of the plaintiff, or whether Wisconsin could bring a case against him or similar sovereign citizen-inspired arguments.

At this point, Brooks and the judge had yet another row over his out-of-order commentary. She asked him, “what was so hilarious?” Brooks complained that the state could ask questions he already asked on cross-exam. Judge Darrow complained to Brooks that he made “disparaging remarks…to witnesses, to the court and the process.” On one occasion, Brooks once again responded to an overruled objection with, “stop trying to be slick.”

8th Witness: Chris Johnson

Next to the stand was Chris Johnson, a crime scene analyst and chief of the Office of Crime scene response. His job was to protect the integrity of evidence on the crime scene. Prosecutors took the opportunity to show photos of the wrecked Ford Escape, driven by Brooks. Among his duties included assisting the tow company in transporting the abandoned vehicle to a secure facility. In the vehicle, Johnson testified he found several pieces of US Mail addressed to Darrell E. Brooks Jr.

The testimony was once again interrupted by Brooks. Judge Darrow removed the jury, and then she threatened Brooks with removal. Brooks then yelled at her, “Nobody gonna tell me what to do,” and “I’m a grown man with grown kids—nobody goin’ talk to me like that, nobody.” As the jury filed back in, Brooks muttered, “oh, so I’m supposed to be scared of being removed or something.”

“I’ve taken the jury out at this point to admonish you that any further mumbling under your breath or not recognizing when I uphold or sustain an objection…. I’m not holding you in contempt. I’m well aware that that’s one of my options…”

Judge Jenniffer Dorow

9th Witness: Trevor Naleid

Senior Analyst Naleid is a crime scene investigator specializing in DNA analysis for the Wisconsin Department of Justice State Crime Lab. He took DNA samples from Darrell Brooks, Erika Patterson, and several of the victims. Swabs taken from the steering wheel of the red Ford Escape were used as evidence in the case. Naleid used special software called “Starmix” to assist in his research, and, according to Neleid, there was less than one quadrillion to one chance that the DNA he recovered did not belong to the defendant.

In other words, there is strong DNA evidence pinning Darrell Brooks to the inside of the red Ford Escape used to kill six, and seriously injure more than sixty other people.

Accentuated by long pauses and vague questions, Brooks attempted to challenge the DNA evidence, and imply that someone else could have been driving the vehicle during his cross-examination. He also asked if Naleid had taken a creative writing course, suggesting he may have fabricated or embellished in his final report.

In a triumphant ending for Brooks, he asked the witness if he had ever had interactions with the plaintiff. Naleid responded, “I don’t know how I would talk to the state of Wisconsin. It is an entity, not a person.” Brooks shook his head in agreement. “Not a person, right!” he exclaimed while concealing a sly grin under his mask.

The state had hoped to rest their case today, however, they will be recalling Detective Casey tomorrow for further testimony. Whether or not Brooks will take the stand himself is still up in the air.

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 will continue to be updated every day until sentencing.