By SAM CALDWELL and TREY GARRISON

Waukesha, WI – On the 17th day of the trial of Darrell Brooks, both the prosecution as well as the defense committed to delivering their closing arguments. While the state managed to paint a picture of Brooks as a madman who lost his cool after a domestic dispute—willfully ignoring his motive and history of anti-White hate—Brooks’ argument was full of crocodile tears and pleas to the jury to consider his own family before “using their power” to reach a verdict.

Accused anti-White terrorist Darrell E. Brooks tried to derail the reading of jury instructions and was subsequently removed to an adjacent courtroom for the several hours it took for Waukesha Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow to read more than 70 pages of instructions regarding the charges against him. Brooks would be removed to the other courtroom a total of six times before lunch.

The alleged murderer and self-admitted anti-White terrorist faces scores of charges for ramming his SUV through the Waukesha Christmas parade last year, killing six White people and wounding more than 60. Among the dead was an 8-year-old White boy. 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.

Once jury instructions had been read, Brooks demanded to be sent to the other courtroom once more and forfeited his right to be present during the State’s final argument. “What I truly believe is an effort on his part to continue to delay and lengthen these proceedings,” the judge added.

The Prosecution’s Closing Argument: D.A. Sue Opper

The prosecution began its closing argument by attacking Darrell Brooks’ sovereign citizen strategies. By reminding the jury that the prosecution does, in fact, represent someone, in this case, the people of Wisconsin, the state appeared to deny Brooks any potentiality that his crank rhetoric would be given discussion time inside the deliberation room.

“We represent the people of Wisconsin,” said DA Susan Opper. “People enact laws. People want to feel safe. People have representatives in Madison or Washington, D.C., that set standards, rules, that we all are expected to live by, and when those rules are violated, prosecutors step in and enforce the law. Darrell Brooks does not represent anybody. He does not have a client. Darrell Brooks is the client. Darrell Brooks is the defendant. The State of Wisconsin is the plaintiff. It’s really that simple, and it’s consistent with any other criminal case you’ve heard about.”

Frustratingly, District Attorney Opper once again willfully ignored Brooks’s long history of anti-White hate, as evident in his social media presence and prolific rap career. Instead, she seemed to imply that there was no actual motive in the attack and instead, reified the domestic incident narrative.

 “I’m not telling you he set out that morning to cause this carnage, but when he became enraged… he didn’t give a damn.” Opper said, mentioning she still didn’t know why he committed his alleged terror attack “other than the rage.”

The District Attorney continued her closing argument by showcasing the attack map, revisiting evidence collected by eyewitnesses, and reminding the jury of the impact of the carnage Brooks had let loose on the streets of Waukesha. The final blow came in the form of a string of videos of the alleged attack played for the jury, which set off a chain reaction of open weeping in the courtroom.

Separately, a psychologist with a YouTube channel with 1.3 million subscribers published a video stating that, despite the state steadfastly refusing to discuss Brooks’ documented history of anti-White hate in its case, Brooks was indeed driven by anti-White anger.

Jury Nullification

Before the defense’s final argument, Brooks argued his “right” to inform the jury of their ability to evoke “jury nullification,” a highly unorthodox legal play that is improper to be requested of the jury by either party. Jury nullification is a form of protest typically deployed by juries when they believe the charges or potential sentences involved to be too harsh. Judge Jennifer Dorow was highly offended at each mention of this legalistic tactic and was not hesitant to lay into Brooks whenever he began a discussion over it.

“No party has the right to argue for jury nullification,” said Dorow. “You are not allowed to inform them of their power to nullify…That is not a right that you have, sir.”

Dorow eventually ruled that he could not mention jury nullification during his closing argument whatsoever, instead reminding him that it is a power that they have inherently. She stated that describing what jury nullification is to the jury would actually be less damaging than using the words “jury nullification” in their presence

“Jury nullification refers to a jury’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Essentially, with jury nullification, the jury returns a “not guilty” verdict even if jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law.”

Cornell Law

The Defense’s Closing Argument: Darrell E. Brooks

Brooks’ closing argument, much like his opening statement, was full of sobbing and emotional platitudes seemingly meant to play at the heartstrings of a jury. During his long, legally illiterate argument, he attempted to draw sympathy by bringing up the hardships that have befallen his own family since the attack.

“There’s been prayers going up every day. There’s been suffering on both sides. There’s been threats, hate mail because of the narratives that’s been put out there, the misconceptions that have been put out there, the lies that have been put out there, lies that have caused my children not to be able to go to school, to be bullied, for my mother to have to leave her home and stay at a hotel because she’s afraid for her safety because she gets hate mail shoved through her mailbox. My nieces and nephews, for their safety,”

Darrell Brooks

“And what’s been equally hard is not only having to answer questions from my daughter, who was 7 at the time, my baby girl who was 7 at the time, who is now 8, attempting to answer her questions that she’s asking and still continue to shield her from what she sees, what she hears, having a newborn son that I haven’t even been able to meet, haven’t been able to hold, touch, kiss, having to navigate everything that comes with this whole situation while still attempting to wrap my head around it,” sobbed Brooks. “I can’t honestly say how many times I’ve sat in my cell, especially during lights out, alone, where it’s just you and just been praying and asking myself, ‘How could this happen?’ — not just for the people but for everybody involved, the community, too. How could this happen? How?”

When commenting on the damage made to the red SUV, Brooks claimed that it was not bodies that caused the damage but rather barricades and other objects in the road. He also argued that “the vehicle” never came to a stop because of an open factory recall on the Ford Escape, which may have led to the “accident.”

“I have no regrets.” 

Darrell Brooks

The Prosecution’s Rebuttal: D.A. Sue Opper

District attorney Sue Opper had 13 minutes left of her one-hour argument in which to form a rebuttal to Darrell Brooks. She used the time wisely, showcasing the cruel remorse and outright lies he had made throughout his closing argument, as well as the trial in general.

“Folks, let me just say this. Mr. Brooks stands here and professes to speak from the heart… He talks about his children. He talks about the hardships he’s encountered, and he brushes over the loss to the community,” said Opper. “He wants to talk about he’s never held his newborn son. Never once acknowledges the Sorensen family, the Owen family, the Durand family, the Hospel family, the Kulich family, the Sparks family…It’s nice Mr. Brooks can get letters from his loved ones. I don’t know why Mr. Brooks did this, but actions define a person.”

Opper then continued, “You can hold a Bible and profess what you may be, but when you drive over children with band instruments, your intent is known, Mr. Brooks.”

The case is now in the hands of the jury, and the Justice Report will continue to watch closely for a verdict by the jury. Deliberations are expected to continue until tomorrow.

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.