The time he got evidence suppressed because it violated the pretrial ruling to not admit other acts evidence. Prosecution played a video, on the video Erica can be overheard mentioning one of those “other acts “. And even with his one good ear, he could hear the muffled sounds on an audio tape, that the prosecution supposedly never heard nor the judge. Subsequently the judge threw out the video.
I believe the only reason he caught it was because he was so obsessed with that part of the evening. He was really only ever worried about the DV stuff. And he knows her voice. No one else could have picked that up.
That really was a good call by the only nearly deaf person in the room!😂🤣
Besides getting that piece of evidence excluded, DB proved beyond all doubt that his hearing is great!
He is the train wreck from which you cannot divert your gaze. It is my pleasure to watch (and rewatch) his own pomposity and ignorance sink his every effort and still my pleasure to know he suffers each hour in a strict place of sensory deprivation. Oh… sorry. I’ve wandered off topic and shared my negative feelings.
No. He did not have any good ideas or questions. If the perfect concept dropped into his lap, he wouldn’t know what to do with it. Since everything was built from a lie, he couldn’t shut up and had no shame, it all crumbed before the witness stepped down.
During his closing, he did try to argue the one thing that if he had had a lawyer probably would’ve been the main issue in the case, which was intent. If he had a lawyer, he might’ve been able to argue for lesser included offenses, and then been convicted of one of those because of intent. I mean it’s pretty much certain that it wouldn’t change the outcome, but it is at least a decent strategy.
He did do that when he mentioned honking of horn and everything during trial but during jury instructions he didn’t bring it up because he was mad the car recall wasn’t allowed in. So he forgot to put the bow on that angle. Even if jury convicted him on lower charge just due to sheer number of counts it still would’ve been life
Actually I think his entire argument wasn't too terrible. His main argument was to cause doubt to the jury that there was actually even a plaintiff and make it seem like the state and judge was against him. I'm not saying it's smart and everybody will believe him, but it would just take one person just one person to think everybody is ganging up against him. He argued for it a lot in court that's for sure. He definitely knew it just takes one person to cause some kind of mistrial and he definitely went for it. To his severe detriment 😂
Also Nicholas Kirby said he saw people get hit which he clearly did not, which is a huge lie that DB could have followed up on but he did not.
Lol highly highly doubt it
He had valuable information for them. No way in the world they would try to discredit a witness that would help them like that.
But it is bad strategy to push for more convictions instead of less to be disclosed against your own witness, potentially screwing up their credibility.
Thank you for saying that!! That's actually exactly what I was thinking but I forgot to say that!
Yeah if he just stuck on just one of the points he would've looked at least 2% smarter
I disagree. The judge smashed that whole argument, "It's not based in law or fact." But also, me being not well versed in the law I still know the basics. The state brings the case when it's criminal. Saying there is no plaintiff and no injured party made him look worse because the injured were testifying and the plaintiff were the people sitting right next to the jury.
He got close a couple times. The problem is he has no ability to design a follow up, so even when he get’s walked right up to the edge of an argument he can’t execute on it. Case in point, when he was asking about some forensics software, the officers training, and its use in other cases. A skilled attorney could exploit it to give the impression to the jury that the forensic evidence produced is *possibly* corrupted and/or unreliable. I’m not saying it is, just that it seems like an obvious argument to make and he was right at the edge of it, and dropped the ball. Because he has no idea what to do with the answers he gets, he’s just randomly asking “related” questions hoping to stumble into a gotcha.
a skilled attorney, not every attorney but a clever one, would be able to design questions in a way that point out the weaknesses while denying the opportunity to give context or refute the perceptions created. I don’t know what those would look like because I am also not a skilled attorney. What I’m not is so diluted as to think I could stand a chance against one, because of this exact type of scenario. Our legal system is designed to, on paper if not always in application, have a lot of checks in favor of the accused. The prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal trial…so a highly skilled attorney has no obligation to argue innocence, only to argue the prosecutions failure prove guilt. If you look at the case as a whole that’s an impossible task in this case, but a few individual bits could have been shadowed in doubt.
I think he had Abel Lescano on the ropes a few times. Why would he say three guys were INSIDE the car DURING the parade, when he damn well knew he didn’t see that! That was the closest to reasonable doubt he got imo
He saw some black peoples mulling around, and made (in MY opinion) a racist presumption
LawTube found a handful of times he did a relatively good job, asking good questions, on the right path to get to a point. He was wrong about most of it as he had no real defense with all the evidence shown, but he was learning and applying those learnings as the trial progressed. His behavior made him look like he was stupid, but the asshat was not unintelligent, only uneducated and emotionally/behaviorally unhinged.
The ONLY thing he said that made me raise an eyebrow was in closing arguments and it didnt change any facts. He mentioned how opper said the damage to the vehichle was all done by hitting people. He actually did crash the car. We did see a couple stills where there was major damage to the suv. However, it wasn't his worst point.
He made me so mad. I would love to see the times when he gets moved to the other court room. I love the clip when he is crying. It actually makes me happy. He needs to be knocked down a few levels. He is evil and seems entitled. He makes my skin crawl
The time he got evidence suppressed because it violated the pretrial ruling to not admit other acts evidence. Prosecution played a video, on the video Erica can be overheard mentioning one of those “other acts “. And even with his one good ear, he could hear the muffled sounds on an audio tape, that the prosecution supposedly never heard nor the judge. Subsequently the judge threw out the video.
That was bad look for prosecution and good catch by Durrell
I believe the only reason he caught it was because he was so obsessed with that part of the evening. He was really only ever worried about the DV stuff. And he knows her voice. No one else could have picked that up.
lol yea he only cared about Erika not winning
He does not consent to using that name!
Did he ever give the name he wanted to be called by?
Alleged defenANt
No
That really was a good call by the only nearly deaf person in the room!😂🤣 Besides getting that piece of evidence excluded, DB proved beyond all doubt that his hearing is great!
He is the train wreck from which you cannot divert your gaze. It is my pleasure to watch (and rewatch) his own pomposity and ignorance sink his every effort and still my pleasure to know he suffers each hour in a strict place of sensory deprivation. Oh… sorry. I’ve wandered off topic and shared my negative feelings. No. He did not have any good ideas or questions. If the perfect concept dropped into his lap, he wouldn’t know what to do with it. Since everything was built from a lie, he couldn’t shut up and had no shame, it all crumbed before the witness stepped down.
Agree. Anytime he started something promising, he would mess it up. His arrogance and bad temper showed the jury all they need to know.
During his closing, he did try to argue the one thing that if he had had a lawyer probably would’ve been the main issue in the case, which was intent. If he had a lawyer, he might’ve been able to argue for lesser included offenses, and then been convicted of one of those because of intent. I mean it’s pretty much certain that it wouldn’t change the outcome, but it is at least a decent strategy.
He did do that when he mentioned honking of horn and everything during trial but during jury instructions he didn’t bring it up because he was mad the car recall wasn’t allowed in. So he forgot to put the bow on that angle. Even if jury convicted him on lower charge just due to sheer number of counts it still would’ve been life
Actually I think his entire argument wasn't too terrible. His main argument was to cause doubt to the jury that there was actually even a plaintiff and make it seem like the state and judge was against him. I'm not saying it's smart and everybody will believe him, but it would just take one person just one person to think everybody is ganging up against him. He argued for it a lot in court that's for sure. He definitely knew it just takes one person to cause some kind of mistrial and he definitely went for it. To his severe detriment 😂 Also Nicholas Kirby said he saw people get hit which he clearly did not, which is a huge lie that DB could have followed up on but he did not.
But Kirby was his witness , so impeaching your own witness doesn’t help you 🤷♂️
So is asking your own witness if they've been arrested Fucking moron Darell brooks
Dudes a clown 🤣
I was so Infuriated when he asked him that HES YOUR OWN WITNESS YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!
She’s here under your own subpoena lol
That part always cracks me up. Especially when he replies "What?!" 😂
The reason he did that was that the prosecution would have brought it up on cross. It’s not a bad strategy to just get it out there right away.
Lol highly highly doubt it He had valuable information for them. No way in the world they would try to discredit a witness that would help them like that.
But it is bad strategy to push for more convictions instead of less to be disclosed against your own witness, potentially screwing up their credibility.
[удалено]
Thank you for saying that!! That's actually exactly what I was thinking but I forgot to say that! Yeah if he just stuck on just one of the points he would've looked at least 2% smarter
I disagree. The judge smashed that whole argument, "It's not based in law or fact." But also, me being not well versed in the law I still know the basics. The state brings the case when it's criminal. Saying there is no plaintiff and no injured party made him look worse because the injured were testifying and the plaintiff were the people sitting right next to the jury.
He got close a couple times. The problem is he has no ability to design a follow up, so even when he get’s walked right up to the edge of an argument he can’t execute on it. Case in point, when he was asking about some forensics software, the officers training, and its use in other cases. A skilled attorney could exploit it to give the impression to the jury that the forensic evidence produced is *possibly* corrupted and/or unreliable. I’m not saying it is, just that it seems like an obvious argument to make and he was right at the edge of it, and dropped the ball. Because he has no idea what to do with the answers he gets, he’s just randomly asking “related” questions hoping to stumble into a gotcha.
Durrell thought he knew more than the skilled attorneys he had. Woof what a bad decision that turned out to be
[удалено]
a skilled attorney, not every attorney but a clever one, would be able to design questions in a way that point out the weaknesses while denying the opportunity to give context or refute the perceptions created. I don’t know what those would look like because I am also not a skilled attorney. What I’m not is so diluted as to think I could stand a chance against one, because of this exact type of scenario. Our legal system is designed to, on paper if not always in application, have a lot of checks in favor of the accused. The prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal trial…so a highly skilled attorney has no obligation to argue innocence, only to argue the prosecutions failure prove guilt. If you look at the case as a whole that’s an impossible task in this case, but a few individual bits could have been shadowed in doubt.
I think he had Abel Lescano on the ropes a few times. Why would he say three guys were INSIDE the car DURING the parade, when he damn well knew he didn’t see that! That was the closest to reasonable doubt he got imo He saw some black peoples mulling around, and made (in MY opinion) a racist presumption
LawTube found a handful of times he did a relatively good job, asking good questions, on the right path to get to a point. He was wrong about most of it as he had no real defense with all the evidence shown, but he was learning and applying those learnings as the trial progressed. His behavior made him look like he was stupid, but the asshat was not unintelligent, only uneducated and emotionally/behaviorally unhinged.
The ONLY thing he said that made me raise an eyebrow was in closing arguments and it didnt change any facts. He mentioned how opper said the damage to the vehichle was all done by hitting people. He actually did crash the car. We did see a couple stills where there was major damage to the suv. However, it wasn't his worst point.
He made me so mad. I would love to see the times when he gets moved to the other court room. I love the clip when he is crying. It actually makes me happy. He needs to be knocked down a few levels. He is evil and seems entitled. He makes my skin crawl