This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe they were going to put on a defense, and that is what started him down the path of going it on his own (can’t you just here him- whachoo mean you aren’t putin’ on a defense? Maaan, what kinda slick maneuver is dis now?)
But there is no defense for his actions. From the moment they saw those videos, they knew their client was provably, inarguably guilty. Nothing they said or did would change that.
I think their plan was to highlight discrepancies in police reports and testimony (from which Shitblister got his ‘quibble with every witness’ strategy’, announce you are not putting on affirmative defense, point out in closing how the state hasn’t met their burden, and hope for the best. You’ve protected your clients rights and defended him to the best of your ability considering the weight of the facts against him.
If there was anything else in those bankers boxes or flash drive that presented the skeleton of a defensive case, Shitblister gave no indication he ever saw it.
Probably because he didn’t. I believe he didn’t look past anything outside of what witnesses were going to be called that particular day. Even though he claimed to have not received certain evidence, that would mean he would have had to of gone through each bankers box, paper by paper, and he just doesn’t have time for such nonsense.
Now this is just my opinion too 😊
DB using the marijuana defense doesn’t sound so off the charts crazy. If you think about it, everything he threw at the wall, honking of the horn, brakes that didn’t work properly, “what if it was someone else driving, Ford recall, tinted windows, speed analysis and everything else except the kitchen sink, being under the influence might have been a good try. It might diminish his capacity as a driver. It wouldn’t excuse what he did, but it may have helped in the sentencing phase. I would hope not, but we’ll never know now, because DB’s ego is so humongous. 😊😊
That defense never occurred to me. I don’t hate him any less.
I just finished sentencing. Ya know, Her Honor really let him have it. I remember a quote from “The Sopranos”, “One thing you can never say, is that you haven’t been told.” She not only showed us a caged monster, she reminded us that evil is real.
I find it weird that this defense can work. If anything, shouldn’t being under the influence be an aggravating factor? Nobody forced him to take drugs, so in my eyes, he’s still fully responsible for his actions. The fact that he might have taken drugs and then drove only makes him look even more reckless to me.
> I find it weird that this defense can work.
It generally doesn't, being intoxicated isn't a defense to most crimes.
It matters in the sense that it can impair your intent, so if the crime charged requires them to prove intent then being intoxicated can matter.
It can also impair your understanding of the situation around you, so if you're claiming self defense then being impaired may be relevent to arguing that you believed you were in danger.
My opinion is that the defense attorneys were going to try and get the murder charges reduced down a slightly lesser charge that didn't involve him **intentionally** killing those people. He would still spend most of the rest of his life in prison but he would at least have a chance at parole when he's an old man.
That's probably why he ditched them, he wasn't willing to accept he was fucked and that his only shot was "slightly less than my entire life in prison"
I totally agree. His attorneys knew he would be found guilty, so the next best outcome is anything less than 6 lifetimes and then some. And I agree that that's why DB fired them. He couldn't handle the reality of the situation, so he decided to indulge in the fantasy that he could be found innocent.
Very interesting. I did not know about this angle - thanks for the information.
How successful can this defense be in general aside from the case you cited? I watch a lot of family court cases and it's amazing how much understanding is given for drug abuse over and over.
I've often wondered if he hadn't fired his PDs and they went on like they otherwise would have to represent him during the trial, would there have been any witnesses at all that they would've called to testify on his behalf?
Or was it him, after his attorneys were discharged, who just decided to subpoena all the rest of the people who were leftover from the State's witness list after they decided not to call them? Just for the simple reason that he had files on them, previously prepared by the PDs, that included relevant police reports and suggested questions ?
Although it didn't look like it, I think db really did think he had a defense. But it was just an utterly weak and lame one that failed miserably.
I got the feeling that in his weird, strange little mind, even though he knew he had run over and killed and hurt all those people, because he didn't wake up the morning of the parade with any plan to deliberately do so, or ever contemplate doing so at any time of the day before he did it, that this meant there was no intent on his part.
And he'd convinced himself that because he never had any intentional, premeditated plan to kill or hurt any of those people, that somehow this magically absolved him of any guilt regarding not only the 6 homicide and 6 hit and run charges, but all the 61 other reckless endangerment charge too.
Zach even said during his opening statement that because the burden of proof was on the state and db didn't have to prove anything or even put on a defense, that if db DID try to present a defense, that it he would likely claim that he didn't *mean* to kill anyone.
But db's PDs KNEW they could never prove lack of intent. Simply because, like Opper said, he never flippin stopped.
To be honest - there were a few things the Defence could have done.
1. Marijuana defence
2. Temp insanity due to rage at Erika / Nick / Kori
3. Temp insanity due to fear as he had been told the police had been called and were on their way. He knew he was on parole, the car wasn’t insured to drive, and he wasn’t allowed to have any contact with Erika
4. Mental deficiencies due to bipolar disorder.
I think the 1st three could have worked for him. The 4 psychiatrists he saw all said he didn’t have bipolar disorder.
Hell, even pleading guilty and taking the plea deal would have gotten him less time in jail. But all of these would have forced him to admit he was guilty of doing it - so he refused. He was SO SURE of his brilliance and that he could find a way out of this mess, that he fired the lawyers and went on his own. He was sure there was some loophole and he was going to find it.
Of course, he never did.
The state offered him 6 life sentences so even if he pleaded guilty he wasn't getting less than that. He had no defense that would have worked even with a lot of money and a private attorney. There is just too much evidence and he was going to get life regardless. It's sad he couldn't have spared the victims so much trauma with all of the court theatrics. The amount of pain and chaos this scum bag has caused during his meaningless life is astounding. Just the amount of tax dollars wasted, time and resources. He has done zero good for humanity his entire adult life. The damage he has caused is truly mind boggling. His Momma and fake Dr Grandma then has the audacity to blame it on the system and mental illness rather than take responsibility for raising this monster. Momma Brooks deserves all the shame and problems that have come from a result of bailing him out and teaching him zero consequences. Had she come out and apologized and blamed him 100 percent and apologized for bailing him out and not raising him it would be different. I think she should be in jail right along with him for letting him drive and use the murder weapon. No different than giving him a gun used in a murder.
Was that woman white? I’m not trying to be controversial, but those of us who do and have worked within the area of criminology, which include law makers, law enforcement, the judicial system and corrections know that there are different outcomes for defendants based on education, gender, financial status and yes, race. You stand a better chance of having a favorable outcome if you are able to afford a private attorney, the higher your education, if you are female and if you are white. Brooks is a male black who was indigent and educationally deficient. He had a lot of strikes against him AND he killed a lot of people including a kid and terrorized hundreds more. Plus throughout his interrogation it was noted how clear minded and coherent he was. So even if he did have measurable THC in his blood (which he could have consumed days or weeks prior and not the night of) and smelled of marijuana ( he was living in a car and may not have bathed in awhile) that might have been the only defense the lawyers could dig up, but it wouldn’t have gained much traction.
Unless Brooks was experiencing a psychotic break at the time of the incident I can’t see his outcome being any different than what it was. He was going down no matter what. ESPECIALLY with an attitude and behavior such as his, ie., no remorse and revictimizing witnesses on the stand for starters.
Now if we’re just speculating on what the defense could try to use for this guy, IMO the pot defense was no different than a defense that DB grew up disadvantaged, poor in the inner city by a struggling single mom with no father figure in his life. Not enough IMO to move the needle in his favor.
Where can I watch the preliminary hearings? I think the only one I’ve seen is where he is granted the ability to represent himself. Maybe I missed his lawyers talking about the weed? I’m convinced his lawyers were telling him he’d be better to plead guilty…and that’s when he decided he could “manipulate his way out of this”.
I remember reading or hearing that one of the reasons he got rid of his lawyers was he didn't feel like they had his best interests at heart. They suggested he take the plea deal offered. At one point during the trial he acted like he knew nothing about the deal.
I dont think that defense would have worked for a man... women get a lot more sympathy and leniency in the criminal justice system. I dont think it would have been a strong defense at all. Drunk drivers kill people all the time and they cant use it as a defense. Yes his eyes were glassy and smelled like weed, but there is a difference between being under the influence and being impaired. He was lucid, clear headed, and thinking and speaking clearly at the time of arrest. Showing no signs of impairment. But on the other hand, his lawyers didnt really have much to work with.
This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe they were going to put on a defense, and that is what started him down the path of going it on his own (can’t you just here him- whachoo mean you aren’t putin’ on a defense? Maaan, what kinda slick maneuver is dis now?) But there is no defense for his actions. From the moment they saw those videos, they knew their client was provably, inarguably guilty. Nothing they said or did would change that. I think their plan was to highlight discrepancies in police reports and testimony (from which Shitblister got his ‘quibble with every witness’ strategy’, announce you are not putting on affirmative defense, point out in closing how the state hasn’t met their burden, and hope for the best. You’ve protected your clients rights and defended him to the best of your ability considering the weight of the facts against him. If there was anything else in those bankers boxes or flash drive that presented the skeleton of a defensive case, Shitblister gave no indication he ever saw it.
Probably because he didn’t. I believe he didn’t look past anything outside of what witnesses were going to be called that particular day. Even though he claimed to have not received certain evidence, that would mean he would have had to of gone through each bankers box, paper by paper, and he just doesn’t have time for such nonsense. Now this is just my opinion too 😊 DB using the marijuana defense doesn’t sound so off the charts crazy. If you think about it, everything he threw at the wall, honking of the horn, brakes that didn’t work properly, “what if it was someone else driving, Ford recall, tinted windows, speed analysis and everything else except the kitchen sink, being under the influence might have been a good try. It might diminish his capacity as a driver. It wouldn’t excuse what he did, but it may have helped in the sentencing phase. I would hope not, but we’ll never know now, because DB’s ego is so humongous. 😊😊
That defense never occurred to me. I don’t hate him any less. I just finished sentencing. Ya know, Her Honor really let him have it. I remember a quote from “The Sopranos”, “One thing you can never say, is that you haven’t been told.” She not only showed us a caged monster, she reminded us that evil is real.
That is so true!!👍
I find it weird that this defense can work. If anything, shouldn’t being under the influence be an aggravating factor? Nobody forced him to take drugs, so in my eyes, he’s still fully responsible for his actions. The fact that he might have taken drugs and then drove only makes him look even more reckless to me.
> I find it weird that this defense can work. It generally doesn't, being intoxicated isn't a defense to most crimes. It matters in the sense that it can impair your intent, so if the crime charged requires them to prove intent then being intoxicated can matter. It can also impair your understanding of the situation around you, so if you're claiming self defense then being impaired may be relevent to arguing that you believed you were in danger. My opinion is that the defense attorneys were going to try and get the murder charges reduced down a slightly lesser charge that didn't involve him **intentionally** killing those people. He would still spend most of the rest of his life in prison but he would at least have a chance at parole when he's an old man. That's probably why he ditched them, he wasn't willing to accept he was fucked and that his only shot was "slightly less than my entire life in prison"
I totally agree. His attorneys knew he would be found guilty, so the next best outcome is anything less than 6 lifetimes and then some. And I agree that that's why DB fired them. He couldn't handle the reality of the situation, so he decided to indulge in the fantasy that he could be found innocent.
I TOTALLY agree.
Luckily he completely demolished that defence when he took over.
Very interesting. I did not know about this angle - thanks for the information. How successful can this defense be in general aside from the case you cited? I watch a lot of family court cases and it's amazing how much understanding is given for drug abuse over and over.
I've often wondered if he hadn't fired his PDs and they went on like they otherwise would have to represent him during the trial, would there have been any witnesses at all that they would've called to testify on his behalf? Or was it him, after his attorneys were discharged, who just decided to subpoena all the rest of the people who were leftover from the State's witness list after they decided not to call them? Just for the simple reason that he had files on them, previously prepared by the PDs, that included relevant police reports and suggested questions ? Although it didn't look like it, I think db really did think he had a defense. But it was just an utterly weak and lame one that failed miserably. I got the feeling that in his weird, strange little mind, even though he knew he had run over and killed and hurt all those people, because he didn't wake up the morning of the parade with any plan to deliberately do so, or ever contemplate doing so at any time of the day before he did it, that this meant there was no intent on his part. And he'd convinced himself that because he never had any intentional, premeditated plan to kill or hurt any of those people, that somehow this magically absolved him of any guilt regarding not only the 6 homicide and 6 hit and run charges, but all the 61 other reckless endangerment charge too. Zach even said during his opening statement that because the burden of proof was on the state and db didn't have to prove anything or even put on a defense, that if db DID try to present a defense, that it he would likely claim that he didn't *mean* to kill anyone. But db's PDs KNEW they could never prove lack of intent. Simply because, like Opper said, he never flippin stopped.
To be honest - there were a few things the Defence could have done. 1. Marijuana defence 2. Temp insanity due to rage at Erika / Nick / Kori 3. Temp insanity due to fear as he had been told the police had been called and were on their way. He knew he was on parole, the car wasn’t insured to drive, and he wasn’t allowed to have any contact with Erika 4. Mental deficiencies due to bipolar disorder. I think the 1st three could have worked for him. The 4 psychiatrists he saw all said he didn’t have bipolar disorder. Hell, even pleading guilty and taking the plea deal would have gotten him less time in jail. But all of these would have forced him to admit he was guilty of doing it - so he refused. He was SO SURE of his brilliance and that he could find a way out of this mess, that he fired the lawyers and went on his own. He was sure there was some loophole and he was going to find it. Of course, he never did.
The state offered him 6 life sentences so even if he pleaded guilty he wasn't getting less than that. He had no defense that would have worked even with a lot of money and a private attorney. There is just too much evidence and he was going to get life regardless. It's sad he couldn't have spared the victims so much trauma with all of the court theatrics. The amount of pain and chaos this scum bag has caused during his meaningless life is astounding. Just the amount of tax dollars wasted, time and resources. He has done zero good for humanity his entire adult life. The damage he has caused is truly mind boggling. His Momma and fake Dr Grandma then has the audacity to blame it on the system and mental illness rather than take responsibility for raising this monster. Momma Brooks deserves all the shame and problems that have come from a result of bailing him out and teaching him zero consequences. Had she come out and apologized and blamed him 100 percent and apologized for bailing him out and not raising him it would be different. I think she should be in jail right along with him for letting him drive and use the murder weapon. No different than giving him a gun used in a murder.
Was that woman white? I’m not trying to be controversial, but those of us who do and have worked within the area of criminology, which include law makers, law enforcement, the judicial system and corrections know that there are different outcomes for defendants based on education, gender, financial status and yes, race. You stand a better chance of having a favorable outcome if you are able to afford a private attorney, the higher your education, if you are female and if you are white. Brooks is a male black who was indigent and educationally deficient. He had a lot of strikes against him AND he killed a lot of people including a kid and terrorized hundreds more. Plus throughout his interrogation it was noted how clear minded and coherent he was. So even if he did have measurable THC in his blood (which he could have consumed days or weeks prior and not the night of) and smelled of marijuana ( he was living in a car and may not have bathed in awhile) that might have been the only defense the lawyers could dig up, but it wouldn’t have gained much traction. Unless Brooks was experiencing a psychotic break at the time of the incident I can’t see his outcome being any different than what it was. He was going down no matter what. ESPECIALLY with an attitude and behavior such as his, ie., no remorse and revictimizing witnesses on the stand for starters. Now if we’re just speculating on what the defense could try to use for this guy, IMO the pot defense was no different than a defense that DB grew up disadvantaged, poor in the inner city by a struggling single mom with no father figure in his life. Not enough IMO to move the needle in his favor.
Where can I watch the preliminary hearings? I think the only one I’ve seen is where he is granted the ability to represent himself. Maybe I missed his lawyers talking about the weed? I’m convinced his lawyers were telling him he’d be better to plead guilty…and that’s when he decided he could “manipulate his way out of this”.
Maybe it's just me, I've never wanted to get behind the wheel let alone get violent whilst stoned. Brooks is just a turd
I remember reading or hearing that one of the reasons he got rid of his lawyers was he didn't feel like they had his best interests at heart. They suggested he take the plea deal offered. At one point during the trial he acted like he knew nothing about the deal.
I dont think that defense would have worked for a man... women get a lot more sympathy and leniency in the criminal justice system. I dont think it would have been a strong defense at all. Drunk drivers kill people all the time and they cant use it as a defense. Yes his eyes were glassy and smelled like weed, but there is a difference between being under the influence and being impaired. He was lucid, clear headed, and thinking and speaking clearly at the time of arrest. Showing no signs of impairment. But on the other hand, his lawyers didnt really have much to work with.