Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MonsieurGideon t1_it3oxl7 wrote

So far his defense has been (he's representing himself):

He has the right to face his accuser, and as the state of Wisconsin is the plaintiff, he should be let go because he cannot call Wisconsin to testify..

He honked his horn so it's the parade goers fault for not getting out of the way..

He swerved out of the way of some people, and had nowhere to go because side streets had flimsy plastic blockades..

The injured parties (the people he killed) are not testifying against him so those charges should be thrown out..

It wasn't him driving as he claims to be a sovereign citizen and no longer goes by his name..

His name was in capital letters on the charging documents, which isn't how he spells it, so it's not him..

No one he hit got the license plate so they can't prove it was the car he was in possession of.

279

fbtcu1998 t1_it3r4jj wrote

The judge deserves a medal for her patience. I think she feared he was just trying to delay everything by getting a contempt charge and removing him as his own counsel and she wouldn't do it. For anyone who hast followed the trial, It's worth taking a look at his antics to see how out of control he's been

172

MonsieurGideon t1_it3rhvy wrote

She has been a shining example of how a judge should act in the face of an out of control defendant.

She stroked his ego early on and let him think he was on their level, and now he has realized how absolutely put of his league he is and the amount of evidence against him.

All his tactics to get a mistrial or appeal later have been handled perfectly by the judge and prosecutors.

125

fancyFriday t1_it5vkcf wrote

Her statement when she let him represent himself was incredibly thorough and made it (in my opinion) far less likely anyone will entertain the idea of a mistrial based upon him representing himself. It was actually comical to watch it happen because that clown wouldn't stop objecting to anything he thought that he was needing to disagree with.

16

Mattbird t1_it40rtz wrote

Between this, the Jones case, and a trial I did jury duty for, I've learned that the legal system will give you absolutely every opportunity to get your own message out and speak whatever you like, however you want to be defended. It will bend over backwards to accommodate lunatics and the deluded. It's really given me a lot of hope.

46

MississippiJoel t1_it4jp6b wrote

That's sort of the rule of thumb of how any trial should go: let the defense make up most of the rules (within reason), and then when it tries to appeal later, just point to where either both parties agreed to a rule, or where the trial judge let the defense make the rule to begin with, and then say "so, what's the problem exactly?"

21

MeyhamM2 t1_it4zmrh wrote

Not always, but when it’s going right, yes.

6

prailock t1_it42n1g wrote

As a former public defender in Wisconsin, yeah, the sovereign citizen arguments are familiar. Surprised he hasn't pulled out the "I wasn't driving, I was travelling" as that's hella popular.

The right to face an accuser actually has a recently interesting ruling in the Jensen homicide trial relating to presumption which in no way, shape, or form applies here but it's a cool recent WI Supreme Court ruling relating to hearsay evidence of a dead person. If anyone's wants to learn about some interesting recent criminal rulings in Wisconsin.

37

Your_acceptable t1_it4wss2 wrote

Yup, I'm surprised too.

Do you feel the judge is being super lenient to avoid appeal?

I saw that stated in some comments online. Because man, his attitude deserves a reaming in court by a judge.

8

MississippiJoel t1_it3pw0w wrote

I haven't been keeping up with it, but I do remember something to the effect of there was video evidence that easily overcomes his defenses, and his response to that was to say it was inadmissible as evidence.

21

MonsieurGideon t1_it3qhfe wrote

He is playing lawyer and is objecting to every witness, piece of evidence and question from the prosecution. He is yelling about things not bring relevant that are literally videos of him committing the crime lol.

He is a complete moron who absolutely believes he is the smartest one in the room, even as the Judge has to correct his spelling and grammar.

While a tragic crime, it's kind of a funny trial due to how stupid he is.

62

nyclurker369 t1_ita99qs wrote

Omg, these arguments:

>He honked his horn so it's the parade goers fault for not getting out of the way..

>He swerved out of the way of some people, and had nowhere to go because side streets had flimsy plastic blockades.

>No one he hit got the license plate so they can't prove it was the car he was in possession of.

chefs kiss

Genius.

1

AlterEdward t1_it4bqc5 wrote

People shouldn't be allowed to represent themselves unless they've got a legal background. This man is effectively doing himself out of a fair trial, which should be everyone's right.

−19

MonsieurGideon t1_it4eudt wrote

It's a constitutional right. The Court and Prosecutors spent two entire days explaining to him how bad of an idea this was. He laughed at them and said he wasn't scared and wasn't backing down.

He doesn't get to complain about fairness anymore. They tried.

30

Horknut1 t1_it4l8qu wrote

Are you saying rights should not be waivable by the party possessing such rights? Your rights should be forced upon you if you don’t want them?

He has the right to remain silent. The right to not testify. Should those be forced upon him?

He’s competent. It’s his choice to defend himself if his attorneys won’t make the stupid arguments he wants to make. That should be his prerogative.

15