Hopefully, we can all agree to deplore and condemn Darrell Brooks, the madman convicted for killing six people in Waukesha, Wisconsin, last year with his car, hitting a total of 68 people after he drove into a Christmas parade.
The vile act itself is one thing, but Brooks’s trial added insult to injury. Brooks conducted himself in an outlandish and disrespectful manner, raising the question of why the judge presiding over the case allowed his behavior to continue. Some suggest that Judge Jennifer Dorow knew what she was doing and strategically allowed Brooks to do pretty much as he pleased in court. But there are plenty of others who find this excuse to be unsatisfactory.
That Brooks is both grotesque and infuriating is a given. But why was Brooks permitted to turn this trial into a circus? Unlike other courtroom dramas, watching the Brooks trial was not edifying, but rather mystifying.
Brooks repeatedly interrupted the courtroom’s proceedings, but Dorow reacted each time with a milquetoast warning. “That’s another interruption,” she said, marking it down in her notebook as though her notes would somehow be of consequence. A veritably endless argument over whether Brooks could use the term “jury nullification” is an example of this farce. Brooks proceeded to quibble with the application of case law history with the judge, though it is dubious that he was in command of the facts.
Dorow also allowed Brooks to represent himself, saying experts found that he was intelligent and articulate enough to do so despite his diagnosed personality disorder. Yet his conduct was frightening. Dorow admitted of his intense stare down: “Frankly, it makes me scared.”
He addressed Dorow as though she were an idiot, acting as though he had to explain things to her. His insolence extended to his body language: he shook his head and rolled his eyes.
Though he had no right to such a posture, Brooks regarded the judge with thinly veiled contempt. At any rate, the bickering between the two tended to degrade the judge, dragging her down to Brooks’s sordid level and degrading the court in the process.
At one point, Brooks even insulted Dorow, saying, “I know you used to be a legislator, but you cannot make law from the bench.”
“Alright Mr. Brooks, you’re starting to cross the line,” she responded. “You’ve already crossed it but I want to keep going … I’m putting you on notice.”
Dorow made a classic mistake also made by teachers: Endless threats with no follow through and consequence, leading someone to sense that the threats have no teeth and will then continue their behavior. That’s exactly what Brooks did.
The trial was a clown show, but it represents a general decline in trust and respect for our judicial system. Brooks refused to recognize Dorow’s authority because he has no respect for the judicial process, and Dorow indulged him.
This is not to say that Judge Dorow is a liberal. After all, she’s a Republican, appointed by former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker back in 2011. Even if she is not politically liberal, though, we might say that her attitude toward Brooks’s conduct was too liberal, in that she was overly indulgent. The judge knows her job surely, but whatever legal understanding led her toward such flexibility with Brooks must surely also be flawed.
Almost every observer seems to suggest and insist that Dorow was trying to avoid an appeal or a mistrial, and that finding Brooks in contempt would have only “prolonged the misery” of the victims’ families. Yet it is more likely that their pain was amplified by Brooks’s wild performance. Dorow had a responsibility to put a stop to his antics — come what may.
This trial sets a terrible precedent moving forward. Decorum was out the window and no one in the courtroom bothered to try and bring it back. What’s to stop others from disrespecting the American courtroom moving forward?
A telling moment during the trial was when a citizen in attendance yelled out to Brooks after his conviction, “Burn in Hell you piece of s***.” Then, and only then, did Dorow finally summon her righteous indignation, directing that the man be removed from the court. But where was that righteous indignation when it was needed?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Peter Machera is a writer and English teacher living in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter and visit his blog at michaelmacherablog.com
