Darrell Brooks

[Burnaby49]

I was wrong! I wrote;

It doesn't look good for the defendant when, in a multiple murder case, the jury takes just over a day to come to a verdict.

Turns out deliberations were about 3 hours.

[noblepa]

so in the Brooks case the crimes were committed solely in Wisconsin, hence why they had Jurisdiction.

If they didn’t have jurisdiction then it would have been heard in a Federal Court

Not exactly, although this may well be more information than you were seeking.

If someone commits a crime under state law within the state, then the state has subject matter jurisdiction. Period, full stop. This is Brooks' situation. The feds may also have jurisdiction, if the same acts constitute a crime under federal law and the requisite interstate nexus is present. It's called "concurrent jurisdiction". So just the lack of state jurisdiction (which is all but impossible if the acts were committed within the state) does not imply the presence of federal jurisdiction. Indeed, in concurrent jurisdiction situations, even double jeopardy does not operate to bar a federal prosecution after a previous state conviction - a much criticized doctrine called "dual sovereignty". This is not to be confused with "dual sovrunty", which is two idiots planning the downfall of the legal system in a Denny's.

So this is what happened in the McMicheal’s case and the death of George Floyd, the defendants were tried for murder in the State Courts but for hate crimes in a Federal Court, I was curious at the time, seems a bit like overkill to me, when you’ve been sentenced to life imprisoned already but you’re tried again in a different court

I first remember hearing about the practice of trying defendants in Federal court after a conviction in State court back in the sixties and seventies, used against those people, particularly police, who violated the civil rights of blacks.

I remember that the stated reasoning back then was that their state convictions might be overturned on appeal or they might be given generous parole terms, letting them go free. The Federal conviction was said to be a bit of a stopgap measure, so that, if they WERE released by the state, they wouldn't go unpunished.

That's sort of the same reasoning for sentencing a defendant to multiple consecutive life terms. They may be paroled from the first sentence, only to begin serving the second one.

[noblepa]

I was wrong! I wrote;

It doesn't look good for the defendant when, in a multiple murder case, the jury takes just over a day to come to a verdict.

Turns out deliberations were about 3 hours.

And most, if not all, of that three hours was probably spent filling out the verdict forms for each of the 76 counts.

[Albert Haddock]

That piece of authentic frontier gibberish, along with something Brooks said in court the same day, appear to be the source of the reports that Brooks is a sov. He certainly ticks a large number of the sov boxes. For example, he demands that the prosecution…

I notice that it refers to the prosecution as “plaintiff”.

[AndyPandy]

I was wrong! I wrote;

It doesn't look good for the defendant when, in a multiple murder case, the jury takes just over a day to come to a verdict.

Turns out deliberations were about 3 hours.

And most, if not all, of that three hours was probably spent filling out the verdict forms for each of the 76 counts.

I’m guessing it went ‘guilty! oh , we’ve now got to fill in 76 forms ’

[wserra]

The case of David DePape, the guy who broke into the Pelosi home and attacked Paul Pelosi, is an example of concurrent jurisdiction. Both CA and the feds are prosecuting him, quite lawfully.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

A Wisconsin judge on Wednesday sentenced Darrell E. Brooks Jr. to six consecutive life sentences without chance of parole for his attack on a Christmas parade in November 2021 that killed six people and injured at least 48 others.

https://wapo.st/3OesFz6

[Pottapaug1938]

Brooks's sentence reminds me of a story told to my Bar Review class by one of the professors, told to give us advice for when we actually took the exam.

A judge was sentencing a criminal to over 500 years in prison, thanks to a multiplicity of convictions and consecutive sentences. "But I can't ever complete those sentences," protested the convict.

"Do the best you can," was the judge's response before he left the bench.