Alleged Waukesha Parade Killer Removed From Courtroom Over Disorder 

Posted On October 4, 2022

The man accused of using his vehicle to murder six people and hurt many others at a 2021 Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas parade was taken out of his trial’s courtroom Monday after making a scene, according to NBC News.

Darrell Brooks interrupted Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow multiple times before prospective jurors entered the courtroom for jury selection, claiming not to recognize the state or Dorow’s authority, the outlet reported. Dorow had accepted Brooks’ request to represent himself in court last week after he previously reversed his decision to plead not guilty based on mental disease.

Brooks was taken out of the courtroom Monday, brought back in, and removed for additional disruption, with Dorow ordering recess a total of ten times and finally sending him to a different room for video participation, according to NBC News.

More photos from day 1 of jury selection. #DarrellBrooks was moved to a different courtroom for constantly interrupting. This was him on Zoom from that courtroom. Potential jurors could see him behaving this way. #SovereignCitizen
Berford Gammon III/ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pic.twitter.com/8u9746nGGr

— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) October 4, 2022

Brooks’ behavior remained abnormal as he watched on video. He pulled his jacket over his head, partially covered his face with papers and stood up with outstretched arms, according to the New York Post.

Brooks is charged with six counts each of first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and hit-and-run involving death, 61 counts of recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon and two counts each of bail jumping and misdemeanor domestic abuse-battery, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

During his Sept. 27 = about potentially representing himself, Dorow said Brooks was playing “word games,” and left the courtroom at one point after ordering a recess. She argued he did not understand the charges he faced, refusing to “get into a debate about whether you’re a sovereign citizen or not or even whether you have any other understanding of how the state is a plaintiff in this case.”