By Santo Artusa Esq
Few criminal cases in recent memory have captured the nation’s attention like the tragic events of the Waukesha Holiday Parade in November 2021. The images of families and children celebrating one moment and running for their lives the next left an indelible mark on America’s collective consciousness. Yet, while the tragedy itself was horrific, the pursuit of justice in the courtroom was equally historic—and much of that credit belongs to Judge Jennifer Dorow.
Judge Dorow, who presided over the trial of Darrell Brooks, showed the nation how a courtroom should be run even under the most outrageous and emotionally charged circumstances. Brooks, who chose to represent himself, weaponized courtroom procedures, interrupted proceedings hundreds of times, and made a mockery of legal decorum in a way few defendants have ever attempted in modern American history.
Despite the relentless disruptions, Judge Dorow stood as an unshakable pillar of professionalism, patience, and fairness. Her judicial temperament was nothing short of remarkable.
The Embodiment of Judicial Restraint
In an era when viral courtroom clips often show judges snapping back at disruptive parties, Judge Dorow remained composed and dignified. Brooks frequently sought to provoke her and derail the process, but she never took the bait. Instead, she consistently reminded him—and the public—of the court’s responsibility to ensure fairness, due process, and decorum. She struck the delicate balance of holding him accountable without crossing into vindictive or retaliatory behavior.
Protecting the Victims and Their Families
Throughout the trial, Judge Dorow showed extraordinary compassion for the victims and their families. She ensured they had their rightful moments to speak, be heard, and participate in the justice process with dignity. Her sensitivity to their pain, coupled with her commitment to maintaining a respectful courtroom environment, gave survivors and loved ones a sense of closure that many feared they might never achieve.
Upholding the Rule of Law—Even When It Was Uncomfortable
It would have been easy for Judge Dorow to revoke Brooks’ right to self-representation early on, given his antics. However, she understood the weight of stripping a defendant of their constitutional rights. She showed immense legal courage by allowing Brooks to continue representing himself, even when it made the process more difficult. She knew that every step she took would be scrutinized on appeal, and she preserved the integrity of the record meticulously.
Incredible Patience and Respect in the Face of Madness
If there is one quality that stood above all others in Judge Dorow’s handling of the Darrell Brooks trial, it was her unmatched patience. What millions of people witnessed—whether they were legal professionals or casual observers—was the very definition of judicial restraint in the face of extreme provocation.
Day after day, Judge Dorow was confronted with behavior that can only be described as borderline lunacy. Darrell Brooks ranted about sovereign citizen theories, claimed the court had no jurisdiction over him, made nonsensical legal objections, and interrupted the proceedings at nearly every turn. He turned his back on the court, refused to answer questions, and even removed his shirt in a bizarre display of defiance.
Any lesser judge might have quickly revoked his right to self-representation or lashed out in frustration. But Judge Dorow, fully aware of the constitutional stakes and the public scrutiny this case attracted, stayed true to the rule of law. She let Brooks fully exercise his rights—even when he weaponized those rights to disrupt the very process designed to hold him accountable.
Judge Dorow did not take personal offense when Brooks questioned her authority or hurled verbal attacks. She recognized that her role was not to match his energy, but to rise above it, ensuring the fairness of the trial for both the State and the defense, no matter how undeserving Brooks’ behavior may have appeared to the watching world.
A Relentless Commitment to Fairness—for Both Sides
One of the most remarkable aspects of Judge Dorow’s performance was her equal respect for the prosecution and the defense. She showed the same level of courtesy and legal consideration to Brooks—who clearly lacked the training, composure, or sincerity to mount a real defense—as she did to the seasoned prosecutors who worked tirelessly on behalf of the victims.
She gave Brooks every opportunity to participate meaningfully in his defense. She explained the law to him repeatedly. She paused proceedings when he requested breaks. She accommodated his disjointed legal filings. She treated him with a level of respect that he did not return. And she did all of this in a courtroom filled with survivors, grieving families, and a public desperate for justice.
Judge Dorow knew that giving Brooks every reasonable accommodation was not only required by law but essential to protect the record from appellate attack. She was not just trying a case; she was building a trial record so airtight that even the most determined appeals court would have little ground to overturn the outcome.
Standing Strong Amid Intense Emotion
Let’s not forget the emotional gravity of this case. Six lives were senselessly taken. Dozens of others were maimed and traumatized. Entire families sat in the courtroom reliving the horror as evidence and testimonies unfolded. Brooks’ blatant lack of remorse only deepened the emotional wounds.
Yet Judge Dorow never let the highly charged atmosphere derail the trial. She managed the courtroom with grace, empathy, and control, ensuring that the victims’ voices were heard during sentencing and victim impact statements, while preventing the trial itself from descending into chaos or spectacle.
Proof That Decorum Is a Choice, Not a Reaction
Judge Dorow’s conduct during the Brooks trial stands as a powerful reminder that judicial decorum is a conscious choice, not a reaction to the behavior of others. She modeled professionalism not because Brooks deserved it, but because the justice system demands it.
She did not mirror his madness with frustration.
She did not let emotion override procedure.
She did not let public outrage rush the process.
Instead, she stayed the course, proving that the court system works best not when it reacts to disruption, but when it rises above it.
A Model for Handling Sovereign Citizen Tactics
Brooks repeatedly invoked pseudo-legal arguments commonly used by so-called “sovereign citizens.” These tactics are designed to confuse the process, waste court resources, and undermine the rule of law. Judge Dorow showed a masterclass in how to deal with these disruptive strategies—letting them play out just enough to demonstrate their baselessness before firmly redirecting the proceedings back to the facts and the law.
Delivering a Just Outcome
Ultimately, Darrell Brooks was convicted on all counts, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide. Judge Dorow imposed multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole. Her sentencing remarks were firm but fair, recognizing the enormity of Brooks’ crimes while reaffirming the court’s commitment to justice, not vengeance.
Inspiring Confidence in the Justice System
In a time when public trust in institutions feels increasingly fragile, Judge Dorow reminded Americans what justice looks like when performed with professionalism, integrity, and empathy. She proved that even the most challenging defendants cannot derail the course of justice when the right person is in charge.
Final Thoughts
The Darrell Brooks trial will be studied for years to come—not just because of the shocking crimes, but because of how one judge exemplified the highest ideals of the judiciary. Judge Jennifer Dorow didn’t just preside over a courtroom; she provided a nation with a demonstration of leadership under pressure, compassion for victims, and unwavering commitment to justice.
We can only hope that judges across the country take note and follow her example.
