Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit

Legal expert explains what a 'sovereign citizen' is and why the argument doesn't stand in court

  • Updated
  • 0
Darrell Brooks during jury selection

WISCONSIN (WAOW) - The defense has rested in the Darrell Brooks trial. He's the man accused of killing six people and injuring dozens more during the Waukesha Christmas parade.

During the trial, Brooks attempted to use the defense that he was a 'sovereign citizen,' a claim that has no merit in courts but is a common argument, nonetheless. The Judge dismissed the argument as a defense strategy, saying it was not a legal argument.

UW-Madison law professor, Keith Findley, said this argument of being a 'sovereign citizen' started decades ago within far-right anarchist groups.

'Sovereign citizens' claim they are not actual citizens of the United States and so do not recognize the court of law or law enforcement agencies.

The defense strategy of 'sovereign citizen' has never worked in a criminal case in Wisconsin. Findley noted that has not stopped people from trying.

"It has never succeeded in court, and I will wager it never will," Findley said. "The implications are that the rule of law is dead, and there are people that don't need to pay attention to the government."

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that 'sovereign citizens' typically rely on conspiracy theories to justify their stances.