2016.02.26 Mark D. Sievers: ***ARREST*** GJ charged with Murder in the 1st Degree #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

mikeinmo said:
No offer on the table???? Are they implying that they are willing to discuss non DP??? I hope to HwxcvLL not
Click to expand...

I wonder if JRR is thinking of a deal.....MS never will take a deal he wants the money
 
If JRR wants any chance at a life outside of prison some day- he'll make a deal. Mark is the monster master mind- they want him, first and foremost. I hope Jimmy Rae realizes this.
 
No it's not said:
SAO charges MS with DP, MS' council moves to strike DP, SAO replies, MS'council is now replying to the SAO response:

12 pages

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3g3DEap84xwbmpoejFSaHVxUlU/view?usp=sharing

-Nin

Source:
http://www.leeclerk.org/
Click to expand...

Thanks, NIN.... for posting this link. I read thru most of it but I get so lost in these seemingly round-a-bout wordy legal docs. Looks like Faga is addressing the timing of the SAO filing the aggravating factors that were not included in the original filing for the DP. Hope I'm wrong but I'm scared the SAO may have messed up UNLESS they actually filed 'in the nick of time' and Faga is playing legal 'stratigery' (LOL but this is really NOT FUNNY).
 
I was just reading some old article's about MS, after his BFF CW, who would do anything for him cough... cough (well, anything EXCEPT face trial in a death penalty case) After he took a plea, he must have helped LE with the burner phone numbers? I somehow completely missed how they talked on the phone to each other at least 5 times on June 28.

The state attorney's office also released about 1,000 pages of phone records as a result of a public information request. Most of the documents paint a picture of the family's day-to-day life and include text messages from family and friends. Wright and Mark Sievers often texted about IT problems, but on June 28 — the day Teresa Sievers died — they spoke on the phone as many as five times.

http://www.news-press.com/story/new...filed-records-released-sievers-case/86343630/
 
MsJosie said:
I wonder if JRR is thinking of a deal.....MS never will take a deal he wants the money
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. His mission was the insurance money, he did not care about anyone. Its all about the money. He will not plea because he is so confident he is so smart and he will not be convicted, and will live happily every after with the money. I pray the prosecution does a fantastic job and manages to get his hindquarters on death row.
 
Has it been decided if there will be one or two trials? CWW will get a sentencing hearing, but will JRR and MS be tried together? I would think the state would want separate trials. Which trial then would be first?

I can see MS telling JRR he will give him lots of money for whatever reason MS comes up with to be on MS's side, however, MS may never see any money guilty or not. JRR should not put any faith in MS. I hope someone talks sense into JRR to take a deal....why is he waiting? The deal will not get better only worse.

Does anyone think MS would testify in court?!
 
MsJosie said:
Has it been decided if there will be one or two trials? CWW will get a sentencing hearing, but will JRR and MS be tried together? I would think the state would want separate trials. Which trial then would be first?

I can see MS telling JRR he will give him lots of money for whatever reason MS comes up with to be on MS's side, however, MS may never see any money guilty or not. JRR should not put any faith in MS. I hope someone talks sense into JRR to take a deal....why is he waiting? The deal will not get better only worse.

Does anyone think MS would testify in court?!
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about the trial of MS and I think he will testify because he thinks that with all of his charm (puke) that he can be acquitted. Who on earth would also testify that he's this great guy that would never arrange a hit on his beautiful wife? He's the only person I can think of. [emoji41]

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
The court documents at Lee County are routinely going through a process of being manually redacted and then either being publicized, being viewable upon request or remain being sealed. So here is another doc being made public regarding the GJ ruling.

MS and law team were requesting a release of the GJ testimony of CWW due to CWW allegedly making conflicting statements. The judge declined the motion of disclosing the GJ testimony of CWW:

11/4/2016 12:54 PM Filed Lee County Clerk of Courts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRIMINAL ACTION

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 15-CF-673 B

MARK SIEVERS,
Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant's "Motion For Disclosure Of Grand Jury Testimony," filed June 24, 2016, and the State's response filed June 27, 2016. Having reviewed the motions, the case file, the applicable law, and having heard argument by the parties on October 11, 2016, the Court finds as follows:

1. Defendant was charged by indictment on May 4, 2016 with first degree murder and conspiracy to
commit murder.

2. Defendant argued that co-defendant Curtis Wright gave several inconsistent statements prior to testifying before the grand jury. Defendant argued that the grand jury testimony of Mr. Wright was exculpatory evidence and disclosure was necessary to show Mr. Wright gave inconsistent or perjured testimony. Defendant further argued that the aggravating factor that the crime was committed for pecuniary gain was at odds with the evidence and Mr. Wright's prior statements, so the facts supporting that aggravating factor must have come from grand jury testimony.

3. The State argued that there is no right to inspect grand jury testimony, citing Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1986). The State argued that speculation regarding inconsistencies is insufficient basis for disclosure of the grand jury testimony, even if the witness made inconsistent statements prior to his grand jury testimony. The State did not believe an in camera inspection was warranted in this case.

4. Generally, grand jury testimony is kept secret. Fla. Stat. §905.24 (2014). Exceptions apply when necessary to ascertain whether the grand jury testimony is consistent with the testimony given by a witness before the court, determine whether the witness is guilty of perjury, or further justice. Fla. Stat. §905.27 (2014).

5. The first exception does not apply here, since the case is not in trial and Mr. Wright is not testifying. See Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361,365 (Fla. 1959) ("t is clear that something more than a mere surmise or speculation that a witness's testimony at the trial is inconsistent with
that given before the grand jury must be made ... "). The second exception only applies to permit a person prosecuted of committing perjury before the grand jury to inspect the transcript of the grand jury testimony before the perjury trial in order to prepare a defense. Id. at 363. An accused is not "permitted to inspect, in advance of trial, the grand jury testimony of the State's witnesses for the purpose of preparing his defense." Id. at 363. Defendant did not demonstrate that disclosure of the grand jury testimony was required to further justice, since he did not demonstrate that the evidence was favorable and material to his guilt or innocence. Defendant merely proposed that the grand jury testimony could possibly impeach Mr. Wright.

6. Where defense counsel, through cross-examination at trial, is able to direct the jury's attention to any inconsistencies between witnesses' testimony and prior statements, such cross* examination obviates the need to resort to the grand jury testimony. Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 1986). The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated no predicate for disclosure of the grand jury testimony. Defendant's allegations that the testimony would be exculpatory, impeaching, or indicate Mr. Wright committed perjury is pure speculation. Defense counsel is able to cross-examine Mr. Wright and attempt to impeach him regarding any alleged inconsistencies in his statements and deposition.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3g3DEap84xwcFJ0NW1iZlhodTA/view?usp=sharing

-Nin
 
No it's not said:
The court documents at Lee County are routinely going through a process of being manually redacted and then either being publicized, being viewable upon request or remain being sealed. So here is another doc being made public regarding the GJ ruling.

MS and law team were requesting a release of the GJ testimony of CWW due to CWW allegedly making conflicting statements. The judge declined the motion of disclosing the GJ testimony of CWW:

11/4/2016 12:54 PM Filed Lee County Clerk of Courts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRIMINAL ACTION

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 15-CF-673 B

MARK SIEVERS,
Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant's "Motion For Disclosure Of Grand Jury Testimony," filed June 24, 2016, and the State's response filed June 27, 2016. Having reviewed the motions, the case file, the applicable law, and having heard argument by the parties on October 11, 2016, the Court finds as follows:

1. Defendant was charged by indictment on May 4, 2016 with first degree murder and conspiracy to
commit murder.

2. Defendant argued that co-defendant Curtis Wright gave several inconsistent statements prior to testifying before the grand jury. Defendant argued that the grand jury testimony of Mr. Wright was exculpatory evidence and disclosure was necessary to show Mr. Wright gave inconsistent or perjured testimony. Defendant further argued that the aggravating factor that the crime was committed for pecuniary gain was at odds with the evidence and Mr. Wright's prior statements, so the facts supporting that aggravating factor must have come from grand jury testimony.

3. The State argued that there is no right to inspect grand jury testimony, citing Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1986). The State argued that speculation regarding inconsistencies is insufficient basis for disclosure of the grand jury testimony, even if the witness made inconsistent statements prior to his grand jury testimony. The State did not believe an in camera inspection was warranted in this case.

4. Generally, grand jury testimony is kept secret. Fla. Stat. §905.24 (2014). Exceptions apply when necessary to ascertain whether the grand jury testimony is consistent with the testimony given by a witness before the court, determine whether the witness is guilty of perjury, or further justice. Fla. Stat. §905.27 (2014).

5. The first exception does not apply here, since the case is not in trial and Mr. Wright is not testifying. See Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361,365 (Fla. 1959) ("t is clear that something more than a mere surmise or speculation that a witness's testimony at the trial is inconsistent with
that given before the grand jury must be made ... "). The second exception only applies to permit a person prosecuted of committing perjury before the grand jury to inspect the transcript of the grand jury testimony before the perjury trial in order to prepare a defense. Id. at 363. An accused is not "permitted to inspect, in advance of trial, the grand jury testimony of the State's witnesses for the purpose of preparing his defense." Id. at 363. Defendant did not demonstrate that disclosure of the grand jury testimony was required to further justice, since he did not demonstrate that the evidence was favorable and material to his guilt or innocence. Defendant merely proposed that the grand jury testimony could possibly impeach Mr. Wright.

6. Where defense counsel, through cross-examination at trial, is able to direct the jury's attention to any inconsistencies between witnesses' testimony and prior statements, such cross* examination obviates the need to resort to the grand jury testimony. Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 1986). The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated no predicate for disclosure of the grand jury testimony. Defendant's allegations that the testimony would be exculpatory, impeaching, or indicate Mr. Wright committed perjury is pure speculation. Defense counsel is able to cross-examine Mr. Wright and attempt to impeach him regarding any alleged inconsistencies in his statements and deposition.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3g3DEap84xwcFJ0NW1iZlhodTA/view?usp=sharing

-Nin
Click to expand...

Proper ruling. I can hardly believe the defense team filed this motion. They had to know it wasn't going to fly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
 
No it's not said:
The court documents at Lee County are routinely going through a process of being manually redacted and then either being publicized, being viewable upon request or remain being sealed. So here is another doc being made public regarding the GJ ruling.

MS and law team were requesting a release of the GJ testimony of CWW due to CWW allegedly making conflicting statements. The judge declined the motion of disclosing the GJ testimony of CWW:
Click to expand...

RSBM.

I don't understand what they are hoping to achieve.

Is being vexatious an effective defence tactic in Florida?

Has MS been reading law books and maybe not understanding them properly, but his lawyers are doing his bidding?

I'm not sure why they are seemingly chasing lost causes other than to possibly delay the trial. But I don't see the benefit in that either.

Any suggestions welcome.
 
Legally Bland said:
RSBM.

I don't understand what they are hoping to achieve.

Is being vexatious an effective defence tactic in Florida?

Has MS been reading law books and maybe not understanding them properly, but his lawyers are doing his bidding?

I'm not sure why they are seemingly chasing lost causes other than to possibly delay the trial. But I don't see the benefit in that either.

Any suggestions welcome.
Click to expand...

BBM

Good thought!

-Nin
 
agree NIN delay delay but............. God forgive is he does get off the $$$$$$ is his the Lawyers are just accruing possible chargeable time with all the silly motions
 
Two things -

First, there is a Case Management hearing (aka status hearing) scheduled for tomorrow 12/15 at 8:30 am (eastern) .

Secondly, what piqued my interest was on 11/28/2016 the State filed their Answer to an Amended Demand for Discovery (filed by the Defense). See PDF attached below.

Here is a MSM link regarding the "Confidential Witness" cited in their Answer. (it appears this discovery is sealed but not sure). If anyone has time to try to find our more regarding what led to this Commander's hasty retirement that might be enlightening. :angel:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32448995/investigation-launched-after-lee-sheriff-commanders-exit


 

Attachments

beach said:
Two things -

First, there is a Case Management hearing (aka status hearing) scheduled for tomorrow 12/15 at 8:30 am (eastern) .

Secondly, what piqued my interest was on 11/28/2016 the State filed their Answer to an Amended Demand for Discovery (filed by the Defense). See PDF attached below.

Here is a MSM link regarding the "Confidential Witness" cited in their Answer. (it appears this discovery is sealed but not sure). If anyone has time to try to find our more regarding what led to this Commander's hasty retirement that might be enlightening. :angel:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32448995/investigation-launched-after-lee-sheriff-commanders-exit
Click to expand...
Can't link, but there is a LEO affairs forum that has an extensive discussion about the retirement... [emoji56]

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
 
My question is.

Why is this Florida court system sooo into giving Mark this carte blanche podium while not speeding up the murder trial?

What is the hold up?

Btw.

Jimmy should have been tried and found guilty months ago.

But he still gets to linger around as well. Wth

Btw. Jimmy had the evidence on him with several people tying him to the murder.

So why hasn't jimmy been tried and found guilty already?

Its not like he is a billionaire with big connections. Jmo

This court is just dragging things out and Teresas family should be hopefully mad at the judges decision to allow Jimmy lawyers to prolong his trial. Just as well as Marks lawyers. Jmo
 
beach said:
Two things -

First, there is a Case Management hearing (aka status hearing) scheduled for tomorrow 12/15 at 8:30 am (eastern) .

Secondly, what piqued my interest was on 11/28/2016 the State filed their Answer to an Amended Demand for Discovery (filed by the Defense). See PDF attached below.

Here is a MSM link regarding the "Confidential Witness" cited in their Answer. (it appears this discovery is sealed but not sure). If anyone has time to try to find our more regarding what led to this Commander's hasty retirement that might be enlightening. :angel:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32448995/investigation-launched-after-lee-sheriff-commanders-exit
Click to expand...

RC was running several paid positions at the same time and was therefore double (and triple and..) dipping. He was indeed in charge of an event center and was doing additional payed jobs all while being employed by LCSO. Conflict of interest. It does not have anything to do with the Sievers case. Rest assured.

-Nin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 52 more.
Total: 1,590 (members: 53, guests: 1,537)

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
1,537
Total visitors
1,590
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,714
Messages
18,191,091
Members
233,505
Latest member
reneej08
Back
Top