Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers - Q & A ONLY ***No Discussion***

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Since this is a question only thread I guess I will have to pose this correctly.

Teresa was Christian and he was Jewish so ergo the children are not Jewish as lineage as I believe follows the mother.

My question is what is the next deadline that we are looking for in this case?

Thanks for the info.

Personally, the next two things I'm looking for are: (1) the arrest of MS, and (2) the grand jury indictment of all 3 suspects for 1st degree murder.

Come to think of it, maybe #2 on that list is what LE is waiting for before arresting MS. With a grand jury 1st degree murder indictment in hand, they would feel a lot more comfortable that an arrest would "stick."
 
i am curious about MS refusing to cooperative furthur with the investigation into the murder of his wife, Teresa
i am aware that after people "lawyer up", often they do not provide any furthur statements, and in essence stop "cooperating" with law enforcement
(or at least that is what i see on tv)

my question is this:
given the 7 things that Detective Nolan specifically asked for from MS, would his attorney advise him not to provide that information, or would it be more likely that MS did not want to provide that information and his lawyer is protecting his right to not provide that information

sorry for the length of this - wanted to provide what we know thus far about this topic from the discovery documents

-------------------------------
Bates#3068

Detective Nolen requested Mark Sievers meet for a third interview so that he may ascertain if any property was stolen. Mark Sievers did not show up for the meeting. Detective Nolen called Sievers and left a voicemail. Lee Hollander called Detective Nolen by cellular phone and advised that his client, Mark Sievers, would no longer be co-operating with Law Enforcent.

------------------
pages8-9
July7


Mark Sievers Refusal to Cooperate in the Investigation:

On July 7, 2015 Detective Jamie Nolen attempted to set another meeting with M. Sievers
in an attempt to go over what was obtained in the investigation thus far and seek
assistance and aid in finding his wife's killer. Later in the day, detectives were contacted
by Criminal Defense Attorney Lee Hollander who advised he was retained as council and
to direct any further inquiry through him. With this, detectives drafted a formal letterhead
requesting the following assistance:

(1) Palm prints from Mark Sievers, Cannela Sievers, Josephine Sievers, and Bonnie
Sievers, to be collected by the Lee County Sheriff's Office AFIS Unit.
(2) Buccal swabs from Carmela Sievers and Josephine Sievers.
(3) Information in regards to portable electronic devices carried by Teresa while she
was traveling from Florida to New York, and New York to Florida. What types of
portable electronic devices did Teresa carry and use?
(4) Information in regards to all user access codes to the home alann. Please provide
the pin code and the user coder number if you know all of them. Also, who knew
the codes?
(5) Who knew the code to open the garage door? Is it possible to open the garage
door remotely with an electronic device?
(6) When can detectives speak with Carmela Sievers and Josephine Sievers?
(7) When Teresa didn't show up for work, who contacted Mark to let him know?
Who did Mark contact, in order, to check on Teresa?

It should be noted that these inquiries were solely for the purpose of obtaining
information that would expedite the process of elimination in regard to biological testing
and to further aid investigators in finding the person(s) who committed the offense. After
several days passing since submission of the inquiry, there was no answer. With this,
detectives made several attempts to contact M. Siever's council which later led to
notification that these requests will not be fulfilled and no further participation in the
investigation would ensue on M. Sievers' part. No further contact was made with M.
Sievers as he denied any further aid in finding his wife's killer(s).

Discovery of Life Insurance Policies:

Due to M. Sievers refusal to aid investigators any further, subpoenas were sent to the
policy holders regarding the insurance policies for Teresa Sievers. In obtaining said
infonnation, it was discovered there were five policies varying in different amounts and
totaling in $4,433,342.80.

---------------------------
page89
July8-letter from Lee Hollander Esq. to Detective Jamie Nolan

Re: Investigation of the Death of Dr. Teresa Sievers

...Despite his physical and mental condition, he has fully and voluntarily cooperated with your investigation. This includes his voluntarily interview which lasted over 7 hours. You are aware he was in the New England area when this brutal crime occurred. However, despite his cooperation, your investigation appears focused on him. If you have any need to contact Mr. Sievers, please do so through me.

The children have suffered tremendously due to their mother's death. They are still
grieving. We do not feel under the circumstances that an interview by law enforcement at this time would be in their best interest, so we are, for the moment, declining your request to bring them in for an interview.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

(i understand the concerns about the children being interviewd, however it is the only request of the 7 listed in the letter from detectives to Hollander that is specifically addressed in Hollander's reply)
 
i am curious about MS refusing to cooperative furthur with the investigation into the murder of his wife, Teresa
i am aware that after people "lawyer up", often they do not provide any furthur statements, and in essence stop "cooperating" with law enforcement
(or at least that is what i see on tv)

my question is this:
given the 7 things that Detective Nolan specifically asked for from MS, would his attorney advise him not to provide that information, or would it be more likely that MS did not want to provide that information and his lawyer is protecting his right to not provide that information

<snipped for space>

It's really hard to say. Any decent defense lawyer would have told him immediately to stop cooperating and STFU because he is obviously the prime suspect. Presumably MS thought "cooperating" would make LE think, "Oh, this guy is innocent after all or why would he be so cooperative?". The lawyer no doubt told him that LE was not buying it and he needed to cut it out. So IMO it would have made no difference whatsoever what specifically they were asking from him at that time.
 
In Florida, does the defendant get to see all of the unredacted information received by the defense during discovery? When it comes to witness protection, would this information be redacted when CWW was allowed to view it?
 
In Florida, does the defendant get to see all of the unredacted information received by the defense during discovery? When it comes to witness protection, would this information be redacted when CWW was allowed to view it?

CWW is entitled to know who the witnesses are against him, and his counsel is entitled to interview those people. There might be some possibility of temporary redactions until LE has completed its investigation into certain matters (assuming CWW has waived his right to a speedy trial for that time period), but if so there would be a motion and order on the docket so we would know.
 
CWW is entitled to know who the witnesses are against him, and his counsel is entitled to interview those people. There might be some possibility of temporary redactions until LE has completed its investigation into certain matters (assuming CWW has waived his right to a speedy trial for that time period), but if so there would be a motion and order on the docket so we would know.


Can a potential witness refuse to be interviewed by counsel for the defense?
 
AZLawyer, the latest doc dump has seemingly been delayed. Do you think that the release of these documents is due to the content? IOW, maybe because it is practically Christmas now and in consideration of Teresa's young daughters?

The more we read, the more it seems MS should be arrested, IMO. Would it be a possibility that more documents are being released in rapid succession and therefor will be released in one fell swoop rather than a packet here and there?

Sorry if what I'm asking makes no sense. I know you do not have a crystal ball!
 
Can a potential witness refuse to be interviewed by counsel for the defense?

If the request is informal, yes. There would be specific court rules about formal interviews (depositions), and I'm not familiar with those rules in Florida, but most judges err on the side of allowing depositions of witnesses in order to make sure the defendant cannot claim to have been blindsided by the information later.

If the witness is in another state, certain documents might have to be filed with the other state's court, and/or the lawyers might have to fly there, and/or the depo might be done by video or phone conference, but one way or another it can get done.

AZLawyer, the latest doc dump has seemingly been delayed. Do you think that the release of these documents is due to the content? IOW, maybe because it is practically Christmas now and in consideration of Teresa's young daughters?

The more we read, the more it seems MS should be arrested, IMO. Would it be a possibility that more documents are being released in rapid succession and therefor will be released in one fell swoop rather than a packet here and there?

Sorry if what I'm asking makes no sense. I know you do not have a crystal ball!

I'm sure the delay is due to redactions and holiday schedules of staff. I very much doubt it has anything to do with the kids at all.

It is certainly possible that we will get a big chunk of documents if and when MS is arrested, as it will be less important at that point to be cautious about releasing things relating to the "continuing investigation."
 
Thank you for your response, AZlawyer! What would we do without you?


:loveyou:
 
CWW is entitled to know who the witnesses are against him, and his counsel is entitled to interview those people. There might be some possibility of temporary redactions until LE has completed its investigation into certain matters (assuming CWW has waived his right to a speedy trial for that time period), but if so there would be a motion and order on the docket so we would know.


Now that is scary......I wouldn't want CWW knowing I was planning to testify against him. I would be begging for the witness protection program ASAP. That is a possibility isn't it?
 
CWW is entitled to know who the witnesses are against him, and his counsel is entitled to interview those people. There might be some possibility of temporary redactions until LE has completed its investigation into certain matters (assuming CWW has waived his right to a speedy trial for that time period), but if so there would be a motion and order on the docket so we would know.


Now that is scary......I wouldn't want CWW knowing I was planning to testify against him. I would be begging for the witness protection program ASAP. That is a possibility isn't it?

Not in Reality Land. CWW is not some mob boss, just an ordinary alleged murderer.
 
This may have been asked and answered previously; if so my apologies. Assuming MS is arrested, who is likely to get custody of the girls? The guardian(s) named in TS will? Or can MS make other arrangements for their care? From everything we have heard, it appears that he has turned them against TS side of the family.
 
This may have been asked and answered previously; if so my apologies. Assuming MS is arrested, who is likely to get custody of the girls? The guardian(s) named in TS will? Or can MS make other arrangements for their care? From everything we have heard, it appears that he has turned them against TS side of the family.

TS's Will shouldn't come into play at all. MS can give guardianship to someone while he's in jail, and his selection will probably be honored if it's appropriate. But if he's actually convicted and facing prison time for longer than the girls will be minors, or if the person MS selects is keeping the girls away from half their family, TS's family is extremely likely to end up with the girls.
 
On Bates 5103 they redacted the time of the 911 call from the doctor in the document dump. Why would they do this? (as many :websleuther: are trying to put together a timeline of calls!) Is this normal to redact? Would the defense have an unredacted copy?

TIA

911CALL.JPG
 
On Bates 5103 they redacted the time of the 911 call from the doctor in the document dump. Why would they do this? (as many :websleuther: are trying to put together a timeline of calls!) Is this normal to redact? Would the defense have an unredacted copy?

TIA

View attachment 86480

Are we sure it was redacted and not just omitted? Assuming the answer is yes, I suspect for some reason the state attorney doesn't want MS to know the time yet. But the defense would definitely get an unredacted copy.

ETA: Kate B just told me the time was previously released as 9:43 am, so more than likely this is not a redaction but an omission.
 
Are we sure it was redacted and not just omitted? Assuming the answer is yes, I suspect for some reason the state attorney doesn't want MS to know the time yet. But the defense would definitely get an unredacted copy.

ETA: Kate B just told me the time was previously released as 9:43 am, so more than likely this is not a redaction but an omission.
Thanks AZL!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
AZ you are golden and thanks for sharing your legal insights but also your perceptive observations that are usually spot on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It appears from testimony by either EM or RW that CWW has sex abuse reports. Why iwould he not be tried for that earlier?
 
It appears from testimony by either EM or RW that CWW has sex abuse reports. Why iwould he not be tried for that earlier?

He hasn't been charged with anything like that. If reports were made, probably there was not enough evidence to charge him.
 
He hasn't been charged with anything like that. If reports were made, probably there was not enough evidence to charge him.

Why would there be issues with the children in terms of AW not being able to have them, then?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
194
Total visitors
292

Forum statistics

Threads
608,560
Messages
18,241,258
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top