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

[AZlawyer]

AZ, Even though the case hasn't gone to trial yet, is Mark's defense team privy to every document from SAO? Or does the case need to go to trial first and MS secures an attorney? TIA

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

He (and we) will get everything long before trial. Hopefully most of it within the next few weeks.

 

[fldigger]

AZ, are the defense attorneys gearing up for an Arthur Hearing? In my amateur experience, the state can't deny bond without great certainty that the facts support a conviction. is that likely?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, are the defense attorneys gearing up for an Arthur Hearing? In my amateur experience, the state can't deny bond without great certainty that the facts support a conviction. is that likely?

I had to look up "Arthur Hearing," since that's a Florida term. But yes, if the defense challenges the "no bond" determination, the State would have a very high burden of proof. I'm not sure the defense will do that, though, since the State could say, OK, let's just go back to the $4.43 million (or whatever it was)--which it seems MS can't pay. And I think the judge would quickly agree to go back to the $4.43 million if the State asked to do that in lieu of holding the Arthur Hearing.

 

[Dmacky]

Hi Az :wave:
I am curious if MS and his lawyer are privy to CWW's statements and plea deal that the SOA office asked the judge to seal? Or are records sealed only from the public?
TIA ~

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi Az :wave:
I am curious if MS and his lawyer are privy to CWW's statements and plea deal that the SOA office asked the judge to seal? Or are records sealed only from the public?
TIA ~

They would have seen the entire interview transcript. They might not have seen some of the evidence developed after that, but they will see it soon enough.

 

[Dmacky]

Hi Az :wave:
I am curious if MS and his lawyer are privy to CWW's statements and plea deal that the SOA office asked the judge to seal? Or are records sealed only from the public?
TIA ~

BBM ~ :laugh: SOA??
I would like to pick the same 3 letters and rearrange the order please. This time I'm going with SAO. I hope I was able to give you a little chuckle AZ. I laughed when I reread it just now.

 

[Jessicades]

Hi legal eagles,

My question is about the grand jury transcripts. Are the contents released to the public or are they held in confidence for only the lawyers involved? I wasn't sure that all evidence discussed at the GJ would be entered into the criminal trial if it is not deemed relevant to the case, and therefore kept under wraps. Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. So appreciated!

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi legal eagles,

My question is about the grand jury transcripts. Are the contents released to the public or are they held in confidence for only the lawyers involved? I wasn't sure that all evidence discussed at the GJ would be entered into the criminal trial if it is not deemed relevant to the case, and therefore kept under wraps. Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. So appreciated!

The grand jury transcripts will not be released. But the evidence presented in the grand jury hearing (everything except actual witness transcripts from the hearing itself) will be released through discovery.

 

[howonkee]

Since the recording of the DCF hearing was not good, will the transcripts from the hearing be released?

 

[AZlawyer]

Since the recording of the DCF hearing was not good, will the transcripts from the hearing be released?

The transcript can be ordered by anyone who wants to order it, but the court will not release transcripts on its own without being asked.

 

[Legally Bland]

As MS already knows his calls are being recorded by the jail, would MAG still need to specifically inform MS she is recording his calls for it to be legal?

I suppose what I'm asking is does MS need to know which parties are recording a phone conversation, or just that it's being recorded.

 

[AZlawyer]

As MS already knows his calls are being recorded by the jail, would MAG still need to specifically inform MS she is recording his calls for it to be legal?

I suppose what I'm asking is does MS need to know which parties are recording a phone conversation, or just that it's being recorded.

I think she would need to inform him if she were making a second recording, but why bother taking the legal risk? If anything is said that concerns her, she can get the jail copy. And if she wants to know what's said when BS has the girls, which is the bigger concern IMO, she can't record those calls herself so the jail copy is the only option.

ETA: She would not just have to inform him but get his "consent"--that's why I don't think MS's knowledge of the jail recording (for which any "consent" would have been under duress) will work as "consent" to a second recording.

 

[Dmacky]

AZ, first of all thank you for taking the time to answer our legal questions. You are very much appreciated.
Tomorrow both MS and JR's have a case management conference, at the time. What is that exactly as it pertains to criminal cases?
TIA ~

05/18/2016
Case Management Conference (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)

http://freesearch.leeclerk.org/default.aspx

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, first of all thank you for taking the time to answer our legal questions. You are very much appreciated.
Tomorrow both MS and JR's have a case management conference, at the time. What is that exactly as it pertains to criminal cases?
TIA ~

05/18/2016
Case Management Conference (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)

http://freesearch.leeclerk.org/default.aspx

Normally quite boring--setting dates and deadlines, that sort of thing.

 

[Jessicades]

My question is if CWW actually does appear at the custody hearing for TS's children, would he be obligated to speak in open court since he has not been sentenced for the murder yet? Can the lawyers for MS compel him to testify if there is a chance it could compromise his plea deal?

 

[Hoosgirl]

And my question, AZlawyer, is what in the heck is the possible strategy here in having CWW as his witness in the custody trial?!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is if CWW actually does appear at the custody hearing for TS's children, would he be obligated to speak in open court since he has not been sentenced for the murder yet? Can the lawyers for MS compel him to testify if there is a chance it could compromise his plea deal?

I don't see how it would compromise his plea deal. I think he's waived his 5th amendment rights in connection with his deal (which has been approved by the court) and would have to testify.

And my question, AZlawyer, is what in the heck is the possible strategy here in having CWW as his witness in the custody trial?!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I can't think of a damn thing. I have no idea where they're going with this.

 

[ScotAng]

I don't see how it would compromise his plea deal. I think he's waived his 5th amendment rights in connection with his deal (which has been approved by the court) and would have to testify.

AZL On the assumption Wright's waived his 5th amendment rights in connection with his deal, would he be bound by that same waiver, considering this is a "civil" case? Are criminal and civil Courts not regarded as two separate entities?

Or is the distinction here because both cases are related?

If that's as clear as mud, disregard. TIA.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL On the assumption Wright's waived his 5th amendment rights in connection with his deal, would he be bound by that same waiver, considering this is a "civil" case? Are criminal and civil Courts not regarded as two separate entities?

Or is the distinction here because both cases are related?

If that's as clear as mud, disregard. TIA.

We know he waived his rights because we know there is a transcript of a statement he made about the crime (it was marked as an exhibit in MS's latest bond hearing but sealed). Once you've waived them, you've waived them. It doesn't matter what case you're being called to testify in.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Just to clarify, I think it was MS who invoked the Fifth. http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32117342...rder-question-at-custody-hearing#.V1Bq-pNrjdQ

Q1: in another article, MS used the Fifth Amendment, but did answer some of the questions. I thought the rule (?) was that once you invoked, you couldn't pick or choose which questions you want to answer or can you?

I like that in the above article "The decision to plead the fifth in family court can be held against Mark Sievers," but his lawyer argued that his silence alone doesn't warrant removing his parental rights. It's confusing that his refusal to answer questions wouldn't support that he has something to do with the reason why his children are in court having their custody decided.

Q2: A Pretend Theory in this case only: If MS had nothing to do with murdering his wife and is completely innocent, why would he refuse to answer any questions at all during a custody hearing? It's not his trial yet. Do you know of anyone who has refused to answer questions but was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted?