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

[AZlawyer]

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?

I wasn't saying anything about anyone invoking the 5th Amendment in this case, just that CWW had waived his 5th Amendment rights.

Once you waive your rights, you can't pick and choose which questions to answer that are within the scope of your waiver. The scope of a waiver is not always cut and dried, but in this case it would certainly include who killed TS and who offered to pay for it.

Yes, people often refuse to answer questions even if innocent on advice of counsel. Believe it or not, it is not always "safe" to talk to LE or testify if you are innocent. If LE or prosecutors think you are guilty, you are in danger whether you know it or not.

 

[msboo]

AZL..... Due to CWW's plea deal, doesn't the SAO & CWW's Attny have any say-so as to CWW testifying or not in MS's (now dog & pony show) custody case? If anything happened that could effect the plea deal it would possibly effect the outcome of the prosecutions' case against MS as well as charges against CWW, right? I take it since Mummert never contacted CWW's Attny, no knowledge existed what so ever 'in the loop' of CWW testifying in a custody hearing.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL..... Due to CWW's plea deal, doesn't the SAO & CWW's Attny have any say-so as to CWW testifying or not in MS's (now dog & pony show) custody case? If anything happened that could effect the plea deal it would possibly effect the outcome of the prosecutions' case against MS as well as charges against CWW, right? I take it since Mummert never contacted CWW's Attny, no knowledge existed what so ever 'in the loop' of CWW testifying in a custody hearing.

No they could not prevent him from testifying, but how could him testifying affect the plea deal anyway?

 

[msboo]

No they could not prevent him from testifying, but how could him testifying affect the plea deal anyway?

That's what I didn't know/understand.... like IF it could effect his deal if he answered certain questions. But you've answered my question so THANKS!

 

[beach]

No they could not prevent him from testifying, but how could him testifying affect the plea deal anyway?

That's what I didn't know/understand.... like IF it could effect his deal if he answered certain questions. But you've answered my question so THANKS!

I think where the confusion is (including myself!) -

What question could Mummert possibly dream up to ask CWW that DCF attorney Allain wouldn't immediately object to?

Every time I try to come up with something I hear her voice ringing in my head, "Objection, your honor. Irrelevant to this proceeding."

 

[AZlawyer]

I think where the confusion is (including myself!) -

What question could Mummert possibly dream up to ask CWW that DCF attorney Allain wouldn't immediately object to?

Every time I try to come up with something I hear her voice ringing in my head, "Objection, your honor. Irrelevant to this proceeding."

It's not irrelevant, though, because killing the girls' mother (or arranging for her to be killed) would constitute emotional child abuse and would also undercut any argument that MS had their best interests at heart.

 

[No it's not]

It's not irrelevant, though, because killing the girls' mother (or arranging for her to be killed) would constitute emotional child abuse and would also undercut any argument that MS had their best interests at heart.

AZ,

wouldn't they have to prove first, that MS is guilty? Could this result into a constitutional issue, in which MS is granted his parental rights unless proven guilty of any wrongdoing? Not that I agree in any way with this, just trying to find a reasoning behind what's going on. Thanks!

-Nin

 

[msboo]

AZ..... so nothing voids CWW's plea deal EXCEPT CWW himself changing his mind or backing out of the deal, right?

If not then I'm still confused. Although different, & I'm probably wrong but here goes.... I look at a 'plea deal' sort of like a seriously stringent 'confidentiality agreement' so where does one cross the line in a 'plea deal' (if this exists)?

If nothing puts his 'deal' in danger other than him backing out THEN the risk here would be information revealed through questioning CWW, with his possible answers---info that the Prosecution and CWW's Attny would not want made known until MS trial.

Custody hearing & parental rights are in 1 envelope. Murder trial, MS facing 1st degree premeditated murder of his wife is in a separate envelope.

 

[beach]

It's not irrelevant, though, because killing the girls' mother (or arranging for her to be killed) would constitute emotional child abuse and would also undercut any argument that MS had their best interests at heart.

Well, yeah....but why would they ask him about that? That was kind of my point. I can't think of a question Mummert could ask CWW that would be relevant and that wouldn't hurt his client.

Maybe we're just trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense. (e.g., calling CWW as their sole witness) This whole thing makes my head hurt. lol

 

[msboo]

Amen, beach.... make my head hurt too. Nuff said.... now on to June 17.

 

[Dmacky]

Well, yeah....but why would they ask him about that? That was kind of my point. I can't think of a question Mummert could ask CWW that would be relevant and that wouldn't hurt his client.

Maybe we're just trying to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense. (e.g., calling CWW as their sole witness) This whole thing makes my head hurt. lol

AZ,
Please help us understand why the judge agreed with Mumment citing "an ethical obligation."
Here is what was said between the parties.

Ms. Allain
The department would like to present an oral motion to omit
Mr. Mummets witness Mr. CWW on his witness list.


Judge: You want me to omit his witness?

Mummet:
Sub section A
The father conspired with 2 codependent's to commit the premeditated murder of the childrens murder.
They pled that, your Honor...therefore it is relevant.


Ms. Allain:
I don't believe that Mr. Wright possess any substantial evidence to prove or disprove the allegations of no parent caregiver



Mummet:
"My client should be afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, to IMPEACH and DISPROVE Ms. Allain's "theory" of the case."

Sievers attorney plans to question Wright about his "accusations" against Mark Sievers in the death of Teresa.

Mumment:
Mr. Wrights already pled

Judge:
But he's not yet been sentenced?

Judge:
There's an ethical obligation.

The Judge overruled, allowing Wright to testify only after Wrights attorney has been notified. 2 week recess.
and Mumment will proceed with Wrights questions.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32117342...rder-question-at-custody-hearing#.V1XPvY-cFY_

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ,

wouldn't they have to prove first, that MS is guilty? Could this result into a constitutional issue, in which MS is granted his parental rights unless proven guilty of any wrongdoing? Not that I agree in any way with this, just trying to find a reasoning behind what's going on. Thanks!

-Nin

I don't know what you mean about proving "first" that MS is guilty. If DCF wants to rely on a ground of emotional abuse of the children by arranging the murder of the other parent, they would have to prove that was true (probably just by a preponderance of the evidence).

AZ..... so nothing voids CWW's plea deal EXCEPT CWW himself changing his mind or backing out of the deal, right?

If not then I'm still confused. Although different, & I'm probably wrong but here goes.... I look at a 'plea deal' sort of like a seriously stringent 'confidentiality agreement' so where does one cross the line in a 'plea deal' (if this exists)?

If nothing puts his 'deal' in danger other than him backing out THEN the risk here would be information revealed through questioning CWW, with his possible answers---info that the Prosecution and CWW's Attny would not want made known until MS trial.

Custody hearing & parental rights are in 1 envelope. Murder trial, MS facing 1st degree premeditated murder of his wife is in a separate envelope.

I don't see why there would be any confidentiality provision at all in the plea deal. MS and his attorney already know what CWW has said, although it's possible they don't yet know exactly what part of CWW's statement(s) LE has been able to corroborate through other evidence. MS and his attorney will be informed of the corroborating evidence well in advance of trial, though. There is no option for this information to be kept secret from the defense.

AZ,
Please help us understand why the judge agreed with Mumment citing "an ethical obligation."
Here is what was said between the parties.

Ms. Allain
The department would like to present an oral motion to omit
Mr. Mummets witness Mr. CWW on his witness list.


Judge: You want me to omit his witness?

Mummet:
Sub section A
The father conspired with 2 codependent's to commit the premeditated murder of the childrens murder.
They pled that, your Honor...therefore it is relevant.


Ms. Allain:
I don't believe that Mr. Wright possess any substantial evidence to prove or disprove the allegations of no parent caregiver



Mummet:
"My client should be afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, to IMPEACH and DISPROVE Ms. Allain's "theory" of the case."

Sievers attorney plans to question Wright about his "accusations" against Mark Sievers in the death of Teresa.

Mumment:
Mr. Wrights already pled

Judge:
But he's not yet been sentenced?

Judge:
There's an ethical obligation.

The Judge overruled, allowing Wright to testify only after Wrights attorney has been notified. 2 week recess.
and Mumment will proceed with Wrights questions.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32117342...rder-question-at-custody-hearing#.V1XPvY-cFY_

Sounds like they are discussing 2 things (but I can't watch the video at the moment):

1. DCF doesn't think MS should be able to get into the question of whether he arranged to kill TS, because they are relying on a "no parent available" argument instead of an "abuse by arranging murder of other parent" argument. MS's attorney is pointing out that DCF relied on both arguments in the petition, so he gets to respond to both. The judge agrees, which makes sense.

2. The judge thinks MS's attorney had an ethical obligation to contact CWW's attorney before calling him as a witness, which also makes sense. So the judge made sure CWW's attorney would be notified in plenty of time for the hearing.

 

[ScotAng]

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.

Thanks AZ, that was confusing the hell out of me. Google's not always your friend. I ended up so deeply engrossed in comparison laws, I was pretty much convinced there was a bit of 'come and go' (re a waiver) in a civil case.

I'm glad the others asked those questions, as we all appeared to be confused about more or less the same issues. I just can't see how Wright being called as a witness can hurt anyone but MS. That'll do me, but I sense all sorts of shenanigans ahead, ala the Arias trial. Perish the <selfmodsnip> thought.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ, that was confusing the hell out of me. Google's not always your friend. I ended up so deeply engrossed in comparison laws, I was pretty much convinced there was a bit of 'come and go' (re a waiver) in a civil case.

I'm glad the others asked those questions, as we all appeared to be confused about more or less the same issues. I just can't see how Wright being called as a witness can hurt anyone but MS. That'll do me, but I sense all sorts of shenanigans ahead, ala the Arias trial. Perish the <selfmodsnip> thought.

There is definitely a difference in how the 5th Amendment works in civil cases. Most importantly, if you choose to take the 5th in a civil case, the judge or jury IS entitled to assume the answer would have been bad for you.

 

[msboo]

AZ.... Guess I wasn't clear, just using the confidentiality thing as an example in comparison---didn't think if it was part of a plea. Thanks for answering what the defense knows about CWWs plea---with it sealed so I didn't know what they would know til trial time. Hurry up & wait for trial.

 

[ScotAng]

There is definitely a difference in how the 5th Amendment works in civil cases. Most importantly, if you choose to take the 5th in a civil case, the judge or jury IS entitled to assume the answer would have been bad for you.

Thanks for the clarification. You're an absolute star!

 

[DaleTray]

It's not an actual legal question,but rather, seeking a legal opinion. Assuming we find out if JR waives right to speedy trial in the next 10 days, if he does or doesn't, when do you see trial(s) starting? Are you guessing major delaying w council needing time to research 43,000 pages or will we see a trial possibly in 2016? When could we guestimate MS trial (unless a plea deal is reached..doubtful with Mr. I will go down fighting Sievers )to potentially start? 2017? 2018? I guess I seek a prediction of how this might play out.

 

[AZlawyer]

It's not an actual legal question,but rather, seeking a legal opinion. Assuming we find out if JR waives right to speedy trial in the next 10 days, if he does or doesn't, when do you see trial(s) starting? Are you guessing major delaying w council needing time to research 43,000 pages or will we see a trial possibly in 2016? When could we guestimate MS trial (unless a plea deal is reached..doubtful with Mr. I will go down fighting Sievers )to potentially start? 2017? 2018? I guess I seek a prediction of how this might play out.

I thought JR had already asserted his right to a speedy trial, but maybe I misremembered that.

If he has insisted on a speedy trial, it will happen soon--this year. I bet most of the documents are pretty irrelevant to the case against him anyway. Otherwise, his trial will likely be in 2017. MS could go to trial in 2017, but perhaps even 2018.

 

[Dmacky]

Arizony......you got some splainin to do :wink:

Charges: Wright, Curtis Wayne, Jr.
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)

Statute-----782.04(2)
Level-------Felony - First, Punishable by Life
Date--------06/28/2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Events & Orders of the Court

Disposition (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)

02/26/2016----------Plea (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)
Pled Guilty

02/26/2016----------Disposition (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)
Adjudicated Guilty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03/24/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

04/06/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

04/20/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

04/20/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

04/21/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

05/10/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

05/24/2016 ---------Stipulation Filed

05/27/2016 ---------Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Continuance Filed

05/27/2016 ---------Correspondence Filed

05/31/2016 ---------CANCELED Sentencing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)

New Court Date Set
08/01/2016--------Sentencing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions
Date--------06/28/2015
1. Is CWW's date different from the other two perps (04/30/2015) because this is the date TS was murdered? Is there no such charge of "premediated" with 2nd degree murder?

2. Who filed for Stipulation on May 24?
Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Continuance Filed
Could this be why sentencing on May 31st was canceled?

3. Motions like all above are confusing to me. I never know for sure which side is which. With CWW pleading guilty, I'm thinking he (and lawyer) are the ones doing the answering? Surely he can't be demanding anything?
a) Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed
b) Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

4. 05/27/2016 Who filed for Correspondence?

Thank you for all you do... you are appreciated.

 

[AZlawyer]

Arizony......you got some splainin to do :wink:

Charges: Wright, Curtis Wayne, Jr.
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)

Statute-----782.04(2)
Level-------Felony - First, Punishable by Life
Date--------06/28/2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Events & Orders of the Court

Disposition (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)

02/26/2016----------Plea (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)
Pled Guilty

02/26/2016----------Disposition (Judicial Officer: Kyle, Bruce E)
1. 2ND DEG MURDER DANGEROUS DEPRAVED WO PREMEDITATION (Principal)
Adjudicated Guilty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03/24/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

04/06/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

04/20/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

04/20/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

04/21/2016 -------- Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed

05/10/2016 -------- Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

05/24/2016 ---------Stipulation Filed

05/27/2016 ---------Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Continuance Filed

05/27/2016 ---------Correspondence Filed

05/31/2016 ---------CANCELED Sentencing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)

New Court Date Set
08/01/2016--------Sentencing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Kyle, Bruce E)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions
Date--------06/28/2015
1. Is CWW's date different from the other two perps (04/30/2015) because this is the date TS was murdered? Is there no such charge of "premediated" with 2nd degree murder?

2. Who filed for Stipulation on May 24?
Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Continuance Filed
Could this be why sentencing on May 31st was canceled?

3. Motions like all above are confusing to me. I never know for sure which side is which. With CWW pleading guilty, I'm thinking he (and lawyer) are the ones doing the answering? Surely he can't be demanding anything?
a) Answer to Demand for Discovery (Amended) Filed
b) Notice of Discovery (Supplemental) Filed

4. 05/27/2016 Who filed for Correspondence?

Thank you for all you do... you are appreciated.

1. Yes, the date would be the murder date. Any charge involving premeditation or conspiracy would have an earlier date, in this case. Second degree murder in Florida never involves premeditation.

2. The media said CWW filed a motion to continue his sentencing. If it was titled a "stipulated motion" that means CWW's attorneys checked first with the prosecution and got their OK on the continuance.

3. The demand would have been filed by CWW's attorneys before the plea deal was made. The answers are supplemental information coming from the prosecution.

4. No way to know. Many times this means someone sent a letter to the judge, so the judge gave it to the clerk for filing to make sure everything's in the public record.