Exactly!! Very weird....this guy could even be making $#!+ up and twisting the story in order for the state to work with him....proffer doesn't mean proof, it means to offer evidence in support of an argument. As long as it's accepted then it's a bite.
Completely wasted hour+. Other than attempting to implicate Mrs. Wright, I learned nothing new. Just a desperate attempt to confuse. Hard to have a defense when you’re guilty as hell.
Teknitula Spacenoise I typically don’t like these kind of comments, I can’t imagine what it’s like to be him on tv, defending someone that would be difficult to defend with the world watching... so I refrain from making fun of people.... but you’re comment was really funny !!!!!! I actually laughed out loud! I do sympathize with his effort though
Vanessa Fowler I did find the comment funny also, but as a person who does have a University education in Law, I'm a bit surprised at the number of comments saying this lawyer isn't doing a good job. They unfortunately don't realize WHY he's repeating these questions & what relevancy it has to defending his client; he's actually making a relevant point. Unlikely he'll get an acquittal for his client though because he's fighting an uphill battle here.
That poor defence attorney, I bet he even practiced the night before in front of the Mrs. “ You’re going to be fine honey”. And then it all went to crap.
I'm just watching this court case etc now I live in New zealand and heard nothing about it here it just came up in my recommended. But thats the best comment I've read. It's so true maybe Mark can teach him to be a better lawyer n his lawyer can teach him that if he's really upset he wouldn't just pull crying faces when he talks about the hammer hitting his wife's head and that maybe he should throw some tears in amongst the faces. I know I'd be heart broken if this happened to my husband. May his wife rest in peace.
What he's showing is the guy totally lied to the extent of making the ludicrous claim that he murdered her simply because his friend asked him to & was willing to commit murder not expecting any compensation for it. (No one would put themselves in that much jeopardy simply because a friend asked them to.) He tried to show that this guy might have a personal motive for murdering Theresa if he was having a gay relationship with Mark, but wasn't allowed to ask that. He's showing that if this guy was so thoroughly a liar, how do you know what you can trust him about now, because he may just be trying to put the blame on Mark for his own purposes, so he can get a lighter sentence since he knew they already caught him & couldn't get off any other way. Since this guy's testimony is what would establish if Mark was guilty, it has to be established not only IF you can believe this guy, but to what EXTENT you could believe him, so it's not just random pointless questions the defense atty is asking him to discredit him in general. He's trying to show WHY this guy might not be believable.
What I really don't get is why people would be stupid enough to commit this type of murder & expect there's really much chance they won't get caught, & that idiots who hire others to murder don't know that if the other person is caught they won't sell them out in a plea deal. Smh.
JusticeAA You can make a point without being insulting to others. I'm not saying the def atty was right about any of it, or that he did a good job. I'm just saying, if you listen to what he's saying this is what he was trying to show in order to defend his client: 1. Wright was lying about Mark's involvement. 2. Wright had a motive himself, (independent of Mark) for killing her because he had a gay relationship with Mark. 3. Wright lied about several things, including that he didnt murder anyone & that he would murder someone & not expect monetary compensation for it. 4. Wright showed himself to be a liar originally, (until he was caught) so his testimony is unreliable because it's impossible to depend on what's true from him & what's not. 5. Wright was already arrested for this murder & would be facing the possibility of life imprisonment or the death sentence so he had a vested interest in trying to make someone else look responsible because it would considerably make a favorable change in the outcome for him to only 25yrs in prison. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this or think it's correct. My personal opinion is I think Wright is accurate about Mark's involvement; all 3 are guilty, but I'm not one of the jury. I've already said all this, but perhaps you didn't understand my point. Clear now?
He’s unprepared, out of his depth, nervous, hesitant, and playing to cameras. None is a good look - or effective. Those are all his fault. Not his fault is that he’s trying to defend an obviously guilty man...
This is one of those situations where the defense attorney is so annoying, manipulative, dirty handed and unlikeable that he does nothing but hurt the case of his (obviously) guilty client. We already want to see Sievers go down. But we also want the defense attorney to be crushed by the prosecution and leave humiliated and defeated. It also doesn't help that the attorney and Sievers look like they're twins.
They appear to be cut from the same filthy cloth. His attorney KNOWS his client is guilty, and he HAD to fall into some type of emotional attachment in order to represent him the way he did. It's so embarassing to watch! He's just awful.
@@christina5kids16grands Totally agreed! I like the way you said that, “same filthy cloth”. Not a term frequently used. Do you know the Bible scripture that uses that phrase?
@@TrueScandinavia You said "Guy is a successful defense attorney," - I pointed out his lack of success with this particular case. And, he didn't dazzle anyone with his knowledge of the case or the law either.
@@Sparrowdean irrelevant. the original comment claimed he couldn't "defend his way out of a paper bag". i pointed out that the guy is a high profile and successful defense attorney that was hired for a reason. his lack of success in this particular case has no bearing on the man's history as a skilled lawyer. your comment in regards to his supposed lack of knowledge of the case is hilariously ignorant.
Attorney recommendation: When your client is on trial and at risk of the death penalty, it is NOT recommended to re-visit over and over and over again how vicious the murder was for which he is accused. This is especially true when you ask no follow up questions on why that viciousness shouldn’t be attributed to your client. This guy did a better job than even the prosecution did to make sure this pos gets the needle.
I saw an article online that said Sievers lawyers had no prior experience in potential death penalty cases. That I would think is something you would want a lawyer representing you to have. Especially when picking jurors and asking questions properly without further incriminating your own client. Also the first defense lawyer seemed like he had a temper issue. He was scowling & tone was aggressive .
It’s also not a good idea for the defense to put a witness on the spot, asking whether they took a polygraph regarding a murder trial, or not considering polygraphs, or not admissible in a court of law
This lawyer is was his civil attorney and it's only his 2nd criminal trial along with his 1st death penalty case in which he had to get the certification for death penalty case "license" just for this case! I think in civil you repeat 80 thousand times the point but definitely not here! It's funny 😂 now that he has done this trial he advertises his "experience" of being a criminal attorney and I guess if his experience of getting people put to death rather than not just a long shot! He is like a bad actor on law and order acting as a criminal defense attorney which is sad since he is a lawyer of some sorts! It's near comical!
This defense lawyer watched a lot of Law and Order episodes to learn how to act like a ‘’tough’’ lawyer. Your face expressions and voice level won’t make you a ‘’tough’’ lawyer.
Daisy May yes, how could he do this to his children, he supposedly loves? The rest of their life has been altered, and now they have to start over with different people, their security is gone! Their mother is gone. So sad and heart rending!
@@bobbiejoecassell6717 I have one too! I have the same opinion this guys is one of the worst attorneys I have seen!! I hope he was a just public defender?? And no one had to pay for his unprofessional performance??
He's not sedated, he's just playing the victim with his pretend baby voice and "mark told me", "mark said it to me" etc.. He's like a child! And playing on his sore shoulder for sympathy,, it's not that bad, he managed to hammer the Doctorr to death with it! Vile Coward, he knocks me sick, hope his shoulder hurts everyday, that's Karma from the Doctor!!!
@@deborahhenderson149 agreed! What makes me devils advocate on this is why would a man, on his wedding day, who he says he loves, could just so easily go kill a woman, whom people love, just because his friend asked him to. No money up front, no real reason, but just because his “friend “ asked him to. A felon is one thing, a murderer is completely different! The judge isn’t allowing the defense attorney to go where he want to go. This is odd and strange on all accounts!
This defense attorneys questioning is extremely weak. A lot of repeating and hoping they can mess up and confuse the witness. I sure wouldn’t want my freedom being decided by this defense attorney.
I understand that a defendant has the right to be represented, but I don't like this defense attorneys approach. He's very unprofessional and sorry, but a jerk. I'm surprised this Judge hasn't warned him of his argumentative tone. He can still represent his monster of a client without being so aggressive!!! All 3 defendants are evil.
@@lafordgirl7549 he is not putting on a strong defense at all. Actually, he literally doesn't have the credentials to defend this case, but Sievers insisted on him. He had to sign a waiver to proceed with this defense.
Mindy Smith I believe the reason the defense lawyer is having a hard time is because he knows his client is guilty and he can’t show his true feelings to his client so he is taking it out on the witness and he probably doesn’t want to do a good job who really wants a murder on the streets! But it’s his job!
Is Mark playing connect the dots ,trying to look intelligent? Omg! Actor of the year award...hankie n all...think about this ridiculousness...these other men stood to gain nothing without this guy...
Susan Collins a lot is eye and nose wiping, but no actual tears. Watch as he requires a Kleenex on cue- whenever they talk about the blows with the hammer- coached?
The judge even told the defendant his lawyers were not good enough or even prepared or have ever done a murder trial before. His lawyers absolutely sucked. They have no idea what they are doing.
Ugh, this lawyer is so embarrassing. What was his point in demonstrating the choke hold, nothing he asks actually adds anything to the defence. Looks like he’s talking just for the sake of talking.
All it takes is for 1 person on the jury to have "reasonable doubt" about any issue that he brings up, and that's what the defense is counting on in this case. It must work often enough... it's not this lawyer's first murder case.
@@sndrt8448 If you consider everything his lifelong friend set him up and so did the state it's not uncommon for defense attorneys to act in concert with the state to deprive the defendant of his fundamental rights. At closing, the defense counsel's actions were inappropriate especially when he speaks about the amount of blood and the sound of the hammer all calculated to inflame the minds of the jury. But it was clear that the guy was and is guilty so why to try hard for him to get off with it. Grand mather and her son put on such an act with 5, mill in their control to take care of the girls. I have gone through a lot of trials and believe me that this guy got shafted.
@Your Friend, Ponce Whether the appointed attorneys were or weren't acting in concert with the state really is irrelevant. Appearances give way that the defendant was not adequately prepared for the trial his lead attorney lacked the qualities of a refind counsel, his actions showed rejection, lack of preparedness and it seemed he was just there to fill in a spot mandated by the 6th Amendment. The Rat had his defense prepared from the start and the state witnesses were motivated to testify for the state. In any event, he got what was coming to him, a real jerk who only cared for himself, money was the demon behind it all. He could have just tried to get a dame divorce but that would mean he wouldn't have gotten as much less out of the deal.
This lawyer likes to fight. With the witness. With the judge. With his own notes. Seriously, I think he is going to punch his yellow legal pad and choke his binder.
I really hope that Mark Sievers didn't pay this defense attorney more than $500.00. All this defense attorney did was read from the discovery package. At this point mark has already written a novel during this trial.
Well he will be, he's been in court enough he's 5 times convicted. He was also involved in another killing of his friend years before, the detective mentions it in his first interrogation.. He loves the attention and the sound of his own voice, killer and coward!!!! Vile 🤮
This defense attorney is painful to watch.. did he obtain his license to practice law from a Cracker Jack box? I am however impressed with the defendant’s clear and concise answers and explanations.
This is the most embarrassing cross examination to watch ever! Mark had to be enraged with anger watching his murderous friend murder his attorney with the truth and facts! Killing his defense literally!! This is the worst attorney I’ve ever seen! He blunders and stumbles over every word! He wasn’t expecting his cross examinee to be on point with the truth. The facts are these evil men plotted and carried out the murder of this beautiful, intelligent doctor! A mother, a daughter, a positive person in this world, and they viscously murdered her in her own home!
This lawyer is unbelievable you would think he had enough time to prepare things. As for his client he didn’t look good Sitting at the desk with his head down writing or pretending to. I feel so sorry for the lady’s family sitting there listening To how she died my heart goes out to her family especially her children. R.I.P sweet lady
You are so right. That lawyer was extremely unprepared. He lost the jury every time he had to look for a document which at times took literally minutes to complete. To his defense (no pun intended), he was stuck with a case where he literally had zero to work with. A guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion, and he knew it from day one.
Love watching how Curtis handled this attorney!! Never let him land a glove on him!! Nice job Curtis!! You win a 4 time convicted felon smarter then an attorney!!
@@melissadunn6394 I wouldn't want to meet either one in a dark alley. Two kinds of monster. One that can't control his rage and one that can calmly attack a woman with a hammer.
Ugh, this is one of, if not the, worst cross I’ve ever heard. The defense attorney is so terrible that it caused me to progress from laughing at him, to being angry at him, to then being embarrassed for him. I just don’t understand how he made bar with this surreal level of incompetence. In this case luckily it didn’t matter whatsoever but I hope this opened someone’s eyes before they placed him on any further cases
I have worked in corrections for a lot of years I can tell that officer sitting behind Curtis is a fair and honest person who gives respect and gets it back in return!
Funny, Curtis is in so much pain on the stand and gets a disability check every month but has no problem driving in a car for 24 hours, walking on the beach, shopping for an hour at Walmart and diving behind boxes in a cement garage let alone have the strength enough to commit violent murder!
Yeah, amazing the ppl who are supposedly "disabled". My late husband was disabled, spent the last 6 mo in a wheelchair, couldn't eat by mouth just a feeding tube and had trouble speaking. Curtis seems able to do quite a lot. !
Did any of you pay attention to the testimony? He was disabled from a traumatic brain injury in a car crash. I would think by now people would understand that being disabled is not just about physical capabilities. Neurological issues, severe mental illness and many other things can cause a person to be disabled. Regardless what you think of this murderer, try not to be insensitive to the millions of disabled people that can still be physically capable.
What is the point of this line of questioning? To show the witness did all the planning and the defendant did not? I don’t get the going over facts that are already clear.
Maria K He's showing several things, that the guy lied about not expecting compensation, claiming it was all about the kids & is still lying about that, that the guy lied originally & now has a vested interest in lying to point the finger at someone else so he can save his own life & get a lighter sentence, (he's been convicted of a felony 5 times before so this one wouldn't be a light penalty for him), therefore it's questionable that much of what he's saying now can really be believed, & that he possibly had a motive himself for killing her if he was in a gay relationship with Mark. Not many people in the comment section seemed to really listen to what he's saying unfortunately. I personally think he has an uphill battle to get his client acquitted though.
@@caryulmer7063 Thank you, for explaining these things. I was listening to him, and I could see what he was trying to do. Why did they not allow the gay relationship angle to be heard?
Miss Molly I'm not sure why it wasn't allowed, sometimes judges make confusing rulings that don't seem to make sense. The def. atty was trying to show this witness may have had a reason of his own, independent from Sievers, to do the killing, so I think the jury had a right to hear that. I think they made a mistake in the deal they made with this witness, but presumably it's the only way they could get evidence they needed on Sievers. It would be hard to provide a defense for Sievers but I also think this witness deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. If I was a family member of the doctor's I'd feel justice wasn't fully done here.
Remember…his attys were not criminal attys. Certainly not Capital case attys. The judge warned them and Seivers before this. And they looked ridiculous.
Wow! Great defence lawyer...he actually got the confessed murderer to confess to the murder! Meanwhile his own client gets buried in undeniable and unchallenged implication in the murder. Very clever, very helpful. Oh..wait...I forgot, he’s supposed to defend his client. Oh well, the prosecution might as well take the rest of the day off.
JusticeAA: Of course he didn’t get the witness to confess! I was being ironic...sarcastic...facetious. All the defence lawyer did for an hour and 22 minutes was to strengthen the prosecution’s case by having everything repeated by Curtis Wright that would convict his client. The entire fiasco was ridiculous. It was well established by the court that this defence lawyer was not qualified to defend a death-penalty case, and both the prosecution and the judge warned against his inclusion as lead defence attorney but Mr Sievers insisted and this is what he got.
Sndrt Toker: It seems to me he’s so intrigued by his doppelgänger lawyer he’d rather go to the gallows than get a qualified defence attorney. In fact throughout the trial he appears to be taking notes to become an incompetent lawyer himself.
WOW!!! I have never seen such a bad defense as this one - I mean - We all new that Mark was Guilty!!!!!, but his defense attorney is really a BEGINNER!!!! boring line of questioning - I don't even see his point???? He is just repeating what Curtis said? I could have read that on the court dockets!!!!!
Barbara Gonzalez He's not just repeating things. He's used points in evidence to discredit the witness. I think it's hard to see that though for people who haven't had at least some education or training in law so I understand your confusion.
The defense is a totally joke!! How many times can you say “Do you remember saying that” 🤦🏽♀️. He’s acting all tough, just to hide how unprepared he was. Now we all know who NOT to hire 😂😂😂
Charlene Osborne He actually isn't just stupidly going over things. He's discredited several things the witness has said & has raised doubt about his credibility.
JusticeAA Listen to him again, its pretty clear. At one point he came right out & said to Wright, "so you were lying about that?" to which Wright admitted he was lying. (In other words, if he's lying about 1 thing the jury should consider he may not be credible about what he's saying about Sievers.) If you still don't understand the other points the def atty was making I'll be happy to explain.
@@caryulmer7063 but he already admitted to lying about those things on direct. He lied a lot before he decided to give up and tell the truth. Or his version of the truth. The defense attorney isn't catching him in any lies that he hasn't already admitted to.
This inept defense attorney belongs nowhere near a death penalty case, but I read that Sievers insisted on this attorney despite the fact he wasn’t death penalty certified in the state of Florida. Sievers isn’t half as smart as he thinks he is.
This defense attorney is absolutely horrible. He is completely unfocused his questions are all over the place and just useless. He is not making any points or getting any relevant information that could sway a juror.
Jessica K He's a hostile witness for the defence, the atty is showing that, & he's trying to show the jury this guy can't be trusted. (For those who really listened to the atty he actually discredited him several times, & showed he's possibly still lying.)
Cary Ulmer I learned English in the South. Stayed there over a decade and came home to JAPAN, my home. Why are you focusing on a little expression? You ask irrelevant questions here to pick on others. Are you biased or racisist so you don't like a JAPANESE speaking strange English? Bully types. Hmm? Or, maybe you've got nothing in life to enjoy other than bullying others. Or, you're imitating Mr. Mummet? I forgot his name but is that the defense lawyer here? Anyways, I'm not talking with you anymore. Laugh all you want. Skunk.
Kyoko Yoda Oh that's just paranoid! Originally I didn't realize it was a real expression & was joking. When you pointed out it was a real expression I was just curious about where it came from because I'd never heard it before, that's all there is behind it, not the ridiculous assumptions you're making. Stop being an ass.
