Sievers should have made a plea deal. No amount of scribbling throughout this trial is going to make the jury sympathetic towards him. What a dog and pony show. Slam dunk for the prosecution.
I agree! My defense attorney (absolutely wonderful man btw) helped me get a plea deal because he said that trial would most likely result in a conviction. Sometimes, pleading guilty is the smartest choice!
Seems to love hearing himself speak. Not articulate at all and questions and behavior clearlr exhibits lacking experience with death penalty case. Why hasn't the defense co- counsel coparticipated in questioning witnesses?
I’m truly not wanting to sound hateful on here, But he’s got to be the worse defense attorney I’ve ever seen! The prosecuting team seem organized, knowledgeable, team work with each other, and both present themselves very well.
Mark Sievers should not have wasted his money on an attorney. I don't know that attorney could have defended him any better. He's not only guilty, he's a coward!
From what I've gathered from other comments, defence lawyer Mummert does family law. Sievers for some reason insisted on having him as a lawyer. He got his way after he gave up his right to file for a mistrial due to this lawyer's incapability to argue the case. A more experienced lawyer was also put in charge of defense team as ordered by the judge because Mummert's presence was protested over by the prosecution. Even they knew he had no competency to argue a case like this. Mummert can be the best family law attorney in the world. Sadly this case was a disgrace on his talent.
Sorry, but this isnt a defense strategy, recalling all states witnesses. This defense attorney is the most worst I have ever seen. He makes no new insights whatsoever. By the way... the Defendant is writing constantly. And really constantly. What on earth is he doing? Is he doing double duty as Court Reporter? 😉
Erik S I agree with you. He sure believes in his own opinions, I see, but the way he addresses to juries is rather lookdown & offensive, not to mention his speech with his "cynic"? irony? in his mind really doesn't hit me he's convincing. Hahaha.
I’m objective until the end of a trial. Today, I’m sad to say the defense showed more for that state than themselves. I say sad because proving someone is cold and cruel is always unfortunate, but I am proud of our legal system.
Kyoko Yoda how can he defend the defendant with nothing to go on? The evidence is too overwhelming and he is bound by the law to uphold the truth! He has to defend his client, so as for as this case I would have to said to Mr. Servers, Im sorry boy I just can’t defend something that can’t be defended. If it walks like a buck and quacks like a duck then it’s a duck. He is a cold blooded murderer! And his attorney knows that. Quit complaining about his defense lawyer do you want him to set this killer free?
I agree completely with how little this defense Attorney had to work with! Mark Sievers just put his nail in his coffin. Say what you want about Curtis Wayne Wright flipping but Mark Sievers through HIM under the bus knowing the guy has always been challenged to say the least. Mark did not choose to ask his " best friend" out of any kind of desperation! He " used" him because he could and was very well aware of who Jimmy Rogers was. No doubt, he was counting on Curtis to bring it too Jimmy Rogers!
Guess Sievers was broke and got the welfare funded defense team ! That whole team should be working in a car wash ( doubt they would be any good there either )
He's questioning the unworthiness of the DNA results?? And what is that going to prove? It's either he's a genius ie. we are about to be find out about something not so far covered by the prosecutor, or... it's only a build up to nothing
I think that in this case the prosecutor hasn't proved much beyond the reasonable doubt (yes, i know the outcome of the case, and i think that jurors are clearly wrong). The prosecution throughout their case have tried to show that the "coconspirators" have murdered Dr Sievers. They have one person who testified that yeah, he was coconspirator and Mark Sievers asked him to kill his wife. Then they have obviously lying girlfriend of one of the coconspirators... for whatever reason. The only thing that has any link to Mark Sievers was the telephone record. However, at that case they put a lady on the stand that said "We look at everything in total, because there are many errors. But we cannot tell you what has totally happened... Except when on some occasions i will tell you that to me it looks some way or another. I will not provide to you the analytical tools that i have been using, just trust me." So the only real evidence that remains is the text: "When you want to talk, just text 'other'". Is this sufficient evidence? Can somebody take that out of context?
@@volodyanarchist Have you actually watched the entire trial? There was trace evidence from dr sievers found i Rodger's coveralls therefore placing him at the scene of the murder!!!🤔
@@taitorani7469 Yes, i have spoiled it, having seen the verdict ahead of time, but i have decided to watch the entire thing. And i agree that the prosecutor seemed to be proving some other case. I think that it would be interesting to see Rodger's trial. Maybe in that trial they would present some evidence about Mark Sievers... i don't know.
@@taitorani7469 Watching this horrible shamble has really made me irritable (i am very peaceful person, but i've been catching myself on a thought to just punch somebody), and finally when i saw the penalty... that really pushed me away from watching stuff like that. So i guess i am saying that i'm not going to watch Rodgers's trial any time soon (or maybe even at all).
He's beginning to earn his fee now. They've just denied him introducing the DNA lab reports and he's showing that the reports are relevant, significant etc. He already established that they were trustworthy. It's finally getting interesting. I think he may also be trying to argue that Jimmy did the killing on his own and that would remove Sievers even further. He also seems to want to argue that there was only one hammer involved. It's a tough case for him but he's trying his best. Don't like him but respect him more than I have all the way through this trial. That sustained objection was potentially a big win for him - now we're all wondering why the prosecution didn't want those lab reports in evidence.
I think that people's judgement is clouded by the hype. He was actually quite professional. He has been laying the foundation for potential appeal in many small ways, for example. I was very shocked that the court has denied both the video and then DNA report. The video is very damning, since it shows that you cannot see any water anywhere there, areal photographs may show some, but it would be beyond what a person sitting in a car would see. And not admitting the DNA results... in a murder trial... wow!
@@volodyanarchist exactly. The prosecution is running a very dirty case in my opinion. So much irrelevant evidence it seems to me just to upset the jury about this poor woman's murder. But not necessarily anything to do with Sievers' involvement. And as you say other relevant evidence not being admitted.
My public defender when I had charges pressed against me for accidentally dropping a patient as a CNA did a much more amazing job than these clowns of a defense team!
I think that he is saying that bipolar people are ... bipolar. It's like you are not making a discriminating remark just because you are calling him "defense".
Is that correct? Ok….over and over again. I wouldn’t let this clown defend me for j-walking. Worst defense attorney ever! Make Nurmi look like Perry Mason!!
Miss Archillies . Have been viewing your comments and since you are unable to spell anything or compose a sentence , best you kill your comments until you get yourself some education . Everyone here is laughing at your stupidity !!!!
@@johnrodgers9877 I am not laughing at her comment. 'Best you kill your comments until you get yourself some education'. Everyone? You are the only one laughing. You idiot.
I HOPE THEY DON'T CARRY OUT THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS ONE. THE GIRLS NEED TO BE ABLE TO WHEN THEY GET OLDER AND IF THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE PRISON WHERE THEIR FATHER IS AND VISIT HIM AND IF THEY WANT SOME KIND OF A DISTANT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM THEY CAN.
