In Other Media-eg NYLJ Fortune 2023, CJR, NY Mag, AJE, Georgia, CSM Click here to contact us     .

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 20  – Daniel Sikkema has been subject to an Interpol warrant for the murder of his estanged husband, art gallery owner Brent Sikkema, in Brazil. On March 20 Daniel Sikkema was brought by US Marshals into the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrates Court, with detention sought for passport fraud. Inner City Press was the only media there and live tweeted, thread

He was released - but on March 27 asked for a delay in putting up the Queens house: we have "identified a substitute property located in Manhattan to secure Mr. Sikkema’s bond, as the home we initially intended to post is unavailable." Letter on Patreon here.

On April 12, Daniel Sikkema was formally indicted. Patreon here

On December 18, a trial date was picked, and Inner City Press was there, the only media in the courtroom. From the thread:

All rise! Judge: I recently denied defendant's motions. Let's set a trial date. AUSA: April 21? Judge: I'm told there's a large jury selection here thay day [US v Eric Adams]. So the 22nd Story later

Addendum: Just after "Adjourned," Judge Ramos genially asked Inner City Press, What's the big trial here on April 21? "Eric Adams."

Well, not anymore. And on February 11, a superseding indictment of Sikkema, including murder for hire charges.

Inner City Press was in the Magistrates Court when he was remanded into detention.

And again on February 26 before Judge Ramos, from the thread:

AUSA: The capital case process is changing under the new Administration

[We asked: Will it apply also to US v Luigi Mangeone? The answer is, Yes. Jeezy Mula too]

On July 1, still no decision on Sikkema: "Conference as to Daniel Sikkema held on 7/1/2025. The government has not yet decided whether it will seek the death penalty in this case. A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 13, 2025."

But on August 7 the US Attorney's Office wrote in asking for 30 more days, saying DOJ "is determining whether it will seek the death penalty in this case. That decision has not yet been made."

On August 8, "as to Daniel Sikkema, the status conference scheduled for August 13, 2025, is adjourned to September 18, 2025, at 11 a.m.  (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/8/2025)

But on September 16 the US wrote in for 30 more days, saying DOJ "is determining whether it will seek the death penalty in this case. That decision has not yet been made."

On October 20 the US Attorney's Office wrote in, "The Government writes to inform the Court that the Office of the Attorney General has directed the Government not to seek the death penalty against defendant Daniel Sikkema."

On March 20, 2026, Judge Ramos docketed; "ORDER as to Daniel Sikkema. Upon the application of the United States of America, without objection from defendant Daniel Sikkema, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows: 1. Rule 15 Motion. The Government's unopposed motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15, to take a pretrial deposition of a civilian witness in Spain, (ECF Nos. 59, 63), is GRANTED. The Court finds that the witness is unavailable for trial; that the witness's anticipated testimony is material; and that the witness's testimony is necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), the Court authorizes the taking of the witness's deposition because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. 2. Defendant's Presence. The deposition may be taken in Spain without the defendant's physical presence, provided the defendant can participate remotely by videoconference and/or telephone. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to permit the defendant to consult privately with his attorneys during the deposition. The Court finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(c)(3), that: (a) the witness's testimony could provide substantial proof of a material fact in a felony prosecution; (b) there is a substantial likelihood that the witness's attendance at trial cannot be obtained; (c) the witness's presence for a deposition in the United States cannot be obtained; (d) the defendant cannot be present because the defendant is detained and secure transportation and continuing custody cannot be assured at the witness's location; and (e) the defendant can meaningfully participate in the deposition through reasonable means. 3. Recording. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to record the deposition by both audiovisual and stenographic means. If the deposition cannot be recorded by audiovisual means, it shall be recorded by both audio and stenographic means. If the deposition cannot be recorded stenographically, it shall be recorded by audiovisual or audio means, and the parties shall thereafter obtain a transcript. 4. Administration of Oath or Affirmation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(5), before testimony is taken, the court reporter or videographer shall state on the record: (i) his or her name and business address; (ii) the date, time, and place of the deposition; (iii) the witness's name; (iv) the administration of the oath or affirmation to the witness; and (v) the identity of all persons present. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 604, any interpreter(s) must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true translation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(1)(D), the Court authorizes the court reporter or videographer to administer the oath or affirmation to the witness and interpreter(s). 5. Defendant's Expenses. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(d),because the defendant is unable to bear the deposition expenses, the Court authorizes payment to Criminal Justice Act-appointed counsel Richard Levitt, Esq. and Florian Miedel, Esq. of expenses associated with the planning and conduct of the deposition (including, without limitation, reasonable travel and subsistence expenses of counsel to attend the deposition, and the costs of the deposition transcript), subject to submission of appropriate documentation and any further direction of the Court. Nothing in this Order limits the defendant from seeking, by separate application, authorization for other costs or services necessary for adequate representation. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/20/2026)."

More details on X for Subscribers here and Substack here

 The case is USA v. Sikkema, 1:24-cr-227 (Ramos)

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com