Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap
- Thread starter shakeybrainsurgeon
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
K_girl
Contributor
Yes, Australia has public defenders. See: History
I think non-divers can serve on the jury. It is a matter of experts educating the jury and in almost every case, you have jurists who are not experts in the issues at-hand. I just hope that the defense doesn't get rid of any divers who might be on the jury. If it is anything like the U.S., a fingerprint expert would be thrown off a jury, especially if the case turned on a fingerprint. They don't want an expert serving on the jury to override the expert testimony presented at trial with their own expertise in the jury room. I think you can argue that an Open Water Diver, even up to Rescue is not necessarily an expert, anymore than you can argue that someone with a driver's license is an expert driver. They will kick anyone off the jury who perceives themselves to be an expert. And they might look at a certain number of dives as being an expert. However, I think that many of the concepts in this case can be understood by anyone who has ever snorkled with mask and fins. We're talking Queensland. How easy will it be to find 12 people who have never even snorkled?
Interesting question on the Somali pirate being brought to the U.S. And terrorism laws might be the determining factor. Another potential reason may be that Somalia does not have a viable government or rule of law. Everything is run by tribal lords and they all make their own rules.
I think non-divers can serve on the jury. It is a matter of experts educating the jury and in almost every case, you have jurists who are not experts in the issues at-hand. I just hope that the defense doesn't get rid of any divers who might be on the jury. If it is anything like the U.S., a fingerprint expert would be thrown off a jury, especially if the case turned on a fingerprint. They don't want an expert serving on the jury to override the expert testimony presented at trial with their own expertise in the jury room. I think you can argue that an Open Water Diver, even up to Rescue is not necessarily an expert, anymore than you can argue that someone with a driver's license is an expert driver. They will kick anyone off the jury who perceives themselves to be an expert. And they might look at a certain number of dives as being an expert. However, I think that many of the concepts in this case can be understood by anyone who has ever snorkled with mask and fins. We're talking Queensland. How easy will it be to find 12 people who have never even snorkled?
Interesting question on the Somali pirate being brought to the U.S. And terrorism laws might be the determining factor. Another potential reason may be that Somalia does not have a viable government or rule of law. Everything is run by tribal lords and they all make their own rules.
OP
shakeybrainsurgeon
Contributor
The Somali pirate was charged under old piracy laws, nothing to do with modern anti-terrorism prosecutions. The lack of jurisdiction was not an issue either, in that Kenya is the internationally agreed upon jurisdiction for bringing captured Somali pirates to justice. And respecting sovereignty may or may not have something to do with any of this.
I suspect the difference between Gabe and the pirate is in the degree of politics and the profile of the crime. Had he killed some VIP in Australia, not just his wife, I doubt the US would turn him over. At least not before this country had a shot at him first. For example, suppose a very high profile person, like Caroline Kennedy, is murdered by their spouse (God forbid) on vacation in Australia and the spouse fled back here...do you think the US would wait until foreign authorities acted, if ever, and then send him back to be tried there? She has no official title and this is no act of terrorism, but does any one think the local authorities would simply let the guy walk around free while thumbing his nose at them, like Gabe, until Australia got around to indicting him? I doubt it. Someone would dust off whatever legal precedent they needed to jail him state-side.
I suspect the difference between Gabe and the pirate is in the degree of politics and the profile of the crime. Had he killed some VIP in Australia, not just his wife, I doubt the US would turn him over. At least not before this country had a shot at him first. For example, suppose a very high profile person, like Caroline Kennedy, is murdered by their spouse (God forbid) on vacation in Australia and the spouse fled back here...do you think the US would wait until foreign authorities acted, if ever, and then send him back to be tried there? She has no official title and this is no act of terrorism, but does any one think the local authorities would simply let the guy walk around free while thumbing his nose at them, like Gabe, until Australia got around to indicting him? I doubt it. Someone would dust off whatever legal precedent they needed to jail him state-side.
You make some good points Dadvocate I don't think the Somolia incident and the Watson incident are the same. The US can save themselves money, court time and potential costs of imprisonment by letting the Australian system deal with what happened in their jouristiction.
There is no death penalty here so in the worse case scenario he is likely to see freedom at some point.
I also suspect that he may face Civil action from Tina's parents at some point but I don't know the US legal system any more than non Aussies know the Australian system.
K-girl I think it would be hard to really have a balanced jury without any divers on it. I guess the key is not to have someone on the jury who has a bias and is not willing to give due consideration to the evidence! A jury of peers in this case would seem to me to be one that included divers of lesser or similar training and experience to both Gabe and Tina.
There is no death penalty here so in the worse case scenario he is likely to see freedom at some point.
I also suspect that he may face Civil action from Tina's parents at some point but I don't know the US legal system any more than non Aussies know the Australian system.
K-girl I think it would be hard to really have a balanced jury without any divers on it. I guess the key is not to have someone on the jury who has a bias and is not willing to give due consideration to the evidence! A jury of peers in this case would seem to me to be one that included divers of lesser or similar training and experience to both Gabe and Tina.
ItsBruce
Contributor
A few comments:
1. Whether I was prosecuting the case or defending it, I would not want divers on the jury. There is simply too great a chance a diver would rely on his or her perceived knowledge rather than that of the so-called experts. That is never a good thing.
2. The general rule is never talk to the police except to ask for directions, and you should be circumspect when asking directions. There are a tremendous number of things that are illegal. You would have no clue most of those things are illegal. And you never know when someone will draw a negative inference from some innocent comment. (Recall the discussion on SB about the fellows who inadvertently and unknowingly caught a huge lobster while fishing and had their pictures in the paper? They did not know it was out of season.)
Anything you say can be used against you; nothing you say can be used to support you.
A good lawyer can make nearly anyone out to be a liar if the person has said enough, even if everything is absolutely true. Thus, Gabe cannot possibly help himself by saying or doing anything, but he can sure hurt himself.
Had Gabe kept his mouth shut from the get-go, he would be in a much better position than he is now in.
Why do you think the US Constitution gives people the right to remain silent? Why do you think that the jury is instructed that the cannot hold a person's exercise of that right against them?
3. Woe to the poor person who must rely on a public defender or court appointed counsel. While I recognize there are some exceptional public defenders and exceptions to the general rule, a defense by a public defender or appointed counsel is rarely as good as with an attorney one selects and pays oneself. Remember the movie "My Cousin Vinny"? I'm reliably told that it was based on a true case. The main difference was that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. The movie came about because defense counsel was about as experienced as Vinny. Unfortunately, he did not have the "gotchas" that Vinny had. I forget the details, but the court appointed attorney was something like a probate attorney who was being assisted by a recent law school graduate and they had an investigative budget of something like $1,000. Despite this (or something like it), the US Supreme Court rejected the argument that the defendant was deprived to the right to the assistance of counsel.
Gabe was well advised to save his money fighting extradition and to use what he has to hire experienced counsel and good forensics experts. He is also well advised to use local attorneys. They know local procedures and since they won't have to travel, it will be cheeper.
4. I want to see the prosecutor's evidence that Gabe killed Tina. I know there is evidence of motive. I know Tina is dead. I know Gabe acted peculiarly after Tina's death. I know there are inconsistencies in what Gabe has said. So, how did he make Tina dead? We know he did not shoot her. We know he did not stab her. What affirmative act did he perform? We are told he turned off her air. Where is there evidence Tina was deprived of air? And, if there is such evidence, where is there evidence Gabe made that happen?
I am still comfortable with the theory that Tina's death was an accident, that Gabe was negligent in failing to save her, and that because he was concerned about being liable for negligence, he said and did things that made him look guilty of murder. Sorry. (It is not the first time something like that happened and it will not be the last.)
1. Whether I was prosecuting the case or defending it, I would not want divers on the jury. There is simply too great a chance a diver would rely on his or her perceived knowledge rather than that of the so-called experts. That is never a good thing.
2. The general rule is never talk to the police except to ask for directions, and you should be circumspect when asking directions. There are a tremendous number of things that are illegal. You would have no clue most of those things are illegal. And you never know when someone will draw a negative inference from some innocent comment. (Recall the discussion on SB about the fellows who inadvertently and unknowingly caught a huge lobster while fishing and had their pictures in the paper? They did not know it was out of season.)
Anything you say can be used against you; nothing you say can be used to support you.
A good lawyer can make nearly anyone out to be a liar if the person has said enough, even if everything is absolutely true. Thus, Gabe cannot possibly help himself by saying or doing anything, but he can sure hurt himself.
Had Gabe kept his mouth shut from the get-go, he would be in a much better position than he is now in.
Why do you think the US Constitution gives people the right to remain silent? Why do you think that the jury is instructed that the cannot hold a person's exercise of that right against them?
3. Woe to the poor person who must rely on a public defender or court appointed counsel. While I recognize there are some exceptional public defenders and exceptions to the general rule, a defense by a public defender or appointed counsel is rarely as good as with an attorney one selects and pays oneself. Remember the movie "My Cousin Vinny"? I'm reliably told that it was based on a true case. The main difference was that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. The movie came about because defense counsel was about as experienced as Vinny. Unfortunately, he did not have the "gotchas" that Vinny had. I forget the details, but the court appointed attorney was something like a probate attorney who was being assisted by a recent law school graduate and they had an investigative budget of something like $1,000. Despite this (or something like it), the US Supreme Court rejected the argument that the defendant was deprived to the right to the assistance of counsel.
Gabe was well advised to save his money fighting extradition and to use what he has to hire experienced counsel and good forensics experts. He is also well advised to use local attorneys. They know local procedures and since they won't have to travel, it will be cheeper.
4. I want to see the prosecutor's evidence that Gabe killed Tina. I know there is evidence of motive. I know Tina is dead. I know Gabe acted peculiarly after Tina's death. I know there are inconsistencies in what Gabe has said. So, how did he make Tina dead? We know he did not shoot her. We know he did not stab her. What affirmative act did he perform? We are told he turned off her air. Where is there evidence Tina was deprived of air? And, if there is such evidence, where is there evidence Gabe made that happen?
I am still comfortable with the theory that Tina's death was an accident, that Gabe was negligent in failing to save her, and that because he was concerned about being liable for negligence, he said and did things that made him look guilty of murder. Sorry. (It is not the first time something like that happened and it will not be the last.)
K-Girl
I didn’t mean to insinuate that non-divers ought to be restricted from serving on a jury, at least not as a general rule. I only mean to say that divers on this jury might be more apt to see a “panicked diver” scenario as a viable explanation for at least some of Gabe’s erratic behavior on this day. I think that the prosecution ought to be more worried about this potentiality than the defense.
Based on this assumption on my part, I’m not quite sure I agree with your spin on how the defense will view “experts,” aka experienced divers on the jury. You are right that they may challenge the defense’s explanation of things related to why Gabe said he responded to this crisis in the way he did, but they might just as easily take the prosecution’s scenarios to task as well, which would ultimately help the defense immensely if this causes a larger presumptive doubt within the jury on the whole. I understand there are posters here who have a lot of experience with the legal underpinnings of this process. Is it true that, as a general rule, juries comprised of witnesses not expert or well versed in a particular subject area tend to lean more on the side of the prosecution than the defense, particularly in murder cases? The argument I’ve heard is that there is a kind of inherent lean toward those government employees who are out to protect the public from the harm that defendants like Gabe represent. If this axiom holds, then it would be better for the defense to try to stack the deck with jury members more versed in diving realities, so that their expert witnesses could hit home with any number of plausible explanations for why Gabe did all the wrong things. Is this a workable strategy in this case, or am I off the mark here?
Unless I’ve missed something significant in the weeks I have been away from this thread, the prosecution still doesn’t have a clear cut eyewitness saying they saw Gabe turn off her tank and kill her. Some have already pointed out that there are problems in plausibility of turning off someone’s air and then turning it on again. As I recall, there is an Aussie police video depicting how this could have been done, which will work in collaboration with the testimony of the one (?) witness who claims to have seen Gabe “bear hug” Tina in some fashion. I admit my speculation is as apt or as lacking as everyone else’s when it comes to knowing all the facts in this case.
It seems on the face of it that there are still potential holes when this theory of him murdering his wife comes up against known cases of panic underwater, where people have done some bazaar things when they have lost control of themselves. I’ve heard it said by quite a few divers that a “guilt ridden diver” will tend to remember their actions afterwards in a better light than the reality and the evidence dictate. This in part because deep down they know they have let their buddy down and caused something bad to happen and they just don't want to face it. I can think of a few examples of this kind of thing in my short time diving. I imagine the number of these types of cases would grow exponentially if others were asked about this and then paraded into court to recount each tale.
I believe the defense would want at least a few experienced diver plants in the jury mix to be able to chime in about the way it is “down there” when they huddle back in their chamber to decide Gabe’s fate. They can’t really make Gabe seem brighter than he is at this point. That is for sure. Perhaps they can use his idiocy as an advantage is explaining his weird reactions under water when it can be established that far better divers than him have made the same type of mistakes on numerous other occasions. Each of these cases could ostensibly bolster the defense’s case that Gabe failed his wife yes, but that he did not murder her.
This is bound to get more interesting in the months ahead. I reckon there just might be an upstart defense attorney looking to make a name for herself and willing to take this case on. It’s a winner for a career, no doubt about that.
Cheers!
I didn’t mean to insinuate that non-divers ought to be restricted from serving on a jury, at least not as a general rule. I only mean to say that divers on this jury might be more apt to see a “panicked diver” scenario as a viable explanation for at least some of Gabe’s erratic behavior on this day. I think that the prosecution ought to be more worried about this potentiality than the defense.
Based on this assumption on my part, I’m not quite sure I agree with your spin on how the defense will view “experts,” aka experienced divers on the jury. You are right that they may challenge the defense’s explanation of things related to why Gabe said he responded to this crisis in the way he did, but they might just as easily take the prosecution’s scenarios to task as well, which would ultimately help the defense immensely if this causes a larger presumptive doubt within the jury on the whole. I understand there are posters here who have a lot of experience with the legal underpinnings of this process. Is it true that, as a general rule, juries comprised of witnesses not expert or well versed in a particular subject area tend to lean more on the side of the prosecution than the defense, particularly in murder cases? The argument I’ve heard is that there is a kind of inherent lean toward those government employees who are out to protect the public from the harm that defendants like Gabe represent. If this axiom holds, then it would be better for the defense to try to stack the deck with jury members more versed in diving realities, so that their expert witnesses could hit home with any number of plausible explanations for why Gabe did all the wrong things. Is this a workable strategy in this case, or am I off the mark here?
Unless I’ve missed something significant in the weeks I have been away from this thread, the prosecution still doesn’t have a clear cut eyewitness saying they saw Gabe turn off her tank and kill her. Some have already pointed out that there are problems in plausibility of turning off someone’s air and then turning it on again. As I recall, there is an Aussie police video depicting how this could have been done, which will work in collaboration with the testimony of the one (?) witness who claims to have seen Gabe “bear hug” Tina in some fashion. I admit my speculation is as apt or as lacking as everyone else’s when it comes to knowing all the facts in this case.
It seems on the face of it that there are still potential holes when this theory of him murdering his wife comes up against known cases of panic underwater, where people have done some bazaar things when they have lost control of themselves. I’ve heard it said by quite a few divers that a “guilt ridden diver” will tend to remember their actions afterwards in a better light than the reality and the evidence dictate. This in part because deep down they know they have let their buddy down and caused something bad to happen and they just don't want to face it. I can think of a few examples of this kind of thing in my short time diving. I imagine the number of these types of cases would grow exponentially if others were asked about this and then paraded into court to recount each tale.
I believe the defense would want at least a few experienced diver plants in the jury mix to be able to chime in about the way it is “down there” when they huddle back in their chamber to decide Gabe’s fate. They can’t really make Gabe seem brighter than he is at this point. That is for sure. Perhaps they can use his idiocy as an advantage is explaining his weird reactions under water when it can be established that far better divers than him have made the same type of mistakes on numerous other occasions. Each of these cases could ostensibly bolster the defense’s case that Gabe failed his wife yes, but that he did not murder her.
This is bound to get more interesting in the months ahead. I reckon there just might be an upstart defense attorney looking to make a name for herself and willing to take this case on. It’s a winner for a career, no doubt about that.
Cheers!
K_girl
Contributor
OK guys - the evidence of turning off air has been discussed ad nauseum, but here we go again.
Let's see if we can agree on this one thing: in order for this to be classified as an accident, Gabe Watson had to have panicked. Now, what does a panicked diver do and is that what Gabe Watson did? Here are two primary keys:
1. A panicked diver will go to the surface as quickly as possible to get help, most especially for someone they love.
Gabe Watson's dive computer shows that he took 2 minutes and 30 seconds to get from approximately 45 feet to the surface. It took the dive instructor half that time to go all the way to the bottom and retrieve Tina to the surface. Does Gabe Watson's slow ascent qualifty for panic?
STORY: “The Hug of Death” Source: The hug of death
CONSTABLE MURDOCH: "Mr Watson's dive profile shows he took two minutes and 30 seconds to reach the surface, which is a very conservative rate of ascent, considering his rescue diver training and the level of emergency," he said. "His time based on a safe civilian rate of ascent should have been 9m a minute, which means he should have taken just one minute and 18 seconds to reach the surface to seek help. (His dive profile showed) there had been no rush to get to the surface."
2. Eye witness, Dr. Stanley Stutz, sees a male diver in a bear-hug with Tina. He can see the look on Tina's face which is panic. He thinks the male diver is rescuing her, but instead, he sees the male diver let go of Tina and let her sink.
Could the male diver have been anyone other than Gabe Watson? No one other than the dive instructor attempted to assist Tina, so I would conclude the male diver was Gabe Watson. Can the actions of the male diver be described as panic? Not by any stretch of my imagination.
Haunted memory
Did Dr. Stutz see this male diver turn the knob on the air tank? No. Did anyone take a picture of the male diver turning the air off an on Tina's tank? No. Do you need this level of proof in order to have reasonable doubt? I would say I would not need this level of proof to feel confortable to conclude that the male diver who had Tina in a bear hug and then deliberately released her and let her sink was not in a panicked state. I would take the Dr. Stutz's word that the male diver deliberately released Tina from the bear hug and let her sink as that was his statement at the time of the accident.
Therefore, I would conclude that Gabe Watson does not meet what I think most divers would do in a state of panic and that his actions were not due to panic. You don't even need Gabe Watson's statements to make this conclusion.
Let's see if we can agree on this one thing: in order for this to be classified as an accident, Gabe Watson had to have panicked. Now, what does a panicked diver do and is that what Gabe Watson did? Here are two primary keys:
1. A panicked diver will go to the surface as quickly as possible to get help, most especially for someone they love.
Gabe Watson's dive computer shows that he took 2 minutes and 30 seconds to get from approximately 45 feet to the surface. It took the dive instructor half that time to go all the way to the bottom and retrieve Tina to the surface. Does Gabe Watson's slow ascent qualifty for panic?
STORY: “The Hug of Death” Source: The hug of death
CONSTABLE MURDOCH: "Mr Watson's dive profile shows he took two minutes and 30 seconds to reach the surface, which is a very conservative rate of ascent, considering his rescue diver training and the level of emergency," he said. "His time based on a safe civilian rate of ascent should have been 9m a minute, which means he should have taken just one minute and 18 seconds to reach the surface to seek help. (His dive profile showed) there had been no rush to get to the surface."
2. Eye witness, Dr. Stanley Stutz, sees a male diver in a bear-hug with Tina. He can see the look on Tina's face which is panic. He thinks the male diver is rescuing her, but instead, he sees the male diver let go of Tina and let her sink.
Could the male diver have been anyone other than Gabe Watson? No one other than the dive instructor attempted to assist Tina, so I would conclude the male diver was Gabe Watson. Can the actions of the male diver be described as panic? Not by any stretch of my imagination.
Haunted memory
Did Dr. Stutz see this male diver turn the knob on the air tank? No. Did anyone take a picture of the male diver turning the air off an on Tina's tank? No. Do you need this level of proof in order to have reasonable doubt? I would say I would not need this level of proof to feel confortable to conclude that the male diver who had Tina in a bear hug and then deliberately released her and let her sink was not in a panicked state. I would take the Dr. Stutz's word that the male diver deliberately released Tina from the bear hug and let her sink as that was his statement at the time of the accident.
Therefore, I would conclude that Gabe Watson does not meet what I think most divers would do in a state of panic and that his actions were not due to panic. You don't even need Gabe Watson's statements to make this conclusion.
K_girl
Contributor
I resent this statement. I work in this area of law and your perceptions are long-outdated. In the early years, the courts tried to implement a 1963 decision, Gideon v. Wainwright ( Gideon v. Wainwright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), and you had incidents like you described. Remember, you describe the court appointment of an unqualified, private attorney, not a public defender - they are two different things. Because of the poor representation from the private sector of unqualified attorneys and the lack of an uneven playing field in terms of budget, the vast majority of states and all federal jurisdictions began establishing defender offices in the early 1970s under the Criminal Justice Act ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3006A.html ). I can also tell you that prosecutorial offices and defender offices, by law, have to be on an even playing field in terms of budget and most especially, compensation. Defender offices now represent the vast majority of cases. In cases where there is a conflict, each jurisdiction maintains a panel of private attorneys who are heavily vetted for qualifications and must be voted onto the panel by other members of the experienced panel. The vast majority of attorneys on the panel previously practiced as a public defender or prosecutor in order to gain trial experience in the courtroom. In order to gain the most-treasured trial experience, defender and prosecutor positions are highly sought-after and I can tell you, they have to be near the top of their class from respected schools to get those positions. So the guy you may wind-up paying out the pocket for, is the same guy you would have gotten for free several years before from a defender office, or may still get for free because they are a member of the panel. Defenders and prosecuters, as well as panel attorneys have the ability to appoint a "2nd chair," or, if the case is a large one, a team. This has all evolved because of past situations that you describe above, and to give up-and-coming attorneys valuable and supervised trial experience.
Defender offices are also responsible for providing required continuing education to the private sector so that they private attorneys maintain their practicing status. Private attorneys must maintain a certain level of continuing education in order to keep their license to practice. The vast majority of the educators are the defenders themselves. http://www.fd.org/odstb_publications.htm
What situation is for Australia - I don't know, but many countries tend to move in the same direction when it comes to juris-prudence. The fact that they have established their own defender offices says a lot.
Last edited:
OP
shakeybrainsurgeon
Contributor
If we look at the experiences of people who shelled out megabucks for high profile defenses, other than OJs first trial (his million-dollar mouthpieces couldn't weasel him out the second time):
Leona Helmsley --- guilty of tax evasion, jail time (almost unheard of for that offense)
Mike Tyson --- guilty of rape, jail time (same Harvard genius that put Leona in the slammer)
Wynonna Ryder --- guilty of theft
Martha Stewart --- lying to authorities, jailed
Phil Spector --- literally bankrupted defending himself, convicted of murder anyway
Scott Peterson --- on death row (same TV celebrity that botched Ryder's trivial case)
John Gotti --- a plethora of Armani suits couldn't keep the Teflon from peeling off the don
Coming soon to this list: the Casey Anthony case, which is drawing "pro bono" celebrity lawyers seeking TV face time and who will only succeed in sending her to the electric chair rather than facing the mountain of physical evidence and begging for some deal that let's her see the light of day before menopause hits
There have been some partial successes --- Michael Jackson avoided jail with an expensive defense but is basically broke because of paying off witnesses (his bribes, not his lawyers, likely saved him, at the cost of his fortune); Wesley Snipes dodged the biggest tax evasion charges but is hardly off the hook and will still likely be jailed and forced to pay millions; in Snipes cases, simply paying the taxes would probably have been cheaper than paying his lawyers
I am not versed in the law, but as a layman, I sincerely believe some of these defendants would have done better listening to the honest advice of a public defender rather than to their pricey attorneys who, perhaps, sought greater notoriety in trials than in cutting the best (but low profile) deals for their clients. Anybody with half a brain could see that Spector was guilty and they should have tried to plead to something lower. Likewise, anybody other than a Harvard professor could have made some arrangement for Helmsley other than jail time. Finally, a public defender would have leveled with Peterson and convinced him to make a deal that kept him off death row. Unfortunately, reputations are made hitting "home runs" (acquittals in the face of overwhelming guilt), not in being a good lawyer.
My point? It isn't as simple as public defender = bad, 500 bucks a hour Ivy league private counsel = good
To the lawyers on the board: am I far off base???
Leona Helmsley --- guilty of tax evasion, jail time (almost unheard of for that offense)
Mike Tyson --- guilty of rape, jail time (same Harvard genius that put Leona in the slammer)
Wynonna Ryder --- guilty of theft
Martha Stewart --- lying to authorities, jailed
Phil Spector --- literally bankrupted defending himself, convicted of murder anyway
Scott Peterson --- on death row (same TV celebrity that botched Ryder's trivial case)
John Gotti --- a plethora of Armani suits couldn't keep the Teflon from peeling off the don
Coming soon to this list: the Casey Anthony case, which is drawing "pro bono" celebrity lawyers seeking TV face time and who will only succeed in sending her to the electric chair rather than facing the mountain of physical evidence and begging for some deal that let's her see the light of day before menopause hits
There have been some partial successes --- Michael Jackson avoided jail with an expensive defense but is basically broke because of paying off witnesses (his bribes, not his lawyers, likely saved him, at the cost of his fortune); Wesley Snipes dodged the biggest tax evasion charges but is hardly off the hook and will still likely be jailed and forced to pay millions; in Snipes cases, simply paying the taxes would probably have been cheaper than paying his lawyers
I am not versed in the law, but as a layman, I sincerely believe some of these defendants would have done better listening to the honest advice of a public defender rather than to their pricey attorneys who, perhaps, sought greater notoriety in trials than in cutting the best (but low profile) deals for their clients. Anybody with half a brain could see that Spector was guilty and they should have tried to plead to something lower. Likewise, anybody other than a Harvard professor could have made some arrangement for Helmsley other than jail time. Finally, a public defender would have leveled with Peterson and convinced him to make a deal that kept him off death row. Unfortunately, reputations are made hitting "home runs" (acquittals in the face of overwhelming guilt), not in being a good lawyer.
My point? It isn't as simple as public defender = bad, 500 bucks a hour Ivy league private counsel = good
To the lawyers on the board: am I far off base???
ItsBruce
Contributor
K-Girl:
1. I respectfully disagree about panic. The only thing that is certain about a panicked diver, in my opinion, is that he or she will be unpredictable.
2. I also respectfully disagree that Tina's death could only be an accident if Gabe was panicked. I've seen many people make good faith blunders without being panicked.
3. Do I need a photo of Gabe turning off Tina's air to conclude he did so. No. I need someone credible (i.e. in a position to see, etc.) to say he or she saw Gabe do so. Or, I need the air to have been found in the off position. Or a medical expert to say that the cause of death was asphyxiation. Or any of a number of other things.
4. I may have overstated my position on public defenders. However, based on my experience in the legal field, I would prefer privately retained counsel.
1. I respectfully disagree about panic. The only thing that is certain about a panicked diver, in my opinion, is that he or she will be unpredictable.
2. I also respectfully disagree that Tina's death could only be an accident if Gabe was panicked. I've seen many people make good faith blunders without being panicked.
3. Do I need a photo of Gabe turning off Tina's air to conclude he did so. No. I need someone credible (i.e. in a position to see, etc.) to say he or she saw Gabe do so. Or, I need the air to have been found in the off position. Or a medical expert to say that the cause of death was asphyxiation. Or any of a number of other things.
4. I may have overstated my position on public defenders. However, based on my experience in the legal field, I would prefer privately retained counsel.
- Status
Similar threads
