Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

When I said: "If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, the case is pretty much over," I was referring to the murder case. Maybe the prosecutor could still get a negligent homicide conviction. However, if the prosecutor includes that as a possible outcome, and gives the jury a choice of something other than "guilty of murder" and "not guilty of murder," it is less likely the jury will go with "guilty of murder." It is a basic dilemma of whether to charge lesser included offenses.

As far as the Australian prosecutor's arguments, all they are is arguments. They are not evidence. They are not binding. They are not the law. What a prosecutor said in Australia is no more significant than what one says here.

As far as Watson pleading guilty to the charge in Australia, it hurts my head to even think about the ramifications. Recall that he was not found guilty after a contested trial. Rather, it was a plea deal.

Ordinarily, offers of compromises or of plea deals are not admissible against a party. It is a matter of public policy. Simply put, the system wants to encourage settlements and plea deals because otherwise, the system would be so bogged down that it would grind to a halt. So, to encourage settlements and plea deals, they are not admissible. Of course, a plea deal in a criminal case generally does not pose a problem because of the double jeopardy rules. Thus, ordinarily, there is nowhere the plea deal would be admissible. Here, however, double jeopardy does not bar a second trial, so there can be a trial on the same charge and admissibility does become an issue.

I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that a judge will not even let he plea deal in Australia come into evidence. The danger to the system of discouraging plea deals is just too great.

Going one step further, recall the number of divers who were unhappy with the notion that a diver could be sentenced for negligent homicide when his buddy dies on a dive because he did not do the right things to save the buddy? I would think that a judge would have the same kinds of problems. In fact, when I read the Australian ruling, I got the sense that the judge had a real problem with the plea, but was not willing to nix the deal if both the prosecutor and Watson were happy with it.

I could see an American judge having problems with the plea deal and, combining that with public policy issues of favoring plea deals, ruling that the whole thing is inadmissible. I would not be a bit surprised.

Yes, I think the plea deal and any elements of it would present quite a problem in the case. On one hand, you have the Australian court who has accepted Watson's version as the facts, the Alabama prosecutor is going to say his version of the facts is not what happened. So, you would have to question whether or not the Alabama prosecutor can selectively pick and choose what they want to use out of the plea deal, if they were allowed to use it. Could be a catch-22 and I don't know if there is much precedence out there for this. It does appear that Watson pled to negligent homicide, so that much can be gleaned from the Australian case.

I have another question about this though. Even though they could bar any sentencing remarks out of the case in Australia, would it be possible for the defense to bar the jury from having any knowledge about the existence of the negligent homicide plea deal? Just the fact that he pled to this could raise some eyebrows for a jury.

It may be wise of the prosecution to offer the jury something like negligent homicide. However, I think if the prosecutor does have evidence that Watson came into Tina's place of work to change her insurance behind her back (that claim was made, but we have no details and I'm not conviced that they actually have that evidence yet) - I think that intent could be a reasonable belief where "negligent homicide" becomes intentional. We just have to see.

 

[K_girl]

Then, the question is: Had Watson done a perfect rescue, would it have been enough to save Tina?

I'm no medical expert, but my guess is that no medical expert would truthfully testify that to a reasonable scientific certainty (the applicable legal standard), prompt intervention would have saved Tina.

If whatever caused Tina's death would have caused her death regardless of whether Watson tried to save her or not, then his failure to do so, while certainly not a nobel thing, will not support a negligent homicide charge.

Medical examiner said that Tina suffered a larymgospasm. This is a small amount of water that gets onto the vocal cords and shuts down the airway. For a time, water will not enter the lungs. According to Wikipedia, a victim who suffers this while underwater needs to be brought to the surface and receive emergency breathing treatment within a few minutes to prevent drowning. If this information holds up, it should follow that if Watson had brought her to the surface instead of leaving her, she could have survived.

 

[ItsBruce]

Medical examiner said that Tina suffered a larymgospasm. This is a small amount of water that gets onto the vocal cords and shuts down the airway. For a time, water will not enter the lungs. According to Wikipedia, a victim who suffers this while underwater needs to be brought to the surface and receive emergency breathing treatment within a few minutes to prevent drowning. If this information holds up, it should follow that if Watson had brought her to the surface instead of leaving her, she could have survived.

You are right that she might have survived. However, that is insufficient to convict (assuming the prosecutor can't prove Watson turned off the air or took her reg). In fact, I'm not sure a medical expert could even offer an opinion to the effect that she might have survived. An expert opinion must be based on more than just "might."

 

[ItsBruce]

Yes, I think the plea deal and any elements of it would present quite a problem in the case. On one hand, you have the Australian court who has accepted Watson's version as the facts, the Alabama prosecutor is going to say his version of the facts is not what happened. So, you would have to question whether or not the Alabama prosecutor can selectively pick and choose what they want to use out of the plea deal, if they were allowed to use it. Could be a catch-22 and I don't know if there is much precedence out there for this. It does appear that Watson pled to negligent homicide, so that much can be gleaned from the Australian case.

I have another question about this though. Even though they could bar any sentencing remarks out of the case in Australia, would it be possible for the defense to bar the jury from having any knowledge about the existence of the negligent homicide plea deal? Just the fact that he pled to this could raise some eyebrows for a jury.

It may be wise of the prosecution to offer the jury something like negligent homicide. However, I think if the prosecutor does have evidence that Watson came into Tina's place of work to change her insurance behind her back (that claim was made, but we have no details and I'm not conviced that they actually have that evidence yet) - I think that intent could be a reasonable belief where "negligent homicide" becomes intentional. We just have to see.

I have not researched specific Alabama law. However, in California, it is unlikely that a jury would be allowed to know anything about the proceedings in Australia.

California Evidence Code section 1153, states: “Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer to plead guilty to the crime charged or to any other crime, made by the defendant in a criminal action is inadmissible in any action or in any proceeding of any nature, including proceedings before agencies, commissions, boards, and tribunals.” And, under California Penal Code, § 1192.4, a plea of guilty that is not approved by the court “may not be received in evidence in any criminal, civil, or special action or proceeding of any nature." The California Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of Evidence Code section 1153 is “to promote the public interest by encouraging the settlement of criminal cases without the necessity of a trial.”

I doubt that Alabama law is significantly different.

Here is the problem with a court allowing the jury to even know about the Australian case: If the prosecutor gets to pick and choose what he wants to use from it, the defense gets to do so, too, Of course, if the prosecutor is picky enough or choosy enough, the defense will be able to attack him for not telling the jury the whole story of the Australian case. As if that is not enough, there will be a "trial within a trial" just on the issue of why Watson pled guilty to the negligent homicide charge and why the Australian prosecutor did not try him for murder. I think that the sentencing judge's remarks would have to come in to explain why he accepted the plea and the validity of those would have to be examined. The whole thing would become unwieldily.

I just cannot imagine a judge allowing such a circus.

Instead, I would expect a judge to be of the mind: "If you've got direct evidence, then put it on and don't rely on an inference from a plea bargain."

A further thought on the Alabama prosecutor including a negligent homicide, or equivalent, charge: Alabama's claim to jurisdiction is based on the assertion that Watson formed the intent to kill Tina while in Alabama. However, a conviction for negligent homicide means the jury found that there was no intent and therefore that Watson did not form any intent while in Alabama. And, if that happens, then Alabama's claim to jurisdiction goes by the wayside. (I do not know if that would then form a basis for dismissing all charges, but due process might require them to be.)

 

[Ayisha]

Medical examiner said that Tina suffered a larymgospasm.

I think that the pathologist said that it is possible that Tina had a laryngospasm, but the pathologist and coroner discounted it as a cause of death. The coroner discounted accidental drowning in general.

Cause of Tina’s death

42. As I have recorded today, the pathologist listed the cause of death as Drowning. I accept his assessment.

43. Mr Zillman submits there are four possible explanations which may support a finding of accidental drowning they are;
• An arrhythmia,
• Obstruction caused by vomiting,
• Laryngospasm; and
• Anxiety and panic.

44. These explanations are set out in detail on pages 7 to 17 of Exhibit 33 and it is submitted that Dr Griffith’s evidence does not exclude (or leaves open) any one as a possible explanation for accidental drowning.

45. I understand Dr Griffith’s evidence to be that he:
a. Excludes Tina’s pre-existing heart condition as a possible cause,
b. Views vomiting was unlikely as a preliminary event,
c. Accepts unconsciousness was possible following a Laryngospasm, but discounted this as the cause of death, and
d. Whilst accepting anxiety and panic could have been a factor in a death by drowning, did not accept the postulation of such being the cause of Tina’s death.

46. It was submitted that none of the four explanations can ever be capable of detection in an autopsy examination. I understand that to be true in a case such as Tina’s as there was delay in the examination caused by the necessity of transporting her body from the site of her death to the city of Townsville. I understand the medical evidence to be that detection is possible in some instances, but much depends on the nature and extent of attempts at resuscitation and any delay in an examination.

47. I am satisfied that the four possible explanations have been excluded by the evidence we have heard and I am unable to conclude that Tina’s death was an accidental drowning as a result of one or more of those four explanations.

48. I am also satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood of any medication taken by the deceased prior to her commencing her dive on the “Yongala”, causing or contributing to her drowning.

 

[jcmeuret]

Hi...actually the government can. It depends on the interpretation of the law between countries, but he plead guilty to Man Slaughter (the same as if someone killed another by accident through negligence) not to murder, which is the desire or intent to take another's life. They are different crimes.

 

[Dave Earl]

I am rather embarrassed to admit that on my 114th dive (Boat dive to 72ft [22M])I was separated from my buddy. We were diving in a larger group of 6 with assigned buddies. I did a safety stop with 3 of the group while my buddy surfaced when he realized I was separated. They knew from the group of 3 sets of bubbles where I was but if my buddy had needed me and been separated from the other two I would never be able to forgive myself! It was only after this incident that I really understood the difference between Safety Stop and Deco Stop.. that I didn't HAVE to do a Safety Stop. I know people who are adamant that even on shore dives where you are following the contours you still should always do a "safety stop" or level out at 5M for 5 minutes! While I think Safety stops should be done where ever possible I also think they may be emphasized too much. Dive instructors, DM's and boat crew often advise that you are required by their policy to do a Safety Stop. That creates some confusion and conflicting information this could be a reasonable explanation as to what was influencing Gabe's decision making

I just got back from a liveaboard where the crew insisted that, in the case of buddy seperation, we were to look for our buddy for one minute, then complete our 5 min safety stops before making a controlled ascent to the surface. God help any missing buddy in serious trouble who has to wait over 6 minutes before the alarm is raised. Slightly off-topic, I know, but true story.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I just got back from a liveaboard where the crew insisted that, in the case of buddy seperation, we were to look for our buddy for one minute, then complete our 5 min safety stops before making a controlled ascent to the surface. God help any missing buddy in serious trouble who has to wait over 6 minutes before the alarm is raised. Slightly off-topic, I know, but true story.

No wonder so many new divers are confused about this issue when Dive staff seem to be as well. A deco stop is one thing but a safety stop Did they at least provide SMB's with loops to attach a slate with a message to alert the boat crew of the problem so they could initiate a search and rescue attempt or call for help immediately? Sorry for the hijack but this is a worth while. This would be worth search to see if there is a thread on or or consider starting one!

Has there been any more news on this Case in the US?

 

[ItsBruce]

I will follow the hijack, but just briefly. If I lose a buddy, I will skip the safety stop, regardless of what the boat crew says. I was taught to dive my own dive and to avoid "trust me" dives. Doing a safety stop because the crew wants me to, especially if my buddy may be in trouble, is doing a "trust me." ... I'll deal with the boat crew later.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I will follow the hijack, but just briefly. If I lose a buddy, I will skip the safety stop, regardless of what the boat crew says. I was taught to dive my own dive and to avoid "trust me" dives. Doing a safety stop because the crew wants me to, especially if my buddy may be in trouble, is doing a "trust me." ... I'll deal with the boat crew later.

I know it is still a bit of a hijack but a bit closer as a legal angle. What do you think would be the legal position in a case like this? If the diver followed the Operators requirement and a diver was lost? Do you think the Dive Operator AND the diver would be in a position to be held liable for not following industry standards. It seems to me that this would come close to what Gabe did in basically abandoning Tina and thus reducing her chance of rescue.