Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Remember I said that Gerregos said on Larry King last night that Watson could be tried in the U.S. because double-jeopardy does not apply. Here is what Tina's father is saying now:

‘This is not justice’
“We were convinced and are today that Gabe Watson murdered Tina,” Tommy Thomas, the dead woman’s father, told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Friday from Brisbane. Earlier, he had told NBC News, “This is not justice and this is not over.”

So in the quote below, lists one of reasons for not going to trial. And yet they did not talk to the family ahead of time to find out whether or not they wanted to be spared the trial. This family fought for six years to have a trial. Oh horrible if this is true and it does make me question the prosecution's judgment as to any other reasons for offering this plea.

Local prosecutors said that one reason they accepted the plea deal with Watson was to save Tina’s family from the hardship of going through a trial.

Source: Outrage over sentence in honeymoon drowning - TODAY People

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Tina is dead, and regardless of what happens it won't bring her back.

Her husband of a few weeks was literally within arms reach of her, according to a witness. She died and he returned to the surface.

It may not prove anything in a court of law, but the testimony quoted in the media is certainly sufficient to suggest that her husband was responsible to some degree for her death. His behavior afterwards was equally bizarre, and occurred in front of a number of random observers.

Feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt - it's the stand-up thing - but he would not have pleaded guilty if the state had nothing on him at all.

So, we're debating the degree to which he's guilty - not whether he's guilty.

 

[InTheDrink]

Tina is dead, and regardless of what happens it won't bring her back.

Her husband of a few weeks was literally within arms reach of her, according to a witness. She died and he returned to the surface.

It may not prove anything in a court of law, but the testimony quoted in the media is certainly sufficient to suggest that her husband was responsible to some degree for her death. His behavior afterwards was equally bizarre, and occurred in front of a number of random observers.

Feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt - it's the stand-up thing - but he would not have pleaded guilty if the state had nothing on him at all.

So, we're debating the degree to which he's guilty - not whether he's guilty.

I don't think I could agree with the last statement. People may admit to something they haven't done for a million reasons. Particularly when it gets serious. It's one of the reasons that torture is generally bad value for money. Put enough pressure on most people and they'll tell you anything.

I do think the outcome is a farce however. Punishment for incompetence at a non-professional c-card level is news to me. And a year's sentence for murdering your wife seems short to me by about 24 years.

I'm not surprised Tina's parents are in bits and whilst I'm no fan AT ALL of the U.S. justice system and in particular the death penalty (no matter what the crime) I do think this hasn't reflected all that well on the Oz system. It seems kinda dark that they may well have consulted the de facto defendant (Gabe) but not the prosecution (Tina's family). This whole thing increasingly seems like a nightmarish circus.

As for the plea bargain (irrespective of what they call it). Is 1 year really any kind of bargain for the prosecution? If they'd asked for a sentence that would have meant 7 years in jail then maybe, but one year? I mean come on. That sounds like a nice rest to me. The prosecution wouldn't do very well in sales. Or procurement.

 

[mndvr132]

Bowl of©¼/B]



You know you may be onto something here, but then you may have it all wrong as well.


I see I tend not to check the posting times before trying to sound clever, so IÃÍl chalk that one up to my childish need for attention. IÃÎ sure others have already done that anyway. And I can empathize with your disposition in this regard entirely. I suffer the same affliction, as my namesake suggests.

On the recent trend regarding the outcome of this case and possible future litigation:

I am a bit blown away by the suggestion that the US and Australia are covertly in cahoots in this outcome, or that the Australian prosecutors (noting somehow that they were wholly incompetent juxtaposed to the learned professionals of the legal apparatus in the USA) would bend over prostrate and hand out a flimsy manslaughter charge in the hopes that the mighty US judicial system would come riding along later on and charge Gabe with murder when he gets home. I have to admit that I donÃÕ know if this is possible or not given the spirit of what double jeopardy is supposed to imply, though I sincerely hope this is not the case and that this is merely another example of the Larry King show peddling its usual portion of tripe.

IÃÎ also troubled by the implications of this suggestion as well. Does this essentially mean that one is more likely to be convicted of murder (or other crimes) in the US on patchy circumstantial evidence than one is in Australia or elsewhere?

Though some of you might find this potentiality appealing given the desire stated on this board to see Gabe realize some ÅÐther form of justice, IÃÎ personally saddened at the implication that 1) double jeopardy could so easily be thwarted in this day and age in the US and 2) that vendettas are presumably more easily realized in the US than they are in other democratic countries.

If those suggesting this crafty scheme to get Gabe to take a lesser sentence on the likelihood that he will be convicted in the USA are right, then I say my compatriots and I have a whole lot to be concerned about in the larger scheme of things.

Anyone well versed in US criminal law in this case, please clarify if this is true or not.

Cheers!

I've been a police officer for almost twenty years. Unless they come up with some twist you can only be charged with a crime in the jurisdiction the crime was committed in.

 

[Cacia]

double jeopardy?

he could face a civil suit like OJ

 

[livinoz]

Actually, that process is plea bargaining, even if Australia doesn't use that term, and it isn't much, if any, different from the process in the US. In the Watson case, one supposes that the prosecution looked at the "facts", found them sufficiently confused and uncertain to insure a guilty verdict of murder at a trial, and decided that "half a loaf is better than none". That's okay.

For me, the only issue is the prosecutor's careless and unnecessary reasoning for accepting the plea bargained lesser charge.

No, actually it's not the same at all. Plea bargaining as used in the US is quite a different process, and one where the prosecutor has a great deal of power. It is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority of criminal cases there are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial, and plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court.

In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Australia, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations; in fact, they are responsible for the approval of the final plea. The judge also simultaneously decides upon a fit sanction. In Australia under the adversarial system, justices will not be permitted to take any role in the in the plea negotiation. This is because of the doctrine of separation powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary which means that there should be no misuse or concentration of power, to avoid the abuse of that power. This contrasts to the USA system in regard to plea bargains.

 

[K_girl]

The following source states:

The fifth amendment refers to being put in “jeopardy of life or limb.” The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding “every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor.” The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered “separate sovereigns”. Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.

Source: Double Jeopardy | The Fifth Amendment

It goes on to say that double jeopardy does apply once a defendant has been acquitted. It also says that defendants cannot be retried once convicted except under special circumstances as a judge may see fit and proper.

Mark Gerregos said he has seen cases where the U.S. Government has tried Americans for crimes they committed in foreign countries, when they had already been tried in foreign countries because double jeopardy does not apply. His interview will be played on Larry King throughout the weekend - so watch for it.

I'm sure it is probably a rare occurrence that most law enforcement in this country has not seen happen, and probably never will.

 

[Dadvocate]

I've been a police officer for almost twenty years. Unless they come up with some twist you can only be charged with a crime in the jurisdiction the crime was committed in.

That’s the assumption I’m operating under as well. I don’t know of the veracity of this, only that K-Girl cited it as being a potential option to US authorities somewhere down the line, at least as far as what was said on Larry King. It is an interesting dilemma if true.

What “twists” could be applied to have him tried again, that is what I am wondering? The authorities in QLD accepted this outcome for whatever reasons they had. Gabe accepted for his. That should be as airtight as it would be in the States, regardless of how much anyone disdains this decision. Is the “twist” really as simple as saying they were both US citizens, or that the victim is a US citizen? I can’t imagine this is true, though I wouldn’t be surprised if a contingency like this exists. It is a scary proposition in my opinion if true.

If the US has extradition relations with Australia, that in part implies that our respective judicial systems meet mutual criteria in both countries. We wouldn’t send one of our citizens there if we felt he or she were going to be sent to a kangaroo court of some kind.
On the flip side then, doesn’t that imply that the decisions of the courts in these jurisdictions stands for both countries, just as you state? I understand that this decision stinks for a lot of people, but how far are we willing to go to find justice and what are the implications if we do go that road?

Let’s take David Hicks as a test case. He was the first convicted felon held at Guantanamo. He was returned to his homeland in Australia and held there under imposed restrictions on his freedom (agreed to by both Australia and the US). Australia is also looking at the possibility of taking on some of the prisoners to be released later on after the Obama administration closes down Gitmo. Dealings on these inmates will no doubt be exhaustive relying on good relations to see things through.

If we start playing around with whose convictions are good and whose are not, this could affect other issues that would otherwise not be related. I am not saying this is a definite outcome, just that it is important to maintain certain agreements on concepts like double jeopardy in his day and age if not others.

I guess what I am asking is do the ends justify the means for the likes of a person like Gabe Watson? Are we even sure that the outcome of a second trial would be any different than this one is? If so, what does this assurance say about our system of justice compared to other places if we can circumvent what are otherwise foundational concepts in our own jurisprudence?

Cheers!

 

[livinoz]

The following source states:

The fifth amendment refers to being put in ÅËeopardy of life or limb. The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding ÅÆvery indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor. The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered ÅÔeparate sovereigns? Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.

Source: Double Jeopardy | The Fifth Amendment

It goes on to say that double jeopardy does apply once a defendant has been acquitted. It also says that defendants cannot be retried once convicted except under special circumstances as a judge may see fit and proper.

Mark Gerregos said he has seen cases where the U.S. Government has tried Americans for crimes they committed in foreign countries, when they had already been tried in foreign countries because double jeopardy does not apply. His interview will be played on Larry King throughout the weekend - so watch for it.

I'm sure it is probably a rare occurrence that most law enforcement in this country has not seen happen, and probably never will.

As Australia and the US have an extradition treaty and many other historical ties, I would be surprised if the US Government would "jeopardize" that and allow Watson to be "re-tried" in a criminal suit after serving his sentence in Australia, no matter how inadequate others deem that sentence to be.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Has anyone got a copy of the sentencing remarks? I am always loathe to comment on legal things based on media reports, as my experience as a lawyer suggests that they rarely get all the nuances correct. Based on what has been reported, however, I struggle as an Australian lawyer to see how the elements of manslaughter could have been satisfied, and therefore struggle to understand how the Court accepted the guilty plea. The plea of guilty, by the way, will be relevant to the head sentence imposed, but doesn't explain why the bulk of that sentence is to be suspended.
I see that the Alabama A-G is writing to the Queensland Supreme Court and to the Government asking them to appeal, and offering to appear on the appeal, and has already indicated a desire to pursue criminal charges in the US (acknowledging the double jeopardy difficulty).