Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[2 Big 2 Fail]

As far as traffic stops, if I answer the "do you know why I pulled you over" question with "because I was speeding," that is an admission. It is admissible against me in a traffic trial. All of my protestations to the contrary will do me no good. Neither will an officer's inability to establish the radar unit was working properly or was aimed at the right car. However, without the confession, if the officer does not prove speeding, the case is over.

In reality, the only evidence that "works" in a speeding case is the speed measuring device, shown to be reliable, and proving up the speed limit.* You could not, for instance, pull up to an officer beside the road and say, "I was speeding back there. Write me up." and expect to be cited. (Okay. If he had a sense of humor, he might send you off with a ticket, but more likely you'd be detained for a bit, but not for speeding.) If the state can't make its fundamental case on it's own, your admission won't matter. Of course, if you happened to encounter an amazingly inept officer who couldn't establish his radar evidence, you lucked out, and again, your admission won't matter. But that's terribly rare. (Or shouldn't matter. Not all lowest level courts are very rigorous about the law, but if you find yourself in one of those, nothing about the radar or anything else will matter much.)

But speeding citations and the somewhat casual arguments in traffic court don't have much to do with the sort of case at hand.


* I also spent some years as a judge in such a court. I did find one guy not guilty of speeding in a bench trial, because it was one of those school zones where it's posted, "Speed Limit XX When Light Flashing." The officer just neglected to confirm that the light was flashing when he set up there and when he left. No big deal - he just couldn't prove up the essential element.

 

[ItsBruce]

I know, perhaps better than most, that the decision to explain one's innocence should not be made lightly and that there are circumstances and jurisdictions where I would wait it out in jail and depend on the pretrial system, but the statement that it's always best to say nothing is simply incorrect.

I'll go with that. I should not have said "always."

 

[STwill]

From what I have read on here, there is no way if I was a juror that I could find this man guilty without more compelling evidence. Looks more likely that he was just incompetent from lack of experience combined with a very stressful situation. Some people react different under stress. Plus I don't trust human recollection of events, have 3 people watch the same thing and get 3 different versions of what happened.

I took a CPR class a few years back after my son was born. How would I react today presented with a situation that needed it? Hope I never have to find out, but I have never had to deal with someone heading towards death in front of my eyes where I could possibly change that course. This made me think about how I need to freshen up and renew that class. Now I worry if I become a Rescue Diver in the future would I have to plead guilty to manslaughter if someone dies because I can't do what should be done when it needs to happen? I tend to stay very calm when others are freaking out, but you never know until you are in the situation.

1. No one has ever talked themselves out of trouble. Many have talked themselves into it.
2. Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you. Nothing you say will or even can be used FOR you.
3. If you say anything, you can be misquoted, at which point, you may need to take the witness stand to deny having said it. Then, once you take the witness stand, all's fair. If you say nothing, you can't be misquoted. (BTW: If you take the witness stand to deny having said it, you won't be believed anyway.)
4. If you say anything that turns out to be wrong, you can be held for obstruction of justice even if you are cleared of the primary charge.

Well said ItsBruce!

I believe that under such situations you should only talk to a lawyer. I think that it's a natural instinct to try and 'set things right' and that is why people talk. Though they end up talking to the people that don't have their best interest in mind, instead of their lawyer.

 

[ItsBruce]

I just read on another threat that the Judge has postponed the trial. Interesting. Very interesting. There is a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Budget cuts or no budget cuts, a defendant has a right to a speedy trial. I've seek criminal cases dismissed when they were not brought to trial within the alloted time. Thus, either Watson may be being handed a "get out of jail free" card or his lawyers consented to the postponement.

I'm pretty sure I would not have consented.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Bruce does the time frame start from the time charges are laid or from the time of the event or some other time? There certainly has been a lot of time lapse between the event, investigation etc

 

[mike_s]

I just read on another threat that the Judge has postponed the trial. Interesting. Very interesting. There is a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Budget cuts or no budget cuts, a defendant has a right to a speedy trial. I've seek criminal cases dismissed when they were not brought to trial within the alloted time. Thus, either Watson may be being handed a "get out of jail free" card or his lawyers consented to the postponement.

I'm pretty sure I would not have consented.

The trial was delayed due to budget cuts ordered on state funded courts. The state has done a pretty much across the board 15% cut in state budget. Many of the courts are either having layoffs or going to a 4 day work week. It's affecting every court related issue.


There is a hearing April 28th where they will ask the charges be dropped.

 

[SoccerJeni]

The trial was delayed due to budget cuts ordered on state funded courts. The state has done a pretty much across the board 15% cut in state budget. Many of the courts are either having layoffs or going to a 4 day work week. It's affecting every court related issue.


There is a hearing April 28th where they will ask the charges be dropped.

Who is asking for charges to be dropped? The State?

 

[mike_s]

Who is asking for charges to be dropped? The State?

the defense.

the state prosecutor has a real hard on for prosecuting this case....

 

[SoccerJeni]

the defense.

the state prosecutor has a real hard on for prosecuting this case....

Ok, that's what I thought too (prosecutors gunning for Watson). I wasn't sure if you meant the budget cuts would cause them to drop it.

But of course the defense will request the charges be dropped...

 

[Ayisha]

Didn't the prosecutor change to someone who's not very interested in the Watson case? There seemed to be some sort of political change that made it less likely that Watson would ever have a trial in the U.S., even before the budget cuts.