Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Under-Exposed]

Thanks, Under-Exposed

Please correct me if I am wrong here. These extraterritorial laws are usually tied to broader issues like terrorism, pedophilia, drug or human trafficking, and the like, are they not?

Speaking for Australia, that is generally true, and the general criminal laws require some element of the offence to have occurred in the relevant state jurisdiction, or to have threatened the peace welfare or good government of the jurisdiction (some rather quaint wording from the colonial office).

Now, although we are getting a little off topic, in the sense that the important issue is probably the basis upon which the conviction was founded, nonetheless there is a specific Federal Offence in the US where a US national kills another US national outside of the US: 18 USC 1119. However, it requires the consent of the Attorney General, and that approval cannot be given where the offender has already been prosecuted for the same conduct in the foreign country. Note of course that this is a federal offence...I don't know what Alabama state law says.

 

[ItsBruce]

no, it should make you wary of interferring with your dive buddys equipment, telling numerous different statements to the police and carrying on like a pork chop afterwards towards the victims family

I know I said I would not comment, but I can't resist.

1. Interfering with equipment: If there is credible evidence of that, I firmly believe it is murder. Not only murder but with what we call an enhancement for "lying in wait."

2. Telling numerous different stories: I've said it before, I'll say it again. Don't talk to the police, except to ask directions if you are lost and there is no one else to ask. If there is an incident, don't talk to anyone.

3. Carrying on ...: Is that why everyone is so against him? For the way he carried on, someone should kick the stuffing out of him, but that is not a basis for convicting himl.

4. Is it possible that the prosecutor recognizes there was no actual evidence Watson turned off his wife's air? That the police think something happened is not credible evidence. Sorry. No one saw him turn the air off. No one saw him turn the air on. The air was on when Tina was found. He never said he turned the air off. He never said he turned the air on.

I am sorry to be ghoulish, but, consider this: How many divers die in diving accidents in the course of a year. In some the mechanism is clear: fast ascent and embolism, etc. For where the mechanism is unclear, does that mean someone must have turned their air off?

Don't divers die from things other than having their air turned off?

Maybe the prosecutor recognized he could not prove murder.

 

[Dadvocate]

Under-Exposed

Can Gabe be tried in a court other than a US federal court under these circumstances? I doubt Australia would recognize Alabama's sovereignty in a case where some level of US “extraterritorial” jurisdiction is being asserted to get around a double jeopardy limitation.

However, it requires the consent of the Attorney General, and that approval cannot be given where the offender has already been prosecuted for the same conduct in the foreign country.

Just to be sure I am clear, the US Attorney General would have tied hands under these circumstances? If I understand you correctly, it seems then that the best the US attorneys can hope for is to convince the Australian authorities to come down a bit harder on Gabe than they have, if indeed that can be done. Overturning the conviction and setting him free is hardly a realistic outcome at this stage I would imagine. Is that a fair assumption in your view?

Once Gabe serves time for this manslaughter charge, he is not in danger of being tried again under US law unless a significant change in the status quo is argued for and granted by both the US lawyers and the authorities in QLD-Australia. Is that right?

It seems that Mr. Watson may well have gotten some very good advice from his council in leading up to this arrangement. Indeed, this could get very, very interesting before it plays itself out. There are a lot of competing interests going into this case, and I imagine that no one is going to give up easily.

Thanks again for your insights. They are very refreshing indeed.

Cheers!

 

[stevejaz]

Personally, it would seem he is guilty.

Being a certified rescue diver and not doing everything in his power to bring his wife to the surface?

If he's not guilty, then I'd say his plead is the same lack of action that led to this tragedy in the first place.

 

[ItsBruce]

I believe that in any country that applies case law (eg. The US and the UK), this case would be of persuasive precedence and possibily affect the outcome of any case sufficiently similar. However, in Australia the precedence would be binding and the outcome of a sufficiently similar case would be certain

Again, I can't resist commenting.

Unless Australia is at great odds with the rest of the world that uses the British Common Law, not only would it not be binding in Australia, it would not even be persuasive. All we have is a prosecutor's explanation. There is no decision by the Court. Even if it was incorporated into a decision by the Court, it is a trial court, not an appellate court. Trial court decisions bind only the parties to the particular case in the particular case.

BTW: I hate to again disagree with K-Girl, but, guilty or not Watson belongs in jail ... if for no other reason than criminal stupidity in handling the matter the way he did after Tina's death.

 

[ItsBruce]

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.

This may be a bit beyond my pay grade, but I suspect that he could be retried in the US if he were acquitted in Australia. If he is convicted and serves time, I cannot imagine he could be tried again and sentenced to more time. But, I am no expert on this.

 

[Dive California]

Wow! This story is so sad.

1st of all anybody that pleds guilty to Manslaughter...was guilty of the murder...just saw an easier way out.

Questions now, how many people will take their spouses to Australia for a quick dive...only to have an accident...pled guilty to manslaughter...come back after a year in jail. I know lots of people that would do a year to get rid of their spouse....lets see one year in jail...or an eternity in hell....hmmmm May see lots of trips booked by couples in California, watch out spouses when your loved one says "hey lets go on vacation to Australia."

 

[ItsBruce]

I know there is no benefit to me saying this, but ...

I keep seeing comments about "justice for Tina's family." Is it really justice they want or do they just want a target for their their grief?

From what I've seen on SB as "evidence," it would appear there was animosity between Watson and Tina's family even before they were married. Then you have Tina dying under what are clearly suspicious circumstances. Could these factors have caused the family to target Watson for lack of any other target?

It is, IMHO, human nature to want to blame someone or something when something goes wrong. So, I ask, is it really "justice" or just a scapegoat?

 

[boulderjohn]

This is a very good point. If you can argue that you felt a diver in duress exhibited behavior that you deemed made a rescue unsafe, thus under PADI stipulations not a good rescue situation to engage in, can it now be said that others after the fact can second guess that decision and hold you liable?

I wouldnÃÕ like that all too much if that ended up being the case.

Cheers!

In my reading of all the news articles in this thread and admittedly nothing more since the original discussions, I really don't see this as setting any real precedent for actual rescue operations, even when the potential rescuer decides not to rescue because of the danger involved. If you look at all the quotes together, including the ones where he was observed to have her in a bear hug and then released her to fall to the bottom while he swam to the top, I think it is pretty clear that the manslaughter charged was not based only on the fact that he failed to perform a rescue.

The plea agreement was based on what they thought they could or could not feel safe about proving to a jury (from their point of view) and what the defendant felt was a reasonable risk. With all the facts considered, including the fact that he left the bear hug (in which case inflating the BCD would have been a simple matter requiring almost no skill) and made no attempt to save her, they felt they were safe with a manslaughter charge, and apparently Watson felt that there was enough possibility for a stronger charge that he agreed to it.

If you were in a normal rescue situation and failed to come to the aid of the victim for any remotely acceptable reason, it would be a different story altogether.

I am not an attorney, but I have been told that extreme cases with special circumstances almost never end up being used as precedent for the normal interpretation of the law.

 

[Valwood1]

Plea bargaining as used in the US is ... 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.

That's all true.

[/QUOTE] The courts in these jurisdictions [UK and Australia and some unnamed other] have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty. [/QUOTE]

Plea bargaining here involves a guilty plea, and a RECOMMENDATION from the prosecutor for a sentence; that recommendation is usually a negotiated item between prosecution and defense. The judge usually accepts both the guilty plea and the sentence recommendation, but is not obligated to do so.

[/QUOTE]In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations;[/QUOTE]

That is not correct. The negotiations are between the prosecution and the defense.

[/QUOTE] ... 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.[/QUOTE]

The separation of powers doctrine is in the American Constitution, though I cannot say that doctrine originated here. In any case, I don't see how it is germane at all to the issue iof plea bargaining.