Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[livinoz]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes. And I'd think that despite the statements by the Attorney-General of Alabama, the odds of turning up further evidence to charge Watson with murder are not looking good, as the investigation covered both continents and took a number of years.

 

[Dadvocate]

My point is moot.

Cheers!

 

[alohagal]

Yes, each state has it's own Jurisdiction.

This was in the Brisbane Times this afternoon about 15 minutes ago. I can't comment as to its veracity:

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions has defended a decision to drop a murder charge against convicted honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Christina "Tina" Watson, 26, died while scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef in October 2003 after her air supply became cut off 15 metres below the surface.

An inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

The decision, which resulted in a 12 month minimum jail term for Watson, has sparked widespread anger and calls for an appeal by Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick.

Today, Queensland's most senior prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan SC, stood by the actions of his department in accepting the lesser charge.

He said the chances of securing a conviction for murder had been slim.

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

Authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

Mr Dick said today he was considering appealing Watson's lenient jail term, but said he would not be rushed.

Thanks Livinoz,

Having the prosecution state outright that there is NOT enough evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt is the answer many of us have been looking for. No need to look any further for the WHY of the manslaughter plea. I guess the speculation now will be if the US will go forward with charges...and if it is even possible or even reasonable to do so.

 

[livinoz]

Thanks Livinoz,

Having the prosecution state outright that there is NOT enough evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt is the answer many of us have been looking for. No need to look any further for the WHY of the manslaughter plea. I guess the speculation now will be if the US will go forward with charges...and if it is even possible or even reasonable to do so.

As I said above, if many years of investigation in both countries have not resulted in a finding of "guilty of murder" then I'd think the chances are slim for the US authorities. But that's their decision.

 

[alohagal]

As I said above, if many years of investigation in both countries have not resulted in a finding of "guilty of murder" then I'd think the chances are slim for the US authorities.

Yes...I was so busy editing my last post...we were obviously thinking the same about the US charges. I posted before I got to read yours.

Anyway...can you keep the "news" from your part of the world coming...if there is anymore.

Thanks

 

[Under-Exposed]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct. But there is no doubt that in practice cases are disposed of on various bases that have an element of plea bargaining. This may involve an agreement by the prosecution to withdraw a charge, or not present evidence on a charge, if an accused pleads guilty to some other charge (arising out of different facts) or to a lesser charge (arising out of the same facts).

There is no doubt a judge has the capacity to reject a plea of guilty, but the circumstances in which that can appropriately occur are limited. And in circumstances where the Crown accepts the difficulty of securing a conviction on one charge, and another lesser charge is properly available, then the only basis for rejecting the plea of guilty would seem to be some concern by the judge that the accused did not understand the plea being made. It is a power to protect the accused from incapacity or duress.

The effect such a bargain may have on sentence can be profound. For example, the maximum penalties will invariably be different, and what may in one case be mandatory for one charge may simply not be available for a lesser charge. In this way, the practical outcome is to bind the sentencing judge by exclusion.

In a less binding way, the process can result in an agreement as to the submissions that will be made on sentencing by the Crown. While these are not binding on the sentencing judge, it would be unusual (although not unknown) for a judge to decline to accept the Crown's submissions and impose a harsher sentence.

Similarly, there may be agreement as to the evidence or facts to be relied upon by the Crown in the sentencing hearing (a process that would ordinarily effectively bind the sentencing judge, in what is effectively an adversarial and not an inquisitorial proceeding) which may limit the discretion available to the sentencing judge.

The effect of a plea of guilty on sentence is varied, but it is not true to say that saving the expense of a trial is irrelevant. In Saganto v The Queen the High Court (for those who not Antipodeans, that is our highest court) held that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation; first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial. It is also sometimes relevant to the aspect of remorse that a victim has been spared the necessity of undergoing the painful procedure of giving evidence. And no doubt this could also include sparing the victim's family the same pain.

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.

 

[alohagal]

My point is moot.

Cheers!

I saw your post before you deleted it!! Gave it a large EYE roll. Believe me, I considered that she had "plea bargaining" in quotes. But, it wasn't proving that the prosecution of Australia and Gabe's Defense lawyer were not in "talks." According to the judge they weren't.

It no longer matters. The prosecution has said, there was not enough evidence to prove murder. (which means they probably thought he was guilty, just couldn't prove it) Oops...maybe I shouldn't say that here!!!

 

[livinoz]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct.

That is the point I was making.

But as I've no legal training, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I'm pretty tired of this whole case and the arguments re Australian versus US Law, so I'm out now

 

[Under-Exposed]

For those who are interested, in a case based on circumstantial evidence in Australia, a Court is usually required to to tell the jury that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that there will be reasonable doubt where there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably available. So in this case, the DPP may have considered that Watson's explanation was reasonably open, and therefore the jury was likely to be instructed that if that were the case then there would be reasonable doubt.

 

[alohagal]

I think it perhaps overstates it to say that there is no plea bargaining in Australia. If what is meant by "plea bargaining" is a formalised system involving negotiation between defence, prosecutors and judges, then that is probably correct. But there is no doubt that in practice cases are disposed of on various bases that have an element of plea bargaining. This may involve an agreement by the prosecution to withdraw a charge, or not present evidence on a charge, if an accused pleads guilty to some other charge (arising out of different facts) or to a lesser charge (arising out of the same facts).

There is no doubt a judge has the capacity to reject a plea of guilty, but the circumstances in which that can appropriately occur are limited. And in circumstances where the Crown accepts the difficulty of securing a conviction on one charge, and another lesser charge is properly available, then the only basis for rejecting the plea of guilty would seem to be some concern by the judge that the accused did not understand the plea being made. It is a power to protect the accused from incapacity or duress.

The effect such a bargain may have on sentence can be profound. For example, the maximum penalties will invariably be different, and what may in one case be mandatory for one charge may simply not be available for a lesser charge. In this way, the practical outcome is to bind the sentencing judge by exclusion.

In a less binding way, the process can result in an agreement as to the submissions that will be made on sentencing by the Crown. While these are not binding on the sentencing judge, it would be unusual (although not unknown) for a judge to decline to accept the Crown's submissions and impose a harsher sentence.

Similarly, there may be agreement as to the evidence or facts to be relied upon by the Crown in the sentencing hearing (a process that would ordinarily effectively bind the sentencing judge, in what is effectively an adversarial and not an inquisitorial proceeding) which may limit the discretion available to the sentencing judge.

The effect of a plea of guilty on sentence is varied, but it is not true to say that saving the expense of a trial is irrelevant. In Saganto v The Queen the High Court (for those who not Antipodeans, that is our highest court) held that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation; first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial. It is also sometimes relevant to the aspect of remorse that a victim has been spared the necessity of undergoing the painful procedure of giving evidence. And no doubt this could also include sparing the victim's family the same pain.

Sounds like this is the status quo used for lessening a charge Since this is what the judge in Gabe Watson case cited as his reasoning. Certainly if anyone studied the Queen High Court mitigating factors such as:
1. Saving expense of trial
2. Expressing remorse,
3. Sparing victims family (even though this particular family looked forward to a trial)
All would seem to help lessen the charges and the sentencing...perhaps Gabes lawyer did due diligence and recommended his client fly to Australia and act accordingly.

Am I getting this wrong?