Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[alohagal]

Okay...Livinoz and Under-exposed:

Are you both saying that if there is NO formalized system involving negotiations. Does that mean the prosecution NEVER discusses their intent to drop charges or change the charges, with the defense or give them any kind of heads up whatsoever ahead of time? I am just trying to clarify is all.

 

[Under-Exposed]

[/B]

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?

They are factors that are relevant in reducing sentence, not the charge.

 

[alohagal]

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.

Well that is where many people who are scuba divers would find his actions...based on his own words in police interview...to be unreasonable.

 

[alohagal]

They are factors that are relevant in reducing sentence, not the charge.

So, when did the "offer" of manslaughter develop exactly?

 

[bsee65]

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:

...
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."

...

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Okay...Livinoz and Under-exposed:

Are you both saying that if there is NO formalized system involving negotiations. Does that mean the prosecution NEVER discusses their intent to drop charges or change the charges, with the defense or give them any kind of heads up whatsoever ahead of time? I am just trying to clarify is all.

I think it is correct as Livinoz originally said that there is no formalised system. That doesn't mean that prosecutors never discuss their intentions with the defence, but thee is no formalised process for this to be done or recorded, or for involvement by the court.

These types of discussions are precisely what occurred in the recently notorious case in Australia involving our disgraced former Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfeld, where Einfeld pleaded guilty to two charges and the Crown did not press two other charges. If you are at all interested, go to R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119

 

[Under-Exposed]

Well that is where many people who are scuba divers would find his actions...based on his own words in police interview...to be unreasonable.

While some may consider his actions unreasonable, what I meant was if the evidence was capable of supporting a finding that he had negligently failed to comply with his obligations to his wife/buddy to render aid (ie if that finding were reasonably open), then a jury would likely be instructed that there was reasonable doubt on the charge of murder (because that finding would be consistent with his innocence of the murder charge, there being no malice aforethought) and therefore he should be acquitted of that charge. It may have been open to leave the alternative charge of manslaughter to the jury, if the trial had proceeded.

 

[alohagal]

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.

Yes, I thought that sounded odd as well. It almost appears they are saying if you confess to some type of negligence coupled with remorse the jury can see that admission as casting reasonable doubt on the idea you did something more ominous.

 

[alohagal]

While some may consider his actions unreasonable, what I meant was if the evidence was capable of supporting a finding that he had negligently failed to comply with his obligations to his wife/buddy to render aid (ie if that finding were reasonably open), then a jury would likely be instructed that there was reasonable doubt on the charge of murder (because that finding would be consistent with his innocence of the murder charge, there being no malice aforethought) and therefore he should be acquitted of that charge. It may have been open to leave the alternative charge of manslaughter to the jury, if the trial had proceeded.

I understood your meaning...I was just being a bit "cheeky"!! But really enjoy your clarifications none-the-less!!

 

[Under-Exposed]

I'm not sure where this guy got his grasp of cause and effect. How does an admission of a failure to render aid mean that murder couldn't be proven? That's like saying the accused said he didn't do it, so he must be innocent. Maybe they accepted the admission because they felt they couldn't prove murder, but that's not quite the same thing.

What he is saying is that t is a circumstantial case, so the Crown effectively needs to exclude all other explanations for what happened that are inconsistent with guilt. One explanation inconsistent with guilt is that rather than turning off her air intending to kill her, she got into trouble and he failed to render aid (or I think more accurately, failed adequately to come to her aid). If the admissible evidence left that alternative explanation open to the jury to find, then there is reasonable doubt as a matter of law and therefore he would/should be acquitted of the charge of murder. It is not because the accused said so. It is because what the accused said was reasonably consistent with the evidence, and there was insufficient evidence available to the Crown to exclude that explanation.