Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

So, considering the potential jurors and the nature of the debate, if you REALLY weren't guilty would you want the jurors debating like we have been and deciding whether you spend the rest of your life in prison if you could plead to manslaughter?

I conceded to you at one point that you could wind-up with jurors who would be unable to convict without either physical evidence or a witness who saw Watson turn Tina's air off - and that was a point you stressed over and over again. Now you seem to be saying that there was no chance to have those kind of jurors and that he more likely would have been found guilty and can't blame him for pleading manslaughter? In a previous post, you seemed to advocate for a manslaughter plea based on other criteria? (But I'm not sure what.) But here is is the link to your previous post: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...-guilty-diving-wife-death-33.html#post4570523

You also said that because Watson pleaded to manslaughter, that doesn't mean that he took responsibility for Tina's death. Is this just a matter of symantecs for you? In other words, he is serving time for manslaughter, the law sees him as responsible for Tina's death, but that doesn't mean that he has personally taken responsibility - is that what you mean? And if there is no responsibility at all, either in the eyes of the law or in Watson's - why is he serving time?

By the way - I love your avatar - it is my favorite. Sometimes I have to get in my pool with my scuba gear because I want to have that "feeling," but I am able to use the excuse of "testing" out gear. But in a spa - uh.. I don't think that excuse will work, but I can definitely relate!

 

[K_girl]

A little more information in this article regarding the Solicitor General's appeal of the sentencing. What's new: they claim that Tina had been offered orientation dives due to her inexperience but it was denied because of Gabe's rescue certification, experience and his taking responsibility for her. Actually, I recall in the updated version of the Dateline NBC story that the SpoilSport had a requirement that beginning divers like Tina do the orientation dive, but they allowed her to opt out because of Watson's rescue certification. The Solicitor General also made the point I've made many times that there was no evidence that Gabe Watson panicked. Watson's attorney argues that Watson did panic and the fact that he went to the surface for help instead of staying to help Tina was evidence of Watson's panic. Watson's attorney argues that Watson should be sentenced on the basis that he did panic when he should have done more.

Judge too soft in Gabe Watson sentencing, says solicitor-general | The Courier-Mail

These are some of the arguments I focused on just a few posts ago.

So if Watson's attorney's argument is accepted, we can now be liable if we are unable to overcome our panic in order to rescue someone. How stupid is that?

ItsBruce is right - Watson is not taking responsibility for Tina's death, he is still trying to say it was nothing but an accident.

 

[ItsBruce]

Boulderjohn:

Yes, people with knowledge about scuba will probably not be permitted to serve on a jury. That is because they may be inclined to rely on their own knowledge and experience rather than the admissible evidence and opinions of “experts.” The point I was making was the way debate goes on among jurors. I have attended focus groups designed to test the way potential jurors would look at elements of a case. The moderator explained to the panel that the study was about group dynamics and decision making and that to perform the study, we wanted to put it in the context of a jury deliberating. He then told the panel the “facts” and then instructed them on the law, much as a judge would instruct a jury. Then he let them deliberate. From time to time, he would enter the room and debrief the panel. The remarkable thing is that the dynamic was much like what I’m seeing on SB.

K_girl:

I maintain that if the prosecution did not have a great deal more evidence than what was in the public domain, it is unlikely the jurors would have convicted Watson. However, unlikely does not mean impossible.

The point I was making in my post is that just looking at the dynamics here, who would want their fate decided by people who debated in the style we are seeing here. And, keep in mind that in jury deliberations, there are no moderators who will lock the thread.

As far as responsibility, it is one thing to say: “I made a mistake, I take responsibility for it.” It is another thing to say: “I’m tired of fighting, do what you want.” I cannot count the number of times that my clients have settled civil lawsuits in which they have been sued because it is more expensive in terms of attorney’s fees and disruption to their businesses to fight than just to pay some money and be done with the thing.

I am reminded of the fellow who spent his fortune and many years fighting criminal charges stemming from some allegedly improper banking transactions. The government eventually dropped the charges, but his health was wrecked and he was left pretty well impoverished. I remember an Assistant US Attorney commenting that had he just pled guilty, he would have gotten out of prison long before the charges were dropped, would have had his health and most of his fortune.

I could well see Watson, with the aid of his attorneys, making the cost benefit analysis and pleading guilty.

Keep in mind that in the first OJ criminal case, OJ spent more than a year in jail before being acquitted. And, there is no telling how much money he spent on legal fees. If he had been given the option of pleading guilty to manslaughter and serving a year in jail, wouldn’t he have been better off? (Anyone who feels compelled to start discussing OJ’s guilt or innocence, don’t bother. It is irrelevant.)

BTW: Wait until you see my new cave diving avatar … I got a new cover for the spa!

 

[ItsBruce]

I have another thought about precedent and whether the Watson case sets some sort of precedent, as distinct from a "mindset."

One common theme in almost all legal systems that are based on the English Common Law is that, with few exceptions, the courts will only rule on what are termed "justiciable controversies." That is, the opposing sides must really be adversaries. The courts will generally not entertain "collusive" lawsuits that are brought just to establish a precedent or lawsuits to establish abstract principles.

Since Watson has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is only involved id a dispute over the level of punishment, he and the prosecution are not really adversarial relative to a dive buddy's duties. Thus, the court is not going to get the kind of vigorous advocacy I think it would require for it to be willing to announce a standard for dive buddies.

Beyond the issues of justiciability, courts hate to make rulings that are any broader than they must be. This drives lawyers who are looking for guidance crazy. However, it gives the courts great flexibility.

I've mentioned in prior posts how subsequent courts may distinguish prior rulings so that they are not compelled to follow them. Often, when making a particular ruling, a court will set its ruling up so that it can be distinguished. Again, it gives the courts flexibility.

Note: I am not saying that courts never make sweeping rulings or draw "bright lines." They do. But, in my experience and based on my studies of the cases decided by various court, they prefer not to do so.

So, I would not be a bit surprised if the appellate court extends Watson's sentence and says it is because he and Tina were on their honeymoon. Thus, the sentence would not be precedent for old-married couples or other dive buddies.

Were I one of the involved judges, I would want to wait for a case in which a dive buddy was being prosecuted for manslaughter based on the failure to rescue a buddy before announcing any sort of a general rule of law. I would want to see the best arguments and counter-arguments with analysis of all of the available precedent before I formulated any sort of rule.

(For anyone who feels I am unclear or contradict myself -- tough -- I spent a lot of time trying to be articulate here and I'm not inclined to spend more time than I have.)

BTW-1: My username is "ItsBruce," but my given name is "Bruce" and you are all free to refer to me that way.

BTW-2: Australian appellate judges who seek my input on legal theory, PM me and be sure to provide adequate authentication of your identities.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

A little more information in this article regarding the Solicitor General's appeal of the sentencing. What's new: they claim that Tina had been offered orientation dives due to her inexperience but it was denied because of Gabe's rescue certification, experience and his taking responsibility for her. Actually, I recall in the updated version of the Dateline NBC story that the SpoilSport had a requirement that beginning divers like Tina do the orientation dive, but they allowed her to opt out because of Watson's rescue certification. The Solicitor General also made the point I've made many times that there was no evidence that Gabe Watson panicked. Watson's attorney argues that Watson did panic and the fact that he went to the surface for help instead of staying to help Tina was evidence of Watson's panic. Watson's attorney argues that Watson should be sentenced on the basis that he did panic when he should have done more.

Judge too soft in Gabe Watson sentencing, says solicitor-general | The Courier-Mail

These are some of the arguments I focused on just a few posts ago.

So if Watson's attorney's argument is accepted, we can now be liable if we are unable to overcome our panic in order to rescue someone. How stupid is that?

ItsBruce is right - Watson is not taking responsibility for Tina's death, he is still trying to say it was nothing but an accident.

I have another thought about precedent and whether the Watson case sets some sort of precedent, as distinct from a "mindset."

One common theme in almost all legal systems that are based on the English Common Law is that, with few exceptions, the courts will only rule on what are termed "justiciable controversies." That is, the opposing sides must really be adversaries. The courts will generally not entertain "collusive" lawsuits that are brought just to establish a precedent or lawsuits to establish abstract principles.

Since Watson has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is only involved id a dispute over the level of punishment, he and the prosecution are not really adversarial relative to a dive buddy's duties. Thus, the court is not going to get the kind of vigorous advocacy I think it would require for it to be willing to announce a standard for dive buddies.

So, I would not be a bit surprised if the appellate court extends Watson's sentence and says it is because he and Tina were on their honeymoon. Thus, the sentence would not be precedent for old-married couples or other dive buddies.

Were I one of the involved judges, I would want to wait for a case in which a dive buddy was being prosecuted for manslaughter based on the failure to rescue a buddy before announcing any sort of a general rule of law. I would want to see the best arguments and counter-arguments with analysis of all of the available precedent before I formulated any sort of rule.

(For anyone who feels I am unclear or contradict myself -- tough -- I spent a lot of time trying to be articulate here and I'm not inclined to spend more time than I have.)

BTW-1: My username is "ItsBruce," but my given name is "Bruce" and you are all free to refer to me that way.

BTW-2: Australian appellate judges who seek my input on legal theory, PM me and be sure to provide adequate authentication of your identities.

Interesting points as usual Bruce. If they can prove what I have bolded in K-girls's post that Gabe played a role in Tina's declining the "orientation" dive based on his ability to take care of her.. that would reasonably establish a greater responsibility than the average buddy relationship.

What would like me to send you consider adequate to prove I am and Australian appellate judge?

 

[livinoz]

As far as responsibility, it is one thing to say: “I made a mistake, I take responsibility for it.” It is another thing to say: “I’m tired of fighting, do what you want.” I cannot count the number of times that my clients have settled civil lawsuits in which they have been sued because it is more expensive in terms of attorney’s fees and disruption to their businesses to fight than just to pay some money and be done with the thing.

But surely Bruce a civil suit, where someone is sued, and going to gaol with a manslaughter conviction against your name are a bit different? Or have I read your post wrongly.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Bruce, for what it is worth I don't think I agree. In order to determine the appropriate degree of punishment the Court still has to make a determination about the criminality of the conduct. So, while I accept that it does not need to engage in a debate about the obligation of one buddy to another in the particular circumstances for the purpose of determining whether criminal liability should attach, it DOES need to consider what those obligations are, in order to determine the extent to which they were departed from by Watson, and thereby determine the criminality of his behaviour.

Agreed, this will not create a binding precedent...but it will provide some guidance as to the kind of analysis a Court might undertake in a future case, particularly given that this is a relatively novel case.

Livvy, I think the point Bruce is making is that court proceedings (whether they be civil or criminal) are taxing on the participants in terms of time, money and emotional energy. And many civil cases that I deal with are professional negligence cases where reputation is significantly important for the professional as is liberty for the non-professional. Sure, they are different, but they are both emotionally taxing things to have to defend, and if that can be avoided or minimised and people get on with their lives then settlement (whether by compromise of civil proceedings or pleading guilty to a significantly lesser criminal charge) is a powerful incentive to accept a finding in relation to something you don't accept to be the truth.

 

[livinoz]

Bruce, for what it is worth I don't think I agree. In order to determine the appropriate degree of punishment the Court still has to make a determination about the criminality of the conduct. So, while I accept that it does not need to engage in a debate about the obligation of one buddy to another in the particular circumstances for the purpose of determining whether criminal liability should attach, it DOES need to consider what those obligations are, in order to determine the extent to which they were departed from by Watson, and thereby determine the criminality of his behaviour.

Agreed, this will not create a binding precedent...but it will provide some guidance as to the kind of analysis a Court might undertake in a future case, particularly given that this is a relatively novel case.

Livvy, I think the point Bruce is making is that court proceedings (whether they be civil or criminal) are taxing on the participants in terms of time, money and emotional energy. And many civil cases that I deal with are professional negligence cases where reputation is significantly important for the professional as is liberty for the non-professional. Sure, they are different, but they are both emotionally taxing things to have to defend, and if that can be avoided or minimised and people get on with their lives then settlement (whether by compromise of civil proceedings or pleading guilty to a significantly lesser criminal charge) is a powerful incentive to accept a finding in relation to something you don't accept to be the truth.

Okay, thanks UE; I guess looking at it from a lay person's POV (or maybe just mine!) I see gaol time as significantly more damaging, but I agree that ruining a professional ( or personal) reputation can be just as bad.

It's rather an indictment don't you think, that we have to "accept" guilt, where maybe there is none, in order to basically save a reputation or indeed plead to a lesser charge and serve time in gaol because we perhaps may have otherwise gotten a longer sentence?

 

[alohagal]

Okay, thanks UE; I guess looking at it from a lay person's POV (or maybe just mine!) I see gaol time as significantly more damaging, but I agree that ruining a professional ( or personal) reputation can be just as bad.

It's rather an indictment don't you think, that we have to "accept" guilt, where maybe there is none, in order to basically save a reputation or indeed plead to a lesser charge and serve time in gaol because we perhaps may have otherwise gotten a longer sentence?[/QUOTE]


I think it happens more often than we would like to know. I am not sure what the fix would be. In an ideal world only guilty people would be convicted. And the punishment would always fit the crime.

It is heart breaking when you hear those stories of people spending decades in prison only to be exonerated, usually by DNA. How do you get your life back? Impossible.

More than ever, I am so curious, like Underexposed, as to the criminality of the act that Gabe was sentenced for.

 

[alohagal]

BTW: what is gaol? Did I miss an acronym somewhere? I have been working 13 hours shifts and feeling punch drunk right now.

Thanks in advance,
Mary