Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[mike_s]

This is an interesting addition for this conversation, but on the news tonight, it said that Alabama Attorney General Troy King was going to indict Watson for murder here in the US. (remember he's had a couple years to do this ..... but now that the case is back in media attention, he's doing it.)

Alabama AG Troy King says he'll seek murder indictment of Gabe Watson in wife's drowning in Australia - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com


Now.... I agree that Watson is guilty and Australia gave him a lame sentence, but I don't think our US legal system has any jurisdiction in the case. It was committed in ANOTHER COUNTRY. To me, this seems like an elected official grandstanding.

Ironically, I believe that this is not allowed under our constitution as it falls under "Double Jeopardy". You can't try someone twice for the same crime in the US.

Like I said, seems like grandstanding by the Attorney General. (I'm betting he'll be running for Governor in the next election).

 

[Under-Exposed]

This is an interesting addition for this conversation, but on the news tonight, it said that Alabama Attorney General Troy King was going to indict Watson for murder here in the US. (remember he's had a couple years to do this ..... but now that the case is back in media attention, he's doing it.)

Alabama AG Troy King says he'll seek murder indictment of Gabe Watson in wife's drowning in Australia - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com


Now.... I agree that Watson is guilty and Australia gave him a lame sentence, but I don't think our US legal system has any jurisdiction in the case. It was committed in ANOTHER COUNTRY. To me, this seems like an elected official grandstanding.

Ironically, I believe that this is not allowed under our constitution as it falls under "Double Jeopardy". You can't try someone twice for the same crime in the US.

Like I said, seems like grandstanding by the Attorney General. (I'm betting he'll be running for Governor in the next election).

In fact there is jurisdiction because it is a crime committed by a US citizen on a US citizen which is a matter in which Alabama (as in many other US states) asserts extra-territorial jurisdiction. But I agree that there should as a matter of constitutional law be a double jeopardy problem, and there is also a problem as a matter of construction of the Alabama criminal statute (the issue has been covered by me somewhere earlier in this thread).

 

[Under-Exposed]

He therefore is entitled to be considered as innocent of that offence, and indeed was treated as innocent of that offence by the primary Court, and the Court of Appeal.

Whil I agree that the fact he was charged with murder is irrelevant to sentencing, this is not an accurate statement of the legal position. Even if he had been tried of murder and found not guilty this is not equivalent to him being innocent: R v Darby (1982) 40 ALR 594.

 

[diving queen]

This is an interesting addition for this conversation, but on the news tonight, it said that Alabama Attorney General Troy King was going to indict Watson for murder here in the US. (remember he's had a couple years to do this ..... but now that the case is back in media attention, he's doing it.)

Alabama AG Troy King says he'll seek murder indictment of Gabe Watson in wife's drowning in Australia - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com


Now.... I agree that Watson is guilty and Australia gave him a lame sentence, but I don't think our US legal system has any jurisdiction in the case. It was committed in ANOTHER COUNTRY. To me, this seems like an elected official grandstanding.

Ironically, I believe that this is not allowed under our constitution as it falls under "Double Jeopardy". You can't try someone twice for the same crime in the US.

Like I said, seems like grandstanding by the Attorney General. (I'm betting he'll be running for Governor in the next election).

I can give you a couple of reasons why Mr. King is going after this case now when he has never shown any interest before:

1st - Federal investigators brought at least six of King's former employees before a FEDERAL grand jury in March of this year (just two months before Watson returned to Australia) probing into investigations done by King's office and their possible connection to some of King's "allies".

The Raw Story | Federal probe of Alabama attorney general no shock to bloggers

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?/base/news/123667297584280.xml&coll=2 (this is only a partial article because it has already been archived due to the date)

What's the best way to get attention off of you?...direct that attention towards someone else!

2nd - mike_s - You were close...he's not running for governor but he is running for a second term as Alabama Attorney General. The 2010 general election primaries are in June, with the general election in November. King said that he decided to announce his intentions early to let others know and give them time to consider their options.

King to seek another term as attorney general | GadsdenTimes.com | Gadsden Times | Gadsden, AL

What better way to get re-elected than to let your constituents see how tough you are on crime? And since this case has been a media free-for-all, I'd say this is as good a case as any to show just how "tough" he really is.

Personally, I don't think, based on everything that I've read in this case, that Watson is guilty of murder (so I don't agree with you there, mike_s) but I do agree with you that Mr. King seems to be grandstanding. I ABSOLUTELY think that Double Jeopardy will apply, but I just don't see it getting that far.

I think that if there was some evidence that he committed a crime in the US, and with all the help they were getting from police in the US, that they would have used that evidence to help convict him in Australia. I mean, if that kind of evidence existed, wouldn't that have just strengthened the Australian's case against Watson and sent this thing to trial to begin with? The DPP's office said that they couldn't prove the murder and that is why they took his plea, right? If they can prove anything in the US, where the actual crime didn't even take place, surely they could have proven it in Australia. I think Troy King is giving this family false hope because he's trying to take some attention away from himself and he's trying to get re-elected. IMHO.

 

[ACES50]

Good day Diving Queen

I think you are spot on about Troy King. Don Valeska, of the AG's office, was quoted in the Brisbane Times that he can prove he (Gabe Watson) went to her place of employment without her, before the wedding and attempted to change her insurance. Where do you suppose that witness has been? If that witness really exists, don't you think the Australians would be p.....ed to find that out after nearly six years? Why didn't that witness speak out during the inquest? I think Troy King is using the Thomas family for his own selfish needs.

 

[K_girl]

He was by implication acquitted of that charge, in Australia, by the acceptance of plea of guilty to manslaughter by Crown..

That just seemed bizarre to me, so I looked that up on dictionary.com and here is what it says: "Law. judicial deliverance from a criminal charge on a verdict or finding of not guilty." I don't think that an acceptance of a guilty plea of manslaughter equates to an acquittal.

Good day Diving Queen

I think you are spot on about Troy King. Don Valeska, of the AG's office, was quoted in the Brisbane Times that he can prove he (Gabe Watson) went to her place of employment without her, before the wedding and attempted to change her insurance. Where do you suppose that witness has been? If that witness really exists, don't you think the Australians would be p.....ed to find that out after nearly six years? Why didn't that witness speak out during the inquest? I think Troy King is using the Thomas family for his own selfish needs.

Yes, I saw this story too. The Alabama AG's office plans to say that they have jurisdiction over the case because it shows Watson began planning the murder while they were in the states. They admit that they may have double-jeopardy problems. This detail did not surface until the plea bargain was struck in June. I'm with you, I am very curious about the details of this information and why it took so long to come to light (at least publicly). Maybe this was something that has less meaning in Australian law than American law as it is not direct evidence of guilt, but could be evidence of intent. Maybe this detail was being kept back on purpose for trial and would not have been released to the defense until discovery. It's hard to say that just because we didn't know about it that Australian investigators did not know about it. Certainly, DPP is capable of not mentioning very important details to the judge like a knife being used to disfigure a woman's face by her former boyfriend in order to reduce his sentence to almost nothing in a plea bargain.

Dad unable to win justice for Tina Watson, bride of Gabe Watson

Alabama is starting investigation and waiting for documents from Australia. Queensland authorities had previously discussed U.S. takeover of case with Alabama attorney general if they could not bring the case to trial and the plea bargain took Alabama authorities completely by surprise.

Honeymoon killer Gabe Watson 'in US kill plot'

Please note that I cannot control the titles on the links - that is what the newspaper named them. I have no opinion of Troy King one way or the other, I just would like to see a real trial in this case.

 

[Ayisha]

Does double jeopardy actually apply to Watson? I thought he never actually went to trial on the charge of murder. The plea bargain was made before the trial was to begin. So, he never actually went to trial and was neither acquitted nor convicted on the charge of murder. Therefore, there is no double jeopardy in this case, right?

 

[bsee65]

Does double jeopardy actually apply to Watson? I thought he never actually went to trial on the charge of murder. The plea bargain was made before the trial was to begin. So, he never actually went to trial and was neither acquitted nor convicted on the charge of murder. Therefore, there is no double jeopardy in this case, right?

I was wondering about that myself. He pled to the "crime" of failing to protect/rescue his wife. On the one hand, one could argue that is a different issue than actively causing her death. On the other hand, you could argue that he already pled to a crime relative to his responsibility for her death, and that any further charges would violate the constitution.

Another question is whether or not a foreign country can limit the right of government within the US to seek justice. At the extreme end, I could form a small country and dispense plea bargains with fines (to pad my pocket) for serious crimes. Would the fact that I tried the case and imposed sentence then mean that the appropriate US court would be precluded from a charge that could carry a significant sentence by double jeopardy? Clearly an extreme case, but there's got to be some sanity with respect to the concept of double jeopardy with regard to outside jurisdictions.

 

[lamont]

Does double jeopardy actually apply to Watson? I thought he never actually went to trial on the charge of murder. The plea bargain was made before the trial was to begin. So, he never actually went to trial and was neither acquitted nor convicted on the charge of murder. Therefore, there is no double jeopardy in this case, right?

Double jeopardy applies to any case which has reached a final judgment and a plea is a final judgment -- a mistrial, for example, is not considered a final judgment. So, a plea bargain would preclude another prosecution on the same changes. However, a prosecution by a different government does not constitute double jeopardy and the US courts will not recognize the judgment of the Australian courts as triggering double jeopardy.

 

[Ayisha]

Double jeopardy applies to any case which has reached a final judgment and a plea is a final judgment -- a mistrial, for example, is not considered a final judgment. So, a plea bargain would preclude another prosecution on the same changes. However, a prosecution by a different government does not constitute double jeopardy and the US courts will not recognize the judgment of the Australian courts as triggering double jeopardy.

bold added

The plea bargain that Watson accepted is not for the charge of murder, though. If it was the same charge, then he could apply his fifth amendment right to double jeopardy.

I agree with you that the U.S. courts will probably not recognize a judgement made outside of the U.S.