Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[livinoz]

Sadly there's heaps of "Legal" Dictionaries.

And sadly I'd think none of them make riveting reading!

(except to a lawyer)

 

[My-way]

Oh, you know, it depends.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Just as I said as soon as it was announced - dumb move on the part of Alabama prosecutors to go for the death penalty for Watson - as Australia may grant him asylum.

"A spokesman for the Australian Attorney-General's Department said a possible death sentence could prevent Watson's extradition - if US authorities applied for it."

'The Extradition Act prevents a minister from surrendering a person to be prosecuted for an offence which carries the death penalty unless the requesting country gives Australia an undertaking that the death penalty will not be imposed or if imposed will not be carried out,' the spokesman said. "

Source: Telstra BigPond News and Weather

So here is another interesting potential outcome. One of the reasons for the reduction of the 4-1/2 year sentence to 18 months was because it would be a hardship for Watson to not have family around. So, if they grant him asylum and he never returns "home" to his family - would that change his sentence to cause him to serve more time since Australia would be his new "home"?

It is correct that we will not extradite people where they face a death penalty...but he is liable to be deported, which will achieve the same end

 

[Under-Exposed]

I don't have the time to research double jeopardy right now. However, my gut tells me that while he might be tried in the US for a crime for which he was acquitted in another country, it cannot try him for a crime for which he served a sentence. Apart from double jeopardy issues, I see a whole host of cruel-and-unusual-penalty issues. ... Even though he maintains his innocence, he pleads guilty to manslaughter and serves time in prison to avoid the risk of being found guilty of murder, and then as soon as he is released, he is charged with murder and a key piece of evidence is his guilty plea to the manslaughter charge. And, if I were an appellate justice considering the matter, I'd certainly consider the public policy implications as follows

Like it or not, plea bargains are an essential part of the criminal justice system. Given (1) the number of crimes for which people are charged, (2) a jury trial is a matter of right in anything greater than a traffic ticket and (3) the Constitution guarantees a speedy public trial; there are not enough courts, judges, jurors or prosecutors to try them all. Incidentally, case which is not brought to trial within the requisite time MUST be dismissed unless the defendant waives time. Thus, without plea bargains, the whole system would grind to a halt and the courts will have no choice but to simply dismiss cases that can't be brought to trial in the requisite time.

Now, how many people will plead guilty to a lesser crime if, after they serve their sentence, they can be tried for the same crime in another state (that asserts it was somehow impacted by the crime)? How about if their plea can be used as evidence in that subsequent case?

I think that the appellate courts will look at the realities and say no second trial.

And, for anyone who doubts the importance of public policy consider:

1. There is an absolute privilege for confidential communications between a clergyman and a parishioner. Since Confession is a religious ceremony, to permit, let alone require, a clergyman to disclose a confidential communication by a parishioner would interfere with the free exercise of religion. Thus, the law makes such communications absolutely privileged.

2. There is an absolute privilege for confidential communications between a lawyer and a client. Even a confession is privileged. The law basically says that to function, clients must be able to share everything with their lawyers and to receive their lawyers' honest assessments. Thus, even if it means that the truth is hidden, the law makes the communication inviolate.

3. In a civil proceeding, the law says that evidence he defendant took remedial measures after the fact to prevent a similar incident is not admissible to show there was something wrong at the time of the incident. Clearly subsequent remedial measures are relevant to show something needed fixing. However, the law wants to encourage people to fix things that are dangerous, and it figures that if evidence of repairs can come back to haunt the defendant, no one will perform repairs after someone else is injured. Thus, the law it makes such evidence inadmissible.

There are lots of other examples and I suspect that an appellate court will invoke double jeopardy or cruel-and-unusual to protect the plea bargain system.

Just my $0.02.

No idea how it works in the US, but once you actually disclose the substance of a privileged communication in Australia, you waive the privilege.

 

[Under-Exposed]

I'm sure Watson would not meet the criteria for Australian citizenship as he will have served a sentence for a major crime. He could however appeal for asylum once released, but that too may or may not be granted.

Probably not fit criteria for citizenship (or permanent residence) and certainly not fit criteria for asylum.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Just to clear-up a few things here. Watson was not acquitted because an acquittal is a finding of not guilty. I would say the second part about trying him for a crime for which he served a sentence would be correct in attempting to apply double jeopardy.

There was no first trial, so there can't be a second trial.

However, I agree in general. There is a chance that double jeopardy would apply for the reasons you argued. There is also a chance that Gabe Watson could become an Australian citizen if Alabama continues to pursue the death penalty.

Jeopardy does not depend on there being a trial, but on there being "jeopardy" which there most certainly is where there is a verdict of guilt for which you serve a gaol sentence.

 

[ItsBruce]

No idea how it works in the US, but once you actually disclose the substance of a privileged communication in Australia, you waive the privilege.

Same here.

 

[K_girl]

No idea how it works in the US, but once you actually disclose the substance of a privileged communication in Australia, you waive the privilege.

ItsBruce said - same here.

So does that mean that the quote Watson's lawyer gave the press about being blind with no reg and heading straight to the surface can be compared to Watson's statement that he got control and tried to swim down after Tina - at trial? Can they question Watson's lawyer just on that issue as to his statement to the press, or do they have to rely strictly on the reporter? His statement might also be on news video somewhere as well. I would have to say - that statement is very specific in detail and would be extremely difficult to attribute it to a reporter's imagination or inaccuracy, most especially since that detail had some element of similarity in Watson's statement to police and those statements were not public at the time Watson's lawyer talked to the press.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

It is correct that we will not extradite people where they face a death penalty...but he is liable to be deported, which will achieve the same end

There was a similar case in Canada, extradition was fought based on the fact he would face the death penalty in the USA. Long story short, took 5 years but he was sent back to the USA basicly escorted to the border and "released" where he was immediately arrested by the US Authorities. Canada has the same position re Death Penalty as Australia. Sorry I can not quote the case for you. Not being a lawyer or familiar with the research techniques. The most info I can give you was that the event occurred at the border crossing near Vancouver B.C.

 

[My-way]

Which one, Peace Arch (which would be kind of ironic) or the Pacific Highway?