Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Superlyte27]

His attorney is going to fight evidence chain of custody. Australia's techniques are not our techniques for gathering evidence. And we cannot verify that those techniques were done properly. We're going to have to pay to have who knows how many witnesses airfaire, accomdations, etc to get them to come here for several weeks while they are on the stand for trial, if they'll even come. Our subpoenas(sp) are worthless in Australia. We cannot force people from Australia to leave their jobs and family to testify.

 

[K_girl]

Mike_s - I think you are right that they may keep the indictment sealed until his arrest. Still, by the reaction of the prosecutors and Tina's family, I think we know the results:

Honeymoon death dive decision - australia - world | Stuff.co.nz

However, "capital" murder is off the table. He won't be tried for that.

As for Valeska manipulating the system and doing something unethical, I guess it depends on how you interpret the dual sovereignty doctrine:

Dual sovereignty is a legal doctrine holding that more than one sovereign (e.g. a state government and the Federal government) may prosecute an individual without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy if the individual's act breaks the laws of each sovereignty.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_sovereignty_doctrine

I saw Gerry Spence (famous U.S. defense attorney) comment on Larry King shortly after Watson's plea agreement and Troy King's announcement to prosecute in Alabama. He said there is precedence for this, it's been done before, that it is legal, and he said that Watson would probably be indicted in Alabama.

 

[mike_s]

As for Valeska manipulating the system and doing something unethical, .

He's done it before. in a previous case, he withheld evidence from the defense, the lied about having it.

The FBI testified he had knowledge of the evidence the entire time.

 

[boulderjohn]

Dual sovereignty is a legal doctrine holding that more than one sovereign (e.g. a state government and the Federal government) may prosecute an individual without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy if the individual's act breaks the laws of each sovereignty.

I am not an attorney, but just using my common sense I would say that such a doctrine is essential.

If that were not the case, a whole pile of possible bad things would be possible.

• a person facing charges in two countries for the same crime could opt for the one that was going to give him the best chance of complete escape or minimum punishment.
• a prosecutor in one country wanting to gain a conviction could persuade a criminal to accept conviction in his country on the assurance that he would get a minimal penalty compared to the other country.
• a devious country could actually commission someone to commit a crime (such as the CIA, KGB, etc. were accused of), put him on trial, and give him a slap on the wrist penalty to bring double jeopardy into play and prevent his prosecution elsewhere. For a similar example, in the Lockerby bombing case, Libya could have tried, convicted, and fined the bomber and thus prevented the United Kingdom from prosecuting him.

 

[K_girl]

He's done it before. in a previous case, he withheld evidence from the defense, the lied about having it.

The FBI testified he had knowledge of the evidence the entire time.

From the little I read about Valeska, I hope he does not try the Watson case. Sounds like he should lose his job. He has no credibility.

 

[sydney-diver]

I am not an attorney, but just using my common sense I would say that such a doctrine is essential.

If that were not the case, a whole pile of possible bad things would be possible.

• a person facing charges in two countries for the same crime could opt for the one that was going to give him the best chance of complete escape or minimum punishment.
• a prosecutor in one country wanting to gain a conviction could persuade a criminal to accept conviction in his country on the assurance that he would get a minimal penalty compared to the other country.
• a devious country could actually commission someone to commit a crime (such as the CIA, KGB, etc. were accused of), put him on trial, and give him a slap on the wrist penalty to bring double jeopardy into play and prevent his prosecution elsewhere. For a similar example, in the Lockerby bombing case, Libya could have tried, convicted, and fined the bomber and thus prevented the United Kingdom from prosecuting him.

I guess that makes sense, and someone pointed out in another forum that the Queensland Department of Prosecution didn't actually charge Gabe with murder - he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter.

 

[Trickie Dickie 99]

So, now my question: If Alabama prosecutes and Watson is found not guilty, how does that make Australia look for having imprisoned him at all?

It has no impact on how Australia looks - not in the circumstances you describe anyway, he was charged with manslaughter, he pleaded guilty - if you plead guilty to manslaughter you know that you are only going to one place and that's jail.

Secondly, "Australia" doesn't come into it - as in your own State system, it was the State of Queensland which had jurisdiction in this matter, not the Commonwealth of Australia, same way that it's the State of Alabama, not the USA which is prosecuting him now.

More to the point, how would it make Alabama look for prosecuting him in the first place?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm actually amazed he wasn't charged with murder and I think the Qld authorities are playing silly bu99ers, plain & simple. From TV interviews with Qld detectives on this matter, it looks like they certainly thought there was a case to answer)

 

[PRL]

Double Jeopardy is a white elephant and only applies to the same jurisdiction. In the USA people are commonly on trial for the same crime more than once.
For instance, if this case would happen in Florida. Lets say Florida prosecutor would screw up and the defendant was found not guilty on first degree. Florida would not be able to charge him again for the crime because of double jeopardy, even on a lesser charge. However, because the crime occurred on a Federally controlled waterway, he could still be charged by the Federal government. And maybe if Alabama could tie the case in, he possibly could be charged by Alabama. And lets not forget the Civil court.
It all depends on how bad they want you.

 

[K_girl]

'Honeymoon killer' may get temporary visa - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I have to say I have a hard time swallowing this. Guilty or innocent, he should be driven from the prison directly to the airport and deported on the first flight back to the U.S.

I don't understand this country sometimes, it's just madness.

Thanks for the post Burna - so here is Australia's reasoning:

"I think there would be an arguable case that he could be granted a temporary visa to allow him to go out into the community until such time as his case is properly resolved."

I think it should have read: "I think there would be an arguable case that he could be granted a temporary visa to allow him to go out into the community and disappear until such time as his case is properly resolved."

In addition, no one from the U.S. Federal Government has made any noises about wanting to prosecute Watson, so why does the Australian government need their reassurance? If there is no prosecutor assigned to a non-existent case, how can that reassurance possibly be given? The Federal government has also made no move to extradict Watson. This is obstructionism, plain and simple.

 

[burna]

Australia has had a total opposition to the death penalty for everyone and has done for a number of decades now. It doesn't matter whether they are asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or our own citizens overseas. Australia will not send Watson or anyone else to a country where they might be put on trail for their life. End of story, and I think that is fair enough, I think it is better for a person to rot in jail for the rest of their life and make them suffer for their crimes.

What needs to happen here is for the U.S to conclusively guarantee that he will not be tried for his life and then they will stick him on the first flight out of here. The longer the U.S takes to do this the more likely it is he will be given asylum in Australia and we don't want him!

Don't forget K_girl, we [the people of Oz] have no more control over the legal system and processes of this country, in actuality, than you do over yours. That link I posted a while back to that Australian Story doco showed the U.S as being just as bad with crazy legal decisions with Watson being allowed to dig up Tina and move her to another plot 100 yards away. Having said that, I can sympathise with your frustration over the seemingly half-arsed prosecution of manslaughter and I really feel for Tina's parents.

My personal view is they should have tried to prosecute him for murder, better to try and fail in my opinion because the sentence he received for manslaughter was hardly worth the effort.