Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[mike_s]

.

The thought of that absolutely terrifies me and makes me want to be absolutely certain I am never called before a jury of my peers.

I was on jury duty last week. SEVERAL trials going on. Many/most of the defendants were black/hispanic.

however, 99% of the jury members were age 40+ white jurors. Out of the 150 people in the jury pool, I counted two blacks.


I can't say that they had a "jury of their peers" if the race breakdown was that unbalanced.

 

[K_girl]

Lots of stories about innocent people in jail. I've read the "Innocent Man" - what the prosecutor did in that case was appalling. He should have been put in prison himself, but he continued to practice and he continued to put innocent men in jail. In that case, you have over-zealous prosecutors.

At the same time, there are lots of stories about plea bargains for horrible crimes that go unpunished. In that case, you have prosecutors who may not have a case, or they do the more convenient thing to save money, lighten their workload and increase their conviction rate with some kind of guilty plea.

All we can hope for is that the vast majority of cases fall somewhere in the middle ground where the prosecutors care about the victims without becoming over-zealous. As the newly elected prosecutor takes over this case, if they should decide they don't have a case, I hope they include the Thomas family in the discussion and help them to understand why and help them to have some kind of closure. I think that at a minimu, they deserve that much from the prosecutor. They did not receive that from Australia.

 

[mike_s]

. As the newly elected prosecutor takes over this case, if they should decide they don't have a case,

That's not true....

Don Valeska is prosecuting this case. He's not elected. (he's also not well thought of and has been proven in past cases to have acted dishonestly and had verdicts thrown out because of it. ).


Thew newly elected Attorney General is a Lobbyist who was a law firm partner. He's ever tried/prosecuted a case in court.....

or.... in fact, he's never even been a defense lawyer for a case in court. ....

or done anything in court before. (you'd figure that'd be a a requirement or at least something voters would look for when electing someone.... but nope.... oh well).

 

[boulderjohn]

At the same time, there are lots of stories about plea bargains for horrible crimes that go unpunished. In that case, you have prosecutors who may not have a case, or they do the more convenient thing to save money, lighten their workload and increase their conviction rate with some kind of guilty plea.

And many times an innocent defendant pleads guilty to a crime he did not commit because it is the lesser evil in comparison with a likely conviction and a more serious charge.

Few years ago I was vacationing in Broward County, Florida. The newspapers were all over a new story that had just gotten out. The local police had an excellent record in solving minor crimes, amazingly good, in fact. They were able to solve most burglaries, although too much time had passed for the victims to be able to get their goods back. All they had was the satisfaction of knowing that the thief had been caught by their outstanding police department.

Then it was revealed that in a number of cases, the people who pleaded guilty to many of the burglaries were clearly not in the state at the time. Some were even in jail in another state when the crimes were committed. They had perfect alibis and were demonstrably innocent. Why would they plead guilty to crimes they did not commit when they could easily prove themselves innocent?

It was the magic of plea bargaining.

These people had been caught for crimes they had actually committed and were sure to be proven guilty. The police and prosecutors promised them that if they went to trial, they would be convicted, and they would ask for and get the maximum sentence, which would put them in jail for a long, long time. There as an alternative, though. They could plead guilty and spare themselves a trial. And if they showed true remorse by pleading guilty to other crimes they had committed, then their potential sentences could be reduced even more. A really cooperative defendant who pleaded guilty to a long list of previously unsolved crimes (like burglaries) could get away with a really minimum sentence.

It was a win for everyone. The criminal got a minimum sentence. The police got cold cases off their books and a commendable rate for solving crimes. The crime victims got the comfortable illusion of thinking their cases had actually been solved. What more could anyone ask from a criminal justice system?

 

[k ellis]

For some odd reason they say in the jury selection that law enforcement is exempt. Yet when I was called for Jury they did not care and said buddy your stuck! So I went on the first trial and was called to the jury box. They asked about my background and dismissed me when I told them I was associated in law enforcement. The second one I went on was a mentaly fit trial. I was tossed out when they learned I also have experience working in a psychiatric hospital. The third one was a civial suit that was suing my employer. I wanted to stay on that one but away I went!

Whats really funny is I told them up front they were waisiting their time and mine but it did not matter to them. Sad thing is though you are by definition placed under arrest when you are called to jury duty. This is because the definition of arrest is removing one persons right to leave under their own free will. So by right you should be able to sue for false arrest however they exempt themselves from that convienently.

I was told I should be proud to do my civic duty along with all off my other proud brothers and sisters of the jury because we were doing our civic duties. One person lost their home because they were self employed and living pay check to pay check (And of course government doesnt see the need to pay jurors) and another lost their car. So yes serving on a jury sums up very easily

Serving a jury equals. Lost time with family and loved ones, in many cases lost income that can never be recovered, Hardships for single parents with no one family or friends to watch their children because they now have to pay a day care with money that they are not earning by being in a jury, They have to risk being humiliated during the selection process, and last but not least they have to be painted as the bad guy in the picture reguardless of the outcome. Either they are guilty of letting someone guilty go free, not recommending enough time (THey only recommend time the judge has the final say) not letting an innocent man actually go free and the list goes on and on.

So yes being a jury member is a proud stance to take (Sarcasticly of course)

 

[ACES50]

Should the State prosecutor take an enthusiastic position in a case? I think the State should be charged with upholding the laws of a given state and should show no enthusiasm toward prosecution. The goal should be fairness to both parties and not the win. The prosecution and defense should present established evidence without bias. Should a citizen be concerned when the top prosecutor of the State says he will "plow new ground" in an effort to gain an indictment. The only way a football coach proves his worth is by way of wins and losses. Is that what we all want in a State prosecutor?

 

[DandyDon]

Should the State prosecutor take an enthusiastic position in a case? I think the State should be charged with upholding the laws of a given state and should show no enthusiasm toward prosecution. The goal should be fairness to both parties and not the win. The prosecution and defense should present established evidence without bias. Should a citizen be concerned when the top prosecutor of the State says he will "plow new ground" in an effort to gain an indictment. The only way a football coach proves his worth is by way of wins and losses. Is that what we all want in a State prosecutor?

No, but it's the way it often works. And we don't want either attorney playing judge and jury I don't guess.

 

[Kern]

As the legal system in most free democracies is adversarial, the truth will often take 2nd place to a perceived winning argument.

Politicians & police forces everywhere have been corrupted. In Queensland a while ago a royal commission sent senior offices of the force & several politicians, including the then Premier to court to face corruption charges. In NSW the commissioner charged with investigating police corruption summed up the NSW police force, "As corrupt an organisation that has ever existed". If every other state in this country & those in other countries had similar, rigorous investigations into corruption, I'm willing to bet they'ed all be found wanting. Of course the powers that be know this, & so will avoid having such investigations for as long as possible.

 

[K_girl]

Someone sent me this link to the Sheriff's Dept. to say "no bond" for Watson. But I don't know if this means whether or not there has been a bond hearing at this point:

Jefferson County Sheriff's Office

Couldn't find anything in the news about it.

 

[mike_s]

Someone sent me this link to the Sheriff's Dept. to say "no bond" for Watson. But I don't know if this means whether or not there has been a bond hearing at this point:

Jefferson County Sheriff's Office

Couldn't find anything in the news about it.

That's just default for CAPITAL MURDER charge. Standard operating procedure.

Their attorneys will request bail. They just have to wait until a judge is assigned to the case to get a ruling.

expect a hearing shortly.



EDIT: this found easily with "gabe watson bail" in google search.


http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=549580&vId=

Alabama opposing bail for Gabe Watson
Thursday December 9, 2010 (it's dated a day ahead because from Australia newspaper. FYI)

Honeymoon killer Gabe Watson will make a bid for freedom next Tuesday when a judge rules whether to release him on bail.

Watson will appear before Jefferson County Judge Tommy Nail in Birmingham, Alabama, for a bond hearing.

'We'll be present and will vigorously oppose bail,' head of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime division, Don Valeska, told AAP.

Watson, a 33-year-old bubble wrap salesman from the southern Birmingham suburb of Hoover, has been behind bars for 19 months after serving an 18-month sentence in Australia for the 2003 manslaughter of his bride, Tina, during a Queensland scuba diving holiday.

Watson has also endured stints in the past month in Melbourne's Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre and various jails in Los Angeles while awaiting extradition to Alabama.

He arrived in Birmingham from Los Angeles under guard on Monday and has been held in the city's Jefferson County jail.

Alabama, upset with the 18-month plea deal sentence handed to Watson in Queensland, set about building its own criminal case against Watson for the death of 26-year-old Tina.

Alabama authorities allege Watson began planning to murder Tina before they departed the US for their Australian honeymoon, and insurance payouts and lawsuits connected to the policies were his motivation.

A grand jury in Birmingham indicted Watson on October 22 on two counts: capital murder in the course of kidnapping and capital murder for pecuniary gain.

If convicted, Watson faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.