Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Kern]

Seems different to me. Sure if you can show evidence of innocence, cool, but it's not a requirement in a bail hearing to my knowledge. In fact, if you google bail evidence of innocence, this thread is #4 on the list...

You seemed to have missed my point. I didn't bring this up for the case itself, but for the discussion of law that it contains.

Under all these circumstances, the Fourth division of the People's Court composed of Judges Jose Bernabe, Emilio Rilloraza and Angel Gamboa, issued an order dated February 23, 1946, denying the application for bail. Hence, this petition for certiorari, predicated upon the theory that no proof having been presented by the special prosecutor to show that the evidence of guilt is strong, the People's Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for bail.

We have held in Herras Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons (76 Phil., 756), that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except when charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. the general rule, therefore, is that all persons, whether charged or not yet charges, are, before their conviction, entitled to provisional release on bail, the only exception being where the charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is found to be strong. At the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of showing that the case falls within the exception is on the prosecution, according to Rule 110, section 7. The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is, as stated in Herras Teehankee case, a matter of judicial discretion. This discretion, by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercise only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court (Ramos vs. Ramos, 45 Phil., 362), it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. Mere affidavits or recital of their contents are not sufficient since they are mere hearsay evidence, unless the petitioner fails to object thereto.

And this is the prevailing doctrine in the United States according to authorities to be quoted later. In some states of the American union, the burden of showing that proof is evident or the presumption great, lies on the prosecution while in others on the petitioner, but the rule seems to be uniform to the effect that no matter which side bears the burden of proof, the evidence of guilt should be adduced before the court for a proper determination of its probative force. In American Jurisprudence the following appears:

. . . The English rule is, however, by no means uniformly followed in the United States. In some jurisdictions the case is heard de novo, the solicitor and prosecutor are notified to attend, and witnesses are subpoenaed both for the state and for the defendant and are examined before the court. This practice seems generally to be followed, and it may be laid down as abroad principle that where bail is not a matter of right, the burden is upon the petitioner to produce facts sufficient to entitle him to bail at the hearing. He is therefore both required and permitted to introduce evidence doing to the merits of the case against him. Ordinarily, the presumption is with the state, and it is proper to require the prisoner to introduce evidence in the first instance, although it imposes upon him the necessity of producing evidence upon which the state intends to rely for his conviction on the final trial. the accused will not, by this procedure, be denied the opportunity of cross-examining the people's witnesses. However, in some jurisdictions, the courts have gone so far as to hold that the duty is upon the prosecuting attorney, in resisting an application, to begin the proceedings by the introduction of evidence showing that the applicant is not entitled to bail. (6 Am. Jur., section 47, p. 70.).

x x x x x x x x x

The general rule followed in the United States is more liberal than that of the common law, and the mere fact that a grand jury has found an indictment for murder will not generally preclude the court from inquiry into the facts of the case. On this inquiry the witnesses for the prosecution may be called, and the accused is not required to produce the testimony of any other witnesses. Furthermore, the accused is entitled to go behind the indictment and introduce evidence going to the merits of the case. The inquiry should not be limited to determining the probable degree of the homicide, but should include the determination of the character of the proof or the strength of the presumption respecting whether or not the defendant did the killing or was connected with it as a guilty agent. A case for the allowance of bail after indictment may also be presented where the public prosecutor admits that under the evidence obtainable no conviction of a capital offense can be had, or where there has been a failure to convict, or where a verdict of guilty has been reversed by reason of the insufficiency of the evidence. (6 Am. Jur., section 50, p. 71.)

 

[mike_s]

Here it's summarized in Alabama Judicial Court Rules on evidence and bail hearings.


http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/ev1101.pdf

Alabama Rules of Evidence
Article XI. Miscellaneous Rules
Rule 1101.
Rules applicable.​

Proceedings with respect to release on bail or otherwise. As does Fed.R.Evid.
1101(d)(3) and Unif.R.Evid. 1101(b)(3), this rule follows present practice to the effect that rules
of evidence are inapplicable to proceedings regarding bail. See Ala. Code 1975, § 15-13-4
(generally providing that judges and magistrates should ensure, where the law authorizes bail,
that every prisoner has an opportunity to give bail); Ala. Code 1975, § 15-3-2 (right to bail);
Ala. Const. Art. I, § 16 (providing that all persons, before conviction, are bailable except for
capital offenses). See also Ala.R.Crim.P. 7.2 (describing matters that court may take into
account in deciding whether to release an accused on bond or personal recognizance);
Ala.R.Crim.P. 7.4 (describing procedure for determination of release conditions).​

 

[ItsBruce]

Fascinating stuff. I reserve comment on the right to bail and the relationship between the setting of bail and the right to a speedy trial. But, I will note that if Watson forces the case to trial quickly, which he has a right to do, the prosecution could find itself in a very bad position.

My perception is that the Judge has concerns about the prosecution's ability to present evidence, which if believed, would be sufficient to convict Watson. To the best of my recollection, unlike the situation with prospective jurors, nothing prevents a judge from educating himself or herself about a given case.

BTW: I am rather tired of the media calling Watson "the honeymoon killer" when there still is no actual public evidence he killed Tina. If he is acquitted, will the media report "The Honeymoon Killer Was Acquitted" or will it report "Watson Is Not A Killer"?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

never heard of that quack reasoning before.....


You have to realize.... that's an Australian journalist with most likely no knowledge of individual state judicial system writing that story.

(just like 99% of us have know real knowledge of Australian judicial system.....)

Well said.... too many assumptions have been made for too long about the judicial system of other countries. There is a reason that Lawyers spend a lot of time in the educational system of the country they work in and have to take exams in other locals even within the same country before they practice!

I hate trial by media no matter what country it happens in!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Fascinating stuff. I reserve comment on the right to bail and the relationship between the setting of bail and the right to a speedy trial. But, I will note that if Watson forces the case to trial quickly, which he has a right to do, the prosecution could find itself in a very bad position.

My perception is that the Judge has concerns about the prosecution's ability to present evidence, which if believed, would be sufficient to convict Watson. To the best of my recollection, unlike the situation with prospective jurors, nothing prevents a judge from educating himself or herself about a given case.

BTW: I am rather tired of the media calling Watson "the honeymoon killer" when there still is no actual public evidence he killed Tina. If he is acquitted, will the media report "The Honeymoon Killer Was Acquitted" or will it report "Watson Is Not A Killer"?

I trust your "perceptions" more than any others since you have the qualifications and experience with judges necessary to come to educated conclusions.

If Watson is proven not guilty.. I would love to see some media answering for their actions. I wonder if there may be a case since it wouldn't be hard to prove the damage to his reputation as a result of repeated PUBLIC accusations in print and Public domain Interviews/Documentaries broadcast around the world. I wonder if Watson might have a case against a few people who have been very vocal in the public domain declaring his guilt Could get very interesting indeed!

 

[boulderjohn]

I wonder if Watson might have a case against a few people who have been very vocal in the public domain declaring his guilt Could get very interesting indeed!

Fortunately in America you can't sue an organization like ScubaBoard or its members because of opinions freely expressed....wait a minute!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Ummm.. I wasn't talking or meaning to imply anything about SB or it's posters.

I was talking about media both sides of the ocean and people who have repeatedly appeared in the media proclaiming his guilt. No matter what a person's personal beliefs and reasons for them IMHO it is inappropriate to launch a very public campaign that a reasonable person would expect to damage a person's reputation and chances of a fair trial.

I would like to see justice done in this case but sadly I am not confident that is possible any more. Once again I want to stress I do not believe I have enough information to determine Watson's guilt or innocence. I am not trying to defend Watson here.. I am trying to defend the fair and unbiased application of justice!

 

[bigtim6656]

the court trying to bring him up on charges here is a joke, sure if he did it he should pay. The problem is he is paying for him crime. HE should not pay for it TWICE. There is no law or reason to try him here. Though that being said If it was my daughter, mother, sister I would hope they would let him out, so i could be the judge, jury and well you know the rest

 

[K_girl]

Something new I had not heard yet:

Gabe Watson joked about dead bride Tina's life insurance, friend reveals

HONEYMOON scuba dive murder suspect Gabe Watson joked about his dead bride Tina's life insurance in the weeks after her death, a key US witness claims.
Watson allegedly told Tina's best friend that he might have been treated as a suspect in Tina's drowning had she raised the value of her policy to $US1 million ($A1.2 million) as the couple had discussed before the trip.

''Gabe said it was a good thing she didn't because he would be sitting in an Australian jail on manslaughter charges,'' Amanda Phillips told The Courier-Mail.

''It makes me upset because Tina would have done anything for him.''

Phillips has detailed Watson's comments in her 16-page statement to police, who will use it in the US prosecution case against Watson.."

SOURCE: Gabe Watson joked about dead bride Tina's life insurance, friend reveals | Courier Mail

 

[ItsBruce]

Something new I had not heard yet:

Gabe Watson joked about dead bride Tina's life insurance, friend reveals

HONEYMOON scuba dive murder suspect Gabe Watson joked about his dead bride Tina's life insurance in the weeks after her death, a key US witness claims.
Watson allegedly told Tina's best friend that he might have been treated as a suspect in Tina's drowning had she raised the value of her policy to $US1 million ($A1.2 million) as the couple had discussed before the trip.

''Gabe said it was a good thing she didn't because he would be sitting in an Australian jail on manslaughter charges,'' Amanda Phillips told The Courier-Mail.

''It makes me upset because Tina would have done anything for him.''

Phillips has detailed Watson's comments in her 16-page statement to police, who will use it in the US prosecution case against Watson.."

SOURCE: Gabe Watson joked about dead bride Tina's life insurance, friend reveals | Courier Mail

An interesting revelation ... better late than never ... which makes one wonder... I'm waiting for someone to finally remember seeing Watson fiddling with Tina's tank valve underwater.