Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[My-way]

Like him or not Murphy J was a very insightful judge.

 

[mike_s]

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. The degree of the "crime" (i.e. murder or manslaughter) has nothing to do with it - double jeopardy still applies.

I read in one article where King said in an interview that he could charge the case with Capital Murder because Watson pleaded to a different crime. so in this case, it appears that King is using that charge differently.


I can see if I can find the link if needed where he said that.

King's office said that they might have a problem with double jeopardy, but they have several arguments they can put forth.

Actually King's office said that Double Jeopardy didn't apply here.

he said: (from Alabama to Seek Murder Charge Against Man in Wife's Australian Honeymoon Drowning - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com)

An attorney for Watson, Bob Austin, said the U.S. Constitution bars trying someone twice for the same crime. States can prosecute people for crimes committed outside the United States only if a foreign country refuses to bring charges, he said.

"That's not what happened here," he said. King, Austin said "can say whatever he wants."​

King aide Chris Bence said there was no "international standard" on double jeopardy, or prosecuting someone twice for the same offense, and Watson didn't plead guilty to murder.

The other problem will be proving jurisdiction. If they can prove their claim that Watson went to Tina's job and tried to up her insurance and get his name on her insurance without her knowledge before they were married, then they will argue that significantly alters the set of facts, therefore double jeopardy does not apply. They will also argue that proves he planned Tina's death while still in the U.S., giving them jurisdiction. I have no doubt they will arrest Watson as soon as he steps foot on American soil.

well they feel they have jurisdiction also.

Aid to King said: (in same article

"We feel we will be able to prove he plotted and planned the murder in Alabama, which gives us jurisdiction," said Bence.​

 

[Ayisha]

While looking up the definition of double jeopardy from various sources, I came across this interesting tidbit regarding Australia and double jeopardy from Double jeopardy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

In contrast to other common law nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to extend to the prevention of prosecution for perjury following a previous acquittal where a finding of perjury would controvert the previous acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of R v Carroll, where the police found new evidence convincingly disproving Caroll's sworn alibi two decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of Ipswich child Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturning of his conviction (for perjury) by the High Court has led to widespread calls for reform of the law along the lines of the UK legislation.

In December 2006, New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma scrapped substantial parts of the double jeopardy law in that state. Retrials of serious cases with a minimum sentence of twenty years or more are now possible, even when the original trial preceded the 2006 reform.[2]

South Australia currently is also in the process of reforming its laws which will see the principle of double jeopardy abolished for serious indictable offences.

On 18 October 2007, Queensland modified its double jeopardy laws to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a 'tainted acquittal' for a crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence. A 'tainted acquittal' requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal. Unlike reforms in the United Kingdom and New South Wales, this law does not have a retrospective effect, making its introduction less than fully appreciated by those who, over the years, have been advocating reform.

If new compelling evidence becomes available, it seems that it may be possible for double jeopardy to be waived in Australia in this case.

 

[livinoz]

While looking up the definition of double jeopardy from various sources, I came across this interesting tidbit regarding Australia and double jeopardy from Double jeopardy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:



If new compelling evidence becomes available, it seems that it may be possible for double jeopardy to be waived in Australia in this case.

He wasn't acquitted, nor was he charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is serving a sentence for that. So can you please explain how this highlighted section you quoted is relevant here:

On 18 October 2007,Queensland modified its double jeopardy laws to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a 'tainted acquittal' for a crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence.

 

[mike_s]

while they might change this in Australia, I doubt the US cares about other countries Double Jeopardy laws if they really want to prosecute someone.


As for jurisdiction, I think the US also will prosecute people who travel to other countries (like Thailand or Maylasia, etc) for child sex "trips". Of course the crime doesn't happen in the US, but they will prosecute you for it now I believe....

(someone correct me if I got those countries listed above wrong).

 

[My-way]

"The respondent had been charged that on 22 October 2003 at the Yongala shipwreck near Townsville he murdered Christina Mae Watson. The Crown Prosecutor informed the learned primary Judge that the Crown accepted the plea to manslaughter in full discharge of the indictment"

It is pretty clear that he was charged with murder in Queensland and manslaughter being an alternative verdict in a murder trial (by plea or finding by a jury) he was, by necessary implication, acquitted of murder.

 

[ItsBruce]

... I could form a small country and dispense plea bargains with fines (to pad my pocket) for serious crimes. ... .

That is easier than you might think. While it is true that the "Colonies" succeeded, the South tried and failed. It is not even easy to form one's own city.

I'm not going to list other examples, but forming one's own small country is probably not in the cards.

 

[Under-Exposed]

"The respondent had been charged that on 22 October 2003 at the Yongala shipwreck near Townsville he murdered Christina Mae Watson. The Crown Prosecutor informed the learned primary Judge that the Crown accepted the plea to manslaughter in full discharge of the indictment"

It is pretty clear that he was charged with murder in Queensland and manslaughter being an alternative verdict in a murder trial (by plea or finding by a jury) he was, by necessary implication, acquitted of murder.

Sorry to bang on about law (it is interesting though isn't it!) but the Qld double jeopardy provisions (Chapter 68 of Qld's Criminal Code) which allow for the retrial of an acquitted offence in some circumstances do not apply where although a person is acquitted of the offence as charged, the person is convicted instead of a lesser offence, the specific example given in the note to the provision being a charge of murder that results in a conviction for manslaughter.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Like him or not Murphy J was a very insightful judge.

I am mostly in the "not" category, but in fact nothing he says is inconsistent with the proposition I advanced...it is only so as between the accused and the Crown (well, there might be an interesting question about the divisibility of the Crown...but that's for a journal!)

 

[fisheater]

I'm not at all sure that the U.S. Constitution's double jeopardy provision would be applied to foreign trials. Most likely, it only prevents the U.S. (and states) from trying someone twice for the same crime.

I haven't had the time to research that question. Anyone have a citation?