Alabama Criminal Lawyer Blog

Gabe Watson, an Alabama man who was accused of killing his wife in Australia in 2003, faces possible murder charges in Alabama for the crime. Watson plead guilty to manslaughter charges in Australia and subsequently served 18 months in prison in that country. He is accused of killing his wife while scuba diving in Australia on the couple's honeymoon.

Many people, apparently including Alabama Attorney General Troy King, have shown their unhappiness with the Australian sentence in this case publicly, and have searched for ways to punish Mr. Watson more severely for his alleged crime. Now it appears that the State of Alabama will be charging Mr. Watson again for apparently the same offense that he has already served a sentence for in Australia.

The obvious question that this turn of events brings to mind is whether this Alabama charge can stand up to Constitutional challenges. At first glance, it appears to fly in the face of the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. This clause is found in the fifth Amendment to the Constitution and states "[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

There are several notable circumstances where this legal principle is seemingly not followed. One of the most common of which is the exception referred to as the "separate sovereigns" exception. A common example of this occurs when a person violates both state and federal law by the same actions and is therefore charged both by the state and the federal government. I think that in the current situation with Mr. Watson, the "separate sovereigns" exception could easily be applied.

Once the obvious hurdle of double jeopardy is avoided, the Alabama charges have another, much more difficult hurdle to pass. The state of Alabama generally would have no jurisdiction to prosecute behavior that occurred outside of the state of Alabama. It appears that the state of Alabama will attempt to navigate this hurdle by a claim that the crime was planned while Mr. Watson was in Alabama prior to the trip to Australia. It will be very interesting to see what kind of evidence the state will put on to prove this case. The state will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the offense. This means that they will have to convince a jury that there was a plan to kill his wife, that the plan was made at least partially in Alabama, and then that Mr. Watson killed his wife as charged. This all seems like a tough case for the state to make.

Continue reading "Alabama Murder Charges for Man Accused of Killing Wife in Australia" »

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is the basis for the familiar "Miranda Warning" that reminds a suspect that they have a right to remain silent. However, in my practice I have found that an alarming number of people being investigated as a suspect in a crime choose to talk to the police. Therefore, I give every one of my clients this simple piece of advice: Never talk to the police.

This advice is obviously very difficult to follow, but I believe it is crucial to getting a fair trial for the following reasons.

First, making a statement to the police can never help you. As discussed in Part 1 of this blog entry, the typical Miranda Warning explains that "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law." What a lot of suspects assume is that if they say something helpful, it will be introduced at trial in their favor. The reality is that those statements would be inadmissible hearsay and the prosecutor would object if the defense attorney attempted to have those statements admitted. Statements against the defendant's interests fall into an exception to the hearsay rules and would be allowed by the judge. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for an innocent person to speak to the police during an investigation, because the innocent person could not benefit from any statements made.

Secondly, there are too many ways that an innocuous statement can be used to convict the defendant. When being subjected to interrogation by the police for an extended amount of time, suspects tend to get to a point where they are just trying to get out of there. At that point, many suspects will tend to exaggerate otherwise truthful statements of innocence. What may start out as "I wasn't there when the crime occurred," becomes "I've never been there in my life." While the suspect may not have been at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed, the police may have a way to prove that the suspect was there on some other day. At that point, the suspect's credibility is gone and they appear to be guilty even though they may not be.

Next, a statement made to the police during questioning may not be presented to the jury at trial in the same manner as it was originally given. Often, an officer on the stand at trial will offer personal commentary about the suspect's statement. If the questioning was not videotaped (most interrogations are not videotaped) then the officer's commentary may be presented to the jury without contradiction. For example, the officer may tell the jury that he believed the suspect was nervous or that he seemed to be hiding something. Often, the officer will testify that the suspect was evasive or fidgety or that he was sarcastic with certain answers. This type of officer commentary can make an exculpatory statement seem like an admission of guilty.

Finally, a suspect in a police investigation should remain silent and refuse to talk to the police because even if they are guilty, there is no reason to admit guilt without receiving any benefit in return. A large number of criminal defendants eventually plead guilty to some offense. These defendants usually change their plea to guilty in return for a reduction of the charges or some consideration in terms of sentencing. A suspect who confesses to the police at the beginning of the process has given away their best bargaining chip and may get a more substantial sentence as a result.

Continue reading "Alabama Police Questioning: Don't Talk to Police (Part 2)" »

One of the most frequently asked questions that I get from my clients is something like this: "the officer who arrested me never read me my rights. Does that mean they have to drop the charges?" The short answer is always "No." Below is a more detailed explanation as to why that is true.

"Miranda Rights" are something of an enigma. The term comes from the Supreme Court Case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The rights afforded to the accused come from the United States Constitution. There has long been a serious misunderstanding of what the police are required to do to comply with the Court's ruling in this and subsequent cases, much of this misunderstanding has been caused by the portrayal of "Miranda Rights" in movies and on television.

The standard Miranda Warning goes something like this: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

These rights must be explained to a suspect prior to custodial interrogation or any statements made by that suspect will not be admissible in court. This means that if the police are arresting a suspect and they don't need to ask that suspect any questions, there is no need to read the Miranda Warning. Further, if the police are asking a suspect questions, but that suspect is not in custody, there is no need to read the Miranda Warning. Finally, it means that even if the suspect is in custody and the police interrogate him or her without giving a Miranda Warning, the suspect could still be convicted of the crime that they are charged with as long as the DA doesn't need the statements made by the suspect at the time of questioning.

Continue reading "Alabama Miranda Requirements: Don't Talk to Police (Part 1)" »