Inspired by the Gabe Watson case. (He was the American found guilty of manslaughter of his new wife while Scuba diving in North Queensland.)
There is a news story today about his possible extradition to Alabama to try him in, a presumably, capital case for the murder. And Australia, not having capital punishment, not wanting to agree because of the death penalty.
Even if he just serves out his time in the Australian jail, and is then presumably deported immediately thereafter, he could be arrested upon arrival on US soil and taken to Alabama to stand trial.
The interesting thing to me, and the question I have is. Why does this case not fall under Double Jeopardy laws? A bit of layman’s research on the web finds no reference to it not applying if the original trial was in a different country under a different jurisdication. Could his lawyers trot out Douple Jeopardy as defence and have any expectation of it working?
In the US, the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects one from being tried for the same act in the same jurisdiction, if you are acquitted the first time.
For example, if you murder your wife in Kansas, and are acquitted, Kansas can not again try you for that crime. But theoretically, the federal government could try you for violating your late wife’s civil rights (by killing her.) This is because Kansas and the federal government have separate criminal jurisdictions. This type of thing is exceptionally rare, but has happened in a few noteworthy cases.
Now then, if Watson were to return to the United States, and Alabama attempted to charge him with murder, the question would be, does Alabama have jurisdiction to try an American for a murder committed in Australia? That seems pretty dubious. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think an Alabama court would find itself to have jurisdiction over that matter, for the same reason that an Oregon court wouldn’t have jurisdiction to try that murder that took place in Kansas.
Under the “Separate Sovereign” doctrine, two parties, the state and the federal government both may try and individual for the same act. In Maryland we recently had a notable example where a young man murdered a man and beat the state charges and was subsequently indicted by the feds, plead guilty and received a forty year sentence.
It happens quite frequently when federally chartered banks are robbed. The robbers will face state and federal charges. Also, here the big deal is drug kingpins.
I know nothing about Alabama law, but I imagine they would have some provision of law giving them jurisdiction over the murder of any citizen of their state who happened to be outside of the state. I’m sure someone with a greater familiarity with Alabama law will come along.
The short answer, if I was his lawyer I’d focus more on evidentiary or jurisdictional issues than double jeopardy. Double Jeopardy would be a loser in this case.
A good care to illustrate the dual sovereignty doctrine is Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). Heath hired two men to kill his wife, who was nine months pregnant; they kidnapped her in Alabama and killed her in Georgia. He pleaded guilty in Georgia in exchange for a life sentence. Alabama susequently indicted him for murder during a kidnapping, and he received the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that each state had the right to criminalize and exercise jurisdiction over Heath’s actions, and it didn’t violate double jeopardy for each to prosecute him for a single course of conduct.
In Heath v. Alabama, the criminal conduct took place in two states. I would be surprised if there’s anything in the Gabe Watson case to link events that took place in Queensland with Alabama. It would be the same if he and his wife had been scuba diving in Florida, unless they’d crossed the border into or out of Alabama during the course of the dive.
They could have some difficulty, but that appears to be the route Alabama is taking. They intend to prove that Watson planned the murder in Alabama.
"Officials in King’s office have said if investigators find evidence that Gabe Watson plotted in Alabama to kill his wife, and then carried the plan out in Australia, he could be prosecuted here.
Chris Bence, King’s chief of staff, said, “We feel like a murder occurred in another country and the murderer is sill in that country. But if any part of the murder occurred here, we have jurisdiction to pursue it here.”
Bence said he did not know how long an investigation might take. “This is a pioneer effort. We’re in uncharted territory.”