Peter Watts: Post Verdict Thoughts and Observations

[uplinktruck]

Kennedy Space Center, FL - Peter Watt's was found guilty of assaulting US Customs and Border Protection officer Andrew Beaudry. He will be sentenced on April 26. There are a few loose ends that need tying up so let's get started.

The Port Huron paper was the only news organization that actually showed up in person to listen watch and report the

Comments

Re: this bit isn't true

[uplinktruck]

No, the obvious thing is that you still don't get it. I cannot speak to Canada. But I can speak to many of the States. Most deferred prosecutions involve making a guilty plea in writing. That is part of taking responsibility for the crime. That guilty plea is held in abeyance until the conditions of the deferment are met. Then the case it dropped.

I honestly believe that you are confusing the trial phase with the sentencing phase. During the trial, previous convictions cannot be brought up unless they are directly related to the current case. Arrests without convictions may not be brought up at anytime unless it is vital to the case to establish the defendant's whereabouts at a given date and time. That requires the permission of the judge in advance. The judge will probably instruct the jury not to give any weight to the fact the defendant was arrested at that time.

Once convicted, everything the defendant ever did will be used to establish the sentence. When it comes time for sentencing, the judge will weigh anything the prosecution, the defense and the victims wish to say plus the probation report.

The arrest for defying a Canadian police officer is going to weigh very heavily in this case because the current charge pretty much comes down to the same thing.

I don't really blame the prosecutor for bringing it up. That Canadian case was so old that the prosecutor had no way of determining how the case was disposed without bringing it up in court, because of that case's age.

I don't blame her either. It is her job. However, I'm curious as to where you got your information that the prosecutor couldn't determine the outcome of the case? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

I can’t say for sure, but I'm willing to bet she had that information when the case was handed to her. I suggest that because the Customs and Border Protection officers knew about Mr. Watts' record shortly after he was arrested. But even if that were not the case, a simple phone call to the Canadian court or to the RCMP would produce an answer.

It won't require any sort of magic trick.

- and -

This is a question of state, not federal, law and a statement beginning with "in the United States" cannot hope to be completely accurate. But what you're saying is generally wrong.

I'm getting the impression you have not watched many criminal trials in the United States all the way through to the sentencing phase. It is fairly obvious that you are not up to speed on the latitude state judges have in what they may consider when imposing sentence.

When I say "in the United States" that is a generalization to all the cases I've sat through over the years. Those cases cover many different states. Yes, the law differs from state to state. But the universal constant about repeat offenders runs true through all of them.

Of the cases I've sat through, roughly a third of the cases that made it to sentencing involved defendants were on or had been on some kind of diversion program or deferred prosecution. The defendant's previous indiscretions, deferred or not, were considered a negative factor while imposing sentence in every case.

Unless Michigan has some quirk in their law limiting the sentencing judge to court room convictions only when arriving at a sentence, Mr. Mullkoff will indeed have to pull a rabbit out of his hat to get the judge to forget about Peter's previous defiance of a police officer.

The same would apply to Rush Limbaugh if he is convicted on anything even remotely substance related. You can bet everything you have that his previous brush with the law will come up at sentencing. Like I said above, if it were not for that ability, everyone would be treated as a first offender no matter how many times they go through the system.

It would be nice if you are right and I am wrong. What really concerns me is that the judge is going to compare the record of the 1991 non-conviction and the circumstances of current conviction and think to himself, "This guy just is not catching on here. I think he needs some time to contemplate the error of his ways."