Watkins V. The State Case Study

Watkins Vs. The State is yet another compelling case that outlines the role of the prosecution, grounds for instituting criminal charges, and what characterizes a justly conducted criminal trial. On July 2nd, 2001, Joseph "Joey" Watkins was indicted in Rome, GA of murder; stalking and various wrongdoings for his part in shooting and slaughtering Isaac Dawkins on Jan. 11, 2000 close to Georgia Highlands College. Watkins was condemned to life in addition to five years in jail. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Georgia maintained Watkins' conviction and sentence. Joey Watkins' case speaks to yet another case of unchecked government wrongdoing and shows its inescapable nature (Persak, 2016). The prosecution in Joey's case presented very incendiary and biased proof about a dead dog found by the graveyard where the casualty, Isaac Dawkins, was covered. In particular, indicting lawyer Tami Colston guaranteed that the dead dog portrayed a "mark" or "calling card," stating at preliminary that Joey shot the canine in the head and dumped it close to the casualty's grave the same way he shot the casualty in the head since "he desperately wanted his family to know he was responsible."

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

When Joey's lawyers insisted on knowing whether the bullet had been removed from the dog and if it matched the one used to slaughter Mr. Dawkins, Colston argued that no bullet had been removed. The judges were therefore left to deduce that the shots were similar, reinforced by Colston's provocative affirmations. Sixteen years after the conviction, the Georgia Innocence Project alongside the assistance of the undisclosed digital broadcast found that the Floyd County Police Department had indeed asked the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to remove the bullet from the dog's head and contrast it with that from the casualty's head. After it was evident that the shots were not even from a similar sort of firearm, the proof was covered and eventually vanished (Pound, 2018). Furthermore, although the GBI witness gave the removed bullet over to the prosecution, Colston did not reveal it and had never remedied her false statements. If she had been honest, the Court probably would have precluded using the grave dog evidence entirely.

In their endeavors to free Joey, the Georgia Innocence Project collaborated with Marietta lawyer Ben Goldberg to record a habeas appeal stating that Colston:- a) perpetrated Brady infringement for neglecting to reveal exculpatory proof. b) presented and requested the presence of untrue statements and false narratives to the court and afterward ignored redressing them, and c) all these hindered the capacity of Joey's lawyers to defend him successfully. Regarding Joey's habeas action against the superintendent of his jail, the Georgian Attorney General's office represents the superintendent (Fereydooni & Ramezani, 2017). The AG's strategy is to battle all habeas corpus petitions paying little heed to the certainties or the law, except if the local arraigning lawyer prescribes something else. Here, that local arraigning lawyer is Leigh Patterson, who currently routinely prosecutes individuals before now-Superior Court Judge Colston. Therefore, as expected, the AG recorded a petition requesting that the Court expel Joey's appeal.

To date, Tami Colston has never revised her misleading statements on Joey's case. Additionally, she was neither penalized by her office for the misleading statements nor was she punished by the Georgia State Bar. Next, to all this, the 2011 United States Supreme Court ruling on unfortunate prosecutorial misconduct makes it practically difficult to sue District Attorneys or their offices (Persak, 2016). Colston currently serves as a Superior Court judge in Floyd County where she indicted Joey. Regardless of moral principles and bar disciplinary boards that are hypothetically intended to audit prosecutors, experience has shown time and again that they are seldom punished. This needs urgent attention and rectification.

Before it is decided whether a case is handled justly or otherwise, several considerations are desirable. They include reasonable suspicion, probable cause, the application of search warrants, the applicability of arrest warrants, and how the exclusionary rule applies to the given case (Fereydooni & Ramezani, 2017). Here, there was a probable cause to commence the trial. Several breaches to the law had been noted, and it was accurate to bring such events to a stop. Various crimes were mainly linked to Watkins; hence, it was beyond doubt that he had a hand in the killing of Isaac Dawkins, and the associated stalking. In light of the statement by the complainant referring to the phone conversation, it is an unequivocal confirmation that the accused person had the requisite intent to carry out the killings. At some point, he requested for boxer shorts that were not in possession of the maker of the statement, which was later relied upon as a witness statement.

Search warrants are part of the procedural highlights that facilitate the carrying out of a criminal case withby the law. This is in the wake of ensuring that justice and fairness, for the offending party, the state, and the aggrieved party is realized. In the present case, research evidence up to the trial shows that Watkins's home and property were searched. The evidence gathered was then stored later to be used in the succeeding factions of the trial process. Arrest warrants, on the other hand, serve to ensure that only the right persons are arrested. It would inculcate a miscarriage of justice to arrest anyone for the sake of adjudicating over a legal dispute. In the case, the search warrant was served to the accurate officers, and it had the correct particulars identifying the criminal, and gave adequate reasons for the arrest. The only drawback, in this case, is that the provisions related to the Miranda Rights were violated. The accused was not prompted of their right to remain silent, and the fact that their confessions would later be used in the subsequent criminal proceedings.

As pertains Watkins case, evidence of the specific averments by the accused person was utilized by the prosecution in their proof of the claim. The case was ruled in order since there was reasonable suspicion to believe that Watkins was responsible for the murder charges. The police included all the relevant issues in the incident report. Names of the victims and complainant were included. According to the law, it is essential or the name of reporting and recording officers to be included in the incident records. Equally, based on the conduct of the accused, and the collaborating factors, the police were right in their action of apprehending Watkins. Watkin was not remotely linked to the criminal activities that culminated in his arrest.

Although the above narration confirms that the case followed the due process as prescribed in law, several impunities were inculcated by the state. For instance, the prosecutors only considered the files that they deemed fit in the case. The law requires that state officers consider all facts, files, and information when conducting a criminal case. It seems that the prosecution, in Watkin's case, served both as the investigating body as well as the ruling organ. With such concerns, it was impossible for the defense team to prove to the court that Watkin was not entirely guilty. The role of the prosecution was not demarcated, hence, the manifestation of misconducts throughout the succeeding phases of the case. Interestingly, the prosecution pegged their claim on the bullet that was apparently in the dog's head. Watkins' case was already decided even before the due process of the law was completed. The prosecution kept pointing towards issues that were not closely linked to the crimes. In awarding the judgment, the lack of impartiality on the part of the court was noted (Fereydooni & Ramezani, 2017). At the commencement, Watkins was placed on a 5-year sentence and subjected to a life sentence following the completion of the case to the court of appeal. This proves that the individual served two different jail terms for crimes that would have been corresponded with jail terms that run concurrently.

Conclusion

To sum it up, as seen in the above deliberation, Watkins' case outlines the areas where the state has failed to ensure that justice is served to the related parties. From the commencement where Watkins was arrested, the prosecution unit failed to follow the necessary factors in law enforcement. Although some of the clear-cut steps like the issuance of a warrant of arrest were completed, the manner in which the search conducted cannot be justified as evidence was gathered selectively in the interests of stepping on Watkins rights. To date, the state is still reluctant to reverse the decision in Watkins' case.

References

Fereydooni, P., & Ramezani, A. (2017). Personality Record and Its Role in Procedure (Case Study: Article 203 of the Criminal Procedure Law). J. Pol. & L., 10, 1.

Persak, N. (2016). Legitimacy and trust in the criminal law, policy, and justice: Norms, procedures, outcomes. Routledge.Pound, R. (2018). Criminal justice in America. Routledge.