A Fine Example of Montanas "NEW JUSTICE"

With "Montana" defense attorneys like this fellow, should we even bother to report crime? Why waste taxpayer money?

FYI: THIS IS THE ATTORNEY WHO WILL REPRESENT THE "DEFENDANT" IN THE CASE REGARDING MISTREATMENT OF 33 SLED DOGS... "Why" bother an attempt at prosecution?

Law Office of Chuck Watson
1700 W. Koch, Ste 2
Bozeman, Montana
59715
(406) 586-4707


NOTABLE CASES
The felony cases remarked upon below constitute only a few of my cases. In addition, I have won acquittals in dozens of felony and misdemeanor cases over the years, including two wherein my clients confessed to the crimes. In one county alone, I have won ten out of my last twelve jury trials.

The names and captions on these cases have been removed to protect the privacy of my clients.

CASE: Academy Award nominated actor of Easy Rider fame accused of threats of violence against a female prosecutor.

RESULT: No charges/no prosecution as a result of precharge negotiations with the Attorney General's Office. Client sent alleged victim a nice apology on Tiffany stationary. CASE: Deliberate Homicide charged as a result of two pistol slugs being fired into sleeping husband's brain. Client walked down to the police station in her nightgown and confessed to premeditated murder.

RESULT: In spite of the confession, a charge reduction was negotiated, resulting in a plea to voluntary manslaughter, with a chance of parole in three to four years, based on a possible drug interaction defense.

CASE: 19-year-old Rastafarian from St. John Virgin, Islands charged with murdering 19-year-old college baseball star in small southern town. The trial was heavily attended by the Ku Klux Klan.

RESULT: The trial resulted in an acquittal, and I received a Criminal Justice Award from the NAACP for my successful pro bono representation. I offered my services to the young man, who was in jail, and without friends or family in the United States, in order to prevent what I told him was otherwise likely to be "a legal lynching".

CASE: Client charged with twenty-five residential burglaries, several counts rustling, and illegal branding.

RESULT: Filing of valid Fourth Amendment challenge resulted in plea to one count each of burglary, theft and illegal branding with thirty-day jail sentence

CASE: 18-year-old carwash employee was charged with aggravated assault, armed robbery and theft as a result of allegedly attacking a popular elderly man in a botched burglary and safe-cracking attempt.

RESULT: Two trials. One hung-jury, one conviction. Twelve-year sentence. While the case was on appeal, I hired an investigator and located the true culprit. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed on newly discovered evidence. Edwin Imwinkelreid, Andre Moenssens, and George Bonebrake, the retired head of the FBI fingerprint lab, consulted for the Defense.

CASE: Elected county sheriff charged with sexual assault.

RESULT: Acquittal, against a prosecutor who has reputedly not lost a case in twenty-two years.

CASE: Thirty-year veteran sex crimes investigator snaps and begins to groom a fourteen-year-old and attempts to engage her in a sexual relationship.

RESULT: Four felony sex crimes dismissed, client pleads to evidence tampering and receives fifteen days house arrest.

CASE: Drifter charged with kidnap/murder. State seeks death penalty.

RESULT: Murder charge is dismissed, client pleads to kidnapping, after the state's polygraph expert takes the Fifth on an ethics matter, and defense uses polygraph evidence to convince prosecutor of client's limited role in the murder

CASE: Client murders girlfriend in a manner approximating torture, all on an open 911 line. State seeks death penalty.

RESULT: Murder charge dismissed. Client pleads to equivalent of voluntary manslaughter.

CASE: Client shoots husband's girlfriend off a front-end loader. The bullet enters her neck and exits the back, near the spine. Attempted murder charged.

RESULT: Client pleads to criminal endangerment and receives house arrest, based on evidence of a drug interaction.

CASE: Client charged with five counts armed robbery. Co-defendants testify against him, in exchange for leniency.

RESULT: Acquittals on four counts and a hung-jury on the fifth as a result of the prosecutor being caught in a lie, by me, resulting in a loss of credibility by the prosecution.

CASE: Client charged with cocaine possession.

RESULT: Dismissed in front of the jury when the state crime lab chemist reluctantly admitted he examined the wrong drugs.

CASE: Elderly man accused of molesting six girls and charged with several felonies, many of which carried potential life sentences.

RESULT: State dismissed all charges after the jury arrived for selection, on the basis that several of the girls recanted and said that they made the allegations in order to get attention, and their equivocations were under reported in discovery, but discovered by the defense during my investigation.

CASE: Eighty-two-year-old great-grandfather and seventy-eight-year-old wife charged with multiple felonies alleging sexual molestation of their great-grandchildren.

RESULT: Acquittals on all counts.

CASE: Elderly man charged with molesting his mentally retarded grandson.

RESULT: Mistrial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. Case dismissed.

CASE: Gas station attendant accused of anal sodomy of a child.

RESULT: Hung-jury. No retrial. (The jury was hung eleven to one to acquit for two full days before the judge agreed to release them).

CASE: Possession of Methamphetamine.

RESULT: Hung-jury. No retrial.

CASE: Ku Klux Klan member charged with having two pounds of marijuana in the trunk of a stolen car in his backyard. The key to the car was hanging in his living room on the wall, and gallon baggies with residue were in his bedroom.

RESULT: Hung-jury.

CASE: Client pled guilty and received a ten-year sentence on a bad check charge.

RESULT: I was hired after he was in the penitentiary for eight months. My partner and I appealed and the case was reversed, and dismissed.

CASE: College student accused of rape.

RESULT: Tried to the student conduct board at the university and not guilty verdict obtained. No formal charges filed as a result.

CASE: College student facing federal weapons' charges with mandatory incarceration under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

RESULT: Downward departure for substantial mental incapacity. Probation.

CASE: Theft from business by embezzlement.

RESULT: Acquittal.

CASE: College student accused of date-rape.

RESULT: Tried to the student conduct board at the university and not guilty verdict obtained. No formal charges filed as a result.
Permalink
tags: bozeman, lawyer, ethic, sled, dogs, animal, mistreatment + add tags
savecancel
posted on Sun, Jun 15, 2008 09:08 AM
last updated on Sun, Jun 15, 2008 09:34 AM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Come on.... byMontana007 June 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Everyone deserves representation and if the case isn't made then it wasn't strong enough. However, if the government attorney feels that there is a good case they should prosecute. What bothers me more than anything is when the case truely isn't justified and the government's attorney pushes ahead at the encouragement of law enforcement and drains the savings of a person who may be found not guilty in the end. Too often prosecuting attorneys allow every criminal case to go to court. It is inconcievable that every arrest or ticket offense was justified and it sure would be nice to see a prosecutor that isn't in bed with law enforcement, but is instead keeping them in check. It's sad if the dogs were mistreated, but we have an awful lot of things more important than this to tie up the courts. If there was intentional animal torture for pleasure I would have a different opinion and would feel that the individual has the tendency to turn his attention to harming the human population at some point.

There are too many cases in your post to comment on each of them, but you can't honestly think that just because someone was charged with a crime that they are guilty. One of them that you cited referred to a defendant that was charged with cocaine possession and the "state crime lab chemist reluctantly admitted he examined the wrong drugs". The defendant should be found not guilty and the admission of examining the wrong drugs should not have been "reluctant". It's not a game about winning and losing. It's people's lives and lifestyles at stake and it should be handled with caution. The crime lab should be the one's going to court after falsely representing evidence.
Good call montana007 byjohnbrownraider June 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I would agree everybody should be innocent until proven guilty...however i have noticed some people would rather the defendant prove their innocence rather than the prosecutor prove their guilt....
Huh? byberrymountain June 16, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The point of this post, was to point out that this attorney is very good, and rarely looses. Watson's own site points out guilty parties who have received a "slap on the hand," as a result of his expert defense skills. I appreciate that Watson has also represented and defended innocent people, whom law enforcement have wrongly and many times intentionally, "railroaded."

I agree with the comment, " It's people's lives and lifestyles at stake and it should be handled with caution. The crime lab should be the one's going to court after falsely representing evidence."

Should anyone involved in any case falsify evidence, or fail to admit any type of error involved in an investigation, not admit to doing so, they also should be held responsible in a court of law with severe penalties. This includes law enforcement.

For the record, I am every defendant's dream as a juror. I believe in "PROOF," and not "Gut feeling..." Innocent people have been imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.
RE: Huh? byMontana007 June 18, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse)
I may have misunderstood your position in the original post. I agree with you that there are too many people that have been punished for lack of financial capacity to defend themselves.
And the flip side is.... bychopsui June 16, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I believe that the attorneys are business so it is right for them to advertise in any way they feel fit. Why do you think they offer to defend high profile cases for free sometimes? Because if they win its bragging rights. I don't think that the defense attorney has anything to take down. If I was in trouble I would want the best of the best. Guilty or not.
RE: And the flip side is.... byberrymountain June 16, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Of course an attorney runs/operates a business. I certainly have no problem with that. Because we live in the United States of America, people (guilty or innocent) have a right to council even if they cannot afford to hire an attorney themself.

Certainly if I was this particular attorney, (this fellow is no doubt an expert), I'd be bragging on my site also.

My point is, with attorney's this brilliant (effectively defending innocent and guilty parties), it almost seems a waste of taxpayer money, to take this case to court. I'll be he'll get off with a misdemeanor as the prosecutor is not going to look forward, going head to head with this guy. He's a legal/attorney monster! (Don't send me hate mail! I love animals!)
Let's see what happens.

Chopsui I'm a citizen, not an attorney. As a "citizen," I believe our court system should be about "justice," not simply winning and loosing and/or bragging rights.

On the flip side; Many innocent people have fallen victim to our court system (corruption, inadequate defense), as they were unable to afford council such as this attorney provides. Many guilty people have walked away "scott free" from crimes they did commit, as a result of the council they were able to afford.

Works both ways, but sometimes the outcome depends on the thickness of your wallet.

This guy, does his job. That I respect.
The happy dream of justice.... byjohnbrownraider June 17, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I don't get what your points are Berrymountain....if the prosecutor has "evidence" then it shouldn't matter who the defense hires. Isn't it the prosecutors job to proved evidence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt then the prosecutors didn't do their home work and should not have ever taken it to trial.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with wanting justice but remember the court system should (and occasionally does, but not always) favor the defendant. I would rather 2 guilty walk away scott free than see one person locked away that was innocent.
100% byberrymountain June 17, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
JB, yes I agree. It is the prosecutor's job to PROVE guilt. You and I know, that in many cases a good prosecutor can convince the jury of his or her way of thinking. That is why so many people have gone to prison and later were found innocent.

"Evidence" has many times been created by police, detectives and even prosecutors. So, "evidence" can be created.

"Reasonable Doubt" means a lack of evidence, and that should me there is no proof. Yet, juries find people guilty of crimes they did not commit all the time.

JB, reread my comment please. Thx