Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[MeeBee]

Going for dismissal is not a risk. All defense attorneys are expected to make a motion to dismiss after the state concludes its case. It's more a formality than anything since it almost never gets granted. I don't know why Roux didn't do it on Tuesday unless it's just different in SA. He may do it on Friday before he begins his case.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interested Bystander
Roux goes "spare" when a witness slightly changes anything and infers they are lying. Will Nel do this with these two statements, do you think?

of course.. not only what he changed, but why he changed it, but as important, when he changed it. and whose advice he changed it on.

Any idea why he left this out because it seems as though OP or, more likely, his Atty must have had a good reason. I just can't put my finger on anything at the moment.

 

[Val1]

Were there any watches left? :wink:

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on the watch challenge I issued a week? ago. I've been trying to pay attention to what watches OP and his bro have been wearing since the murder and match them to what was in the blurry pic of the case.... but so far noone has offered their assistance. Even just a clearer pic would help. :silenced:

 

[minor4th]

Interesting then that Roux did not try for a trial dismissal.

I don't know if there's a procedural option for that in SA

 

[Viper]

He may be relying on his cross examination of OP to offset some of the sloppy elements of the prosecutions case .
Their case would have likely being presented differently if they had had the benefit of an uncontaminated crime scene and access to all phone records much earlier .

They are still presenting the State's case. They are withholding a lot! Including their version of exactly what I occurred leading up to and during the commission of the crime. All of their evidence books and texts etc are full of evidence that, rest assured, they will batter OP with!

 

[MeeBee]

I don't know if there's a procedural option for that in SA

I thought I read somewhere (I think it was something trooper posted) that a defense attorney can make a motion for dismissal. Is it possible that it's different in SA in that it's not automatic but made at the attorney's discretion?

 

[Trooper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interested Bystander
Roux goes "spare" when a witness slightly changes anything and infers they are lying. Will Nel do this with these two statements, do you think?




Any idea why he left this out because it seems as though OP or, more likely, his Atty must have had a good reason. I just can't put my finger on anything at the moment.

I can only guess that as evidence was handed over to the defence, the time arose when many cups of tea were expended in thinking over what changes had to be made to his original statement..


only a guess.. I don't think it was done on a whim or a fancy..

 

[minor4th]

Going for dismissal is not a risk. All defense attorneys are expected to make a motion to dismiss after the state concludes its case. It's more a formality than anything since it almost never gets granted. I don't know why Roux didn't do it on Tuesday unless it's just different in SA. He may do it on Friday before he begins his case.

This may sound weird but it seems the attorneys are maybe more realistic and don't go through a lot of needless motions and so forth that will waste the court's time.

Roux could still make his motion, and I don't know how that's done in SA or even if it's done. But I think Roux knows that Nel has just barely managed to squeak out a prima facie case, and that means the defense will have to proceed with its case.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on the watch challenge I issued a week? ago. I've been trying to pay attention to what watches OP and his bro have been wearing since the murder and match them to what was in the blurry pic of the case.... but so far noone has offered their assistance. Even just a clearer pic would help. :silenced:

I did have a quick look and could only see the one rather large silver coloured watch. On many days he was not wearing a watch at all.

 

[minor4th]

I thought I read somewhere (I think it was something trooper posted) that a defense attorney can make a motion for dismissal. Is it possible that it's different in SA in that it's not automatic but made at the attorney's discretion?

It is apparently allowed because I did read a case where the defense attorney AND the prosecution had jointly moved to dismiss a charge, and the judge refused and convicted the guy over the objection of both sides.

However, from what I can tell it is not common like it is in the US, especially where there is an affirmative defense like self defense (or putative self defense)

 

[MeeBee]

This may sound weird but it seems the attorneys are maybe more realistic and don't go through a lot of needless motions and so forth that will waste the court's time.

Roux could still make his motion, and I don't know how that's done in SA or even if it's done. But I think Roux knows that Nel has just barely managed to squeak out a prima facie case, and that means the defense will have to proceed with its case.

Makes sense, I hope that's true and we get on with it tomorrow (only hours left).

 

[Gbtaketwo]

They are still presenting the State's case. They are withholding a lot! Including their version of exactly what I occurred leading up to and during the commission of the crime. All of their evidence books and texts etc are full of evidence that, rest assured, they will batter OP with!

I hope so because I do think the defence have made some wholes in the prosecution 's case so far some of it because the evidence was received late in the day .

 

[minor4th]

They are still presenting the State's case. They are withholding a lot! Including their version of exactly what I occurred leading up to and during the commission of the crime. All of their evidence books and texts etc are full of evidence that, rest assured, they will batter OP with!

The state is done presenting its evidence though. They can't call any more witnesses or introduce new evidence. But you're certainly right that they can use what is already admitted and the stipulations to cross examine. And I sure hope their case becomes clear somehow in the process.

 

[MeeBee]

It is apparently allowed because I did read a case where the defense attorney AND the prosecution had jointly moved to dismiss a charge, and the judge refused and convicted the guy over the objection of both sides.

However, from what I can tell it is not common like it is in the US, especially where there is an affirmative defense like self defense (or putative self defense)

BBM: lol that's crazy. I wonder what happened there.

 

[MeeBee]

Does anyone know if it has been confirmed that the trial will be resuming Friday morning?

 

[minor4th]

BBM: lol that's crazy. I wonder what happened there.

I guess at the end of its presentation of evidence the prosecutor decided that they hadn't really made their case, but he judge disagreed and proceeded with the charges and the defense case.

The judges in SA have a whole lot more discretion in SA than they do in the US. They can act on their own without a motion from either side and apparently overrule a joint motion to dismiss charges lol

 

[G.bng]

SA Law is based on English Law.

But for murder, culpable homicide, and "intent" it appears it takes more from Dutch law. From my understanding there is no transferred intent as such but it is covered under murder (always intentional), in that even if the killing of a person were not "intended" and would normally be charged under culpable homicide, it can convert to "intentional murder" if the possible consequence of the act was foreseeable. just my understanding

 

[minor4th]

Does anyone know if it has been confirmed that the trial will be resuming Friday morning?

If you consider Twitter confirmation, then yes :floorlaugh:

 

[Viper]

I hope so because I do think the defence have made some wholes in the prosecution 's case so far some of it because the evidence was received late in the day .

I am not following. What holes are you referring to?

 

[Trooper]

This may sound weird but it seems the attorneys are maybe more realistic and don't go through a lot of needless motions and so forth that will waste the court's time.

Roux could still make his motion, and I don't know how that's done in SA or even if it's done. But I think Roux knows that Nel has just barely managed to squeak out a prima facie case, and that means the defense will have to proceed with its case.

no Roux cant still make this motion. his only window to make such a weird declaration would have been when the State rested its case, which was on Wednesday.. that window closed well and truly when he stated the Defence agreed to the 2 day adjournment and would begin on Friday.