Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[K.T]

Difficult for me to see how a verdict could be overturned on the basis of such an unverifiable allegation - no guilty verdict could stand.

I agree, but I think there will most likely be an appeal application, they've tried everything else.

They may feel there are multiple points the defense for an appeal - televised trial, televised trial causing witnesses to not testify, privileged information entering the public domain...etc. etc? However desperate this all sounds!

Add: It's a cliche but trials with wealthy families can sometimes go on for a long time, entitled enough to think lil 'Johny' can't be guilty and the system must be made to work for them

 

[44ALLAN]

It feels weird ..."We've come to the end of the defense case"

Without them being able to disprove the woman screaming for her life............................................

 

[zwiebel]

Here you go, Scholtz full psych report courtesy of Lisa Salinger's Juror 13 blog.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

Oh, I thought Lisa had got hold of a non-redacted copy! It's still great that she posted it though.

I really cannot get beyond this line in the psych report:

'Mr Pistorius does not have personality characteristics that would make him dangerous.'

I have to question that diagnosis, even though I am not a doctor. With just two words; Reeva Steenkamp.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?

Roux is supposed to be one of, if not the best defence advocate in SA. I think he would have had a pretty good idea that OP was guilty, but I doubt he would have asked him that because that opens up a huge can of worms for counsel. If OP did tell him he was guilty, all Roux could ethically have done then was to ensure he got a fair trial, no more no less. So I believe he was just doing his job. If you have such a dreadful client who changes his story over and over and over, what's he to do? Go with the flow, and that's why it was all so pathetic.

 

[zwiebel]

But is it intellectually possible to believe everything that OP has said along the months of build-up to the trial and the countless changes in his story ?

I don't think so. But I think any defence attorney must train themselves not to apply their intellectual capacity to the question of whether their client's guilty or not. I think - but am not sure - that legal ethics mean a lawyer has to step down from a case if they sincerely believe their client is guilty, but has entered a not guilty plea.

 

[JudgeJudi]

That's rather strong Judgejudi. Trials would never end if every new evidence broadcast in the media had to be shown in court.

I absolutely agree with you. However so much has been made of all the disabilities he has and this video shows that not only can he walk on his stumps without having to lean on a wall, look down at the ground, but backwards (which Derman said he couldn't) and walk quite quickly. The DT has overplayed this disability bit beyond all reason IMO.

 

[wb180]

If an advocate has to subpoena one of his own witnesses, you can bet that witness will be hostile and won't help your case at all.

That might be a possibility but the lame excuse was "not wanting their voices heard in trial". If there is any solid evidence that helps OP, there is NO WAY Roux will give up on such a witness with such a lame excuse. No way. It would be a disservice to the accused.

 

[44ALLAN]

ON whoop whoop David O'Sullivan says there is most certainly a presumption of guilt on the three gun charges.

He thinks there has been nothing from the defense to defend or even explain those charges.

Pistorius has only concentrated solely on the murder charges, on the other three counts he will be found guilty for all.

An earlier post 'insinuated' that it was a given for the defence to appeal any custodial sentence that may be handed down with reference to killing Reeva.
They also stated that if that does indeed happen then his bail will be extended while the appeals process took place ( up to 18month was quoted !).

My question is...............if he's found guilty on the gun charges ( all or even 1 or 2 of them) would any of them carry a mandatory jail term ?.
Could he basically appeal a murder conviction but still be sent to jail in the meantime for any of the gun charges?

Thanks

 

[foxbluff]

Oh, I thought Lisa had got hold of a non-redacted copy! It's still great that she posted it though.

I really cannot get beyond this line in the psych report:

'Mr Pistorius does not have personality characteristics that would make him dangerous.'

I have to question that diagnosis, even though I am not a doctor. With just two words; Reeva Steenkamp.

I'm mostly bothered by the part that says OP isn't prone to violence and doesn't have anger issues. Really???

 

[JudgeJudi]

An earlier post 'insinuated' that it was a given for the defence to appeal any custodial sentence that may be handed down with reference to killing Reeva.
They also stated that if that does indeed happen then his bail will be extended while the appeals process took place ( up to 18month was quoted !).

My question is...............if he's found guilty on the gun charges ( all or even 1 or 2 of them) would any of them carry a mandatory jail term ?.
Could he basically appeal a murder conviction but still be sent to jail in the meantime for any of the gun charges?

Thanks

If he's convicted, he could still appeal to the supreme court, where three to five judges would listen to his case, and even eventually to South Africa’s constitutional court.

Regarding the firearms charges, from what I've read he could get 5 years on each charge. However, as a first offender, it's more likely he'd receive fines.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Is an appeal possible on the grounds that witnesses wouldn't testify and your own defence team didn't subpoena them?

If it is, and there was another trial, those witnesses would have to be forced to testify and could be hostile. I really think if there had been vital eyewitness testimony to back up OP's version(s) on the shooting of Reeva and the firearm charges, Roux would have forced them to appear in court.

Most of the eyewitness testimonies contradicted OP's version. I think that's the real reason more were not called. Or, defence really didn't think those other 'witnesses' had anything to contribute.

the judge has been very careful up until now to ensure a fair trial imo.
i am surprised that the judge didn't give roux the option to call these witnesses. call his bluff. switch off the cameras and the audio if necessary. this is a murder case first, and a media circus second, in case anyone has forgotten. if these [uncalled] witnesses are so important to the case they should have been heard.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I may be getting ahead of things here, but Dolus eventualis, anyone?

 

[zwiebel]

Look at Nel helping pack everything up in court.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/486449107855499264/photos

 

[zwiebel]

I may be getting ahead of things here, but Dolus eventualis, anyone?

If anyone else, like me, doesn't know what that means:

'He has refused to admit that he intended to kill the intruder, presumably, to stonewall the state’s attempt to go at him on the basis of dolus eventualis, a form of intention that exists when the accused foresees the possible outcome or consequences of his or her actions, regardless of whether he or she intended to cause harm.'

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...paralympic-golden-boy-to-disgusting-liar.html

 

[JudgeJudi]

That might be a possibility but the lame excuse was "not wanting their voices heard in trial". If there is any solid evidence that helps OP, there is NO WAY Roux will give up on such a witness with such a lame excuse. No way. It would be a disservice to the accused.

The only thing he can do to force them to attend court is subpoena them and then they must attend or be in contempt of court. There's no way Roux can make them give helpful testimony though. The standard answer of criminals to any question they don't want to answer is "I don't recall", and I'm not for a moment suggesting these witnesses are criminals. You can't get blood from a stone. In South Africa the usual punishment for contempt of court is a fine; only in serious cases will a sentence of imprisonment, even a suspended sentence, be imposed without the option of a fine.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=2533251

 

[Jake18]

I wonder how many State witnesses were deterred from testifying after Roux read out Johnson's personal phone number in court.

 

[AJ_DS]

Roux just gave a glimpse into Oscar's Appeal which is very likely already in the works.

1. The missing extension cord

2. The DT psychiatrist which could not be called upon because of heart attack

3. Many witnesses who did not want to testify because the Trial is televised

4. Some of Masipa's rulings against the DT

etc...

 

[soozieqtips]

Roux just gave a glimpse into Oscar's Appeal which is very likely already in the works.

1. The missing extension cord

2. The DT psychiatrist which could not be called upon because of heart attack

3. Many witnesses who did not want to testify because the Trial is televised

4. Some of Masipa's rulings against the DT

etc...

BBM - Have you got a link for that by any chance?

1. I doubt the missing extension cord would be grounds for appeal, because OP's testimony didn't rely on a single cord to prove guilt or innocence.

2. Couldn't Roux simply have asked for an adjournment until the psychiatrist was fit to attend if it was that important?

3. Roux could have subpoenaed them, but he didn't.

4. Any mention of which of Masipa's rulings against the DT? I thought she was overly cautious much of the time in order to avoid any possibility of an appeal.

I think the DT are clutching at straws yet again. If OP is jailed on the gun charges, he can sort out his appeal from jail. If he's convicted of murder, he should be kept away from the public. Innocent people shouldn't have to tolerate a trigger-happy convicted murderer in their midst.

 

[DebinGA]

It's very humbling to have to ask, but what are "Heads of Arguments"?

If OP had pleaded guilty to the gun charge/s, wouldn't he lose the right to appeal and avoid jail during the appeal process?

 

[Cherwell]

Good point. If Roux had any kind of ear/eye witness account whose testimony could have benefitted his client you can bet your last dollar/cent/rand that he'd have subpoenaed them to testify.

Like Frank?