Trial Discussion Thread #58 - 14.17.10, Day 47 ~ sentencing~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cherwell said:
That depends. They might be able to cover up a punch-up in a club, but something more serious and/or more public might pose problems.

On the other hand, there might come a point where Arnold has had enough.
Click to expand...

Who is smiling over several moths during such a trial, doesn't give up.
 
Interested Bystander said:
I am not sure why Nel said this case bordered on Dolus Eventualis. That suggested to me that he may not be going for an appeal?? Surely he would/should have said that in his opinion this was Dolus Eventualis or can he not do that because a judgement already has been made. Somebody tell me I am wrong with respect to Nel giving up - pleeeeease!
Click to expand...

I thought he was saying to Masipa: you should give us 10yrs and a nearly-dolus-eventualis.... the evidence with the ricochet foresight puts your verdict on shaky ground. But you can still legally and morally make up for it now by qualifying how grossly negligent it was.

How can there be such a thing as nearly-dolus-eventualis? Nel's point was quite sophisticated on this: the severity of the negligence is proportional to how obviously unreasonable the actions would have been to the ordinary man. He said for sentencing in this case, we therefore must be at the top end of negligence. His view was that the court, on the evidence, must have been very close to the dividing line between 'maybe he didn't foresee killing' and 'he must have foreseen killing'. He reminded Masipa that when the line is crossed into dolus eventualis, it is 15 yrs min sentence.

I think Masipa might just chew this up and spit it out, saying the dividing line is there to divide, but his point is much more sophisticated than that though imo.

As for a possible appeal on the verdict. Nel emphasised it seemed to me at least a couple of times "for sentencing", "for sentencing", maybe this suggests he has a different argument up his sleeve for later? He didn't say he agreed with the finding of foresight of killing, and it would be inappropriate, perhaps contempt of court, to say he disagreed with it at this stage of the proceedings.

It is odd though, I haven't heard a peep from any reporter since Monday about a possible appeal on the verdict... not even an 'I asked and didn't get an answer'.....?
 
LemonMousse said:
No, no...that's a myth, I think. Judge Greenland accidentally implied that there would be no change of sentence, but then clarified that when people queried it.

A change of verdict could well mean a change of sentence.
Click to expand...

Exact.

Indeed most places either the state or accused can appeal against sentence only.

Not checked in RSA but it would be strange if not.
 
pandax81 said:
I thought he was saying to Masipa: you should give us 10yrs and a nearly-dolus-eventualis.... the evidence with the ricochet foresight puts your verdict on shaky ground. But you can still legally and morally make up for it now by qualifying how grossly negligent it was.

How can there be such a thing as nearly-dolus-eventualis? Nel's point was quite sophisticated on this: the severity of the negligence is proportional to how obviously unreasonable the actions would have been to the ordinary man. He said for sentencing in this case, we therefore must be at the top end of negligence. His view was that the court, on the evidence, must have been very close to the dividing line between 'maybe he didn't foresee killing' and 'he must have foreseen killing'. He reminded Masipa that when the line is crossed into dolus eventualis, it is 15 yrs min sentence.

I think Masipa might just chew this up and spit it out, saying the dividing line is there to divide, but his point is much more sophisticated than that though imo.

As for a possible appeal on the verdict. Nel emphasised it seemed to me at least a couple of times "for sentencing", "for sentencing", maybe this suggests he has a different argument up his sleeve for later? He didn't say he agreed with the finding of foresight of killing, and it would be inappropriate, perhaps contempt of court, to say he disagreed with it at this stage of the proceedings.

It is odd though, I haven't heard a peep from any reporter since Monday about a possible appeal on the verdict... not even an 'I asked and didn't get an answer'.....?
Click to expand...

The States sentencing submissions have to be made on the verdict as it stands and the facts as found by the Court.

But I think there is little doubt the Judge knows that if she gives a weak sentence then an appeal will happen - where she could easily be torn a new one by the SC.

Not career enhancing.
 
mrjitty said:
Exact.

Indeed most places either the state or accused can appeal against sentence only.

Not checked in RSA but it would be strange if not.
Click to expand...

As Roux pointed out, there is noooooo money left for paying him and his team in the case, there has to be an appeal.
 
FromGermany said:
Who is smiling over several months during such a trial, doesn't give up.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Arnold has been keeping up a front, but underneath he must be raging at the amount of money - and what is probably worse to him, time - that this whole business has cost him. And that OP, during this crucial period, could not restrain himself from displaying aggression while out in public. I'm not convinced that Arnold has a bottomless well of tolerance where OP is concerned.
 
It's hard to see that an appeal will not be lodged by one side or the other after sentencing: if the sentence doesn't involve a suitable period of incarceration the State will appeal, if the sentence involves any incarceration (except suspended) the Defence will appeal. Not sure Masipa can satisfy both sides.
 
LemonMousse said:
Glad his windbag sidekick hasn't been there this week, though.
Click to expand...

Bit snipped by me: from a David Dadic tweet I got the impression that may be because OP has run out of money. I guess even Uncle Arnold has his limits.
 
mrjitty said:
The States sentencing submissions have to be made on the verdict as it stands and the facts as found by the Court.

But I think there is little doubt the Judge knows that if she gives a weak sentence then an appeal will happen - where she could easily be torn a new one by the SC.

Not career enhancing.
Click to expand...

bbm - and they were, that was the point I was making.
 
ColonelMustard said:
Can someone explain suspended sentences to me?

If you're given 20 years, shouldn't it be 20?

If it's 20 with 10 suspended, why not just give the person 10 that's actually 10?
Click to expand...

It works that they are on probation for the other 10, given your example, so they can't make one mistake in those 10 yrs, or back to prison. AFAIK, not even a speeding ticket. If that holds true in SA, I haven't a clue, lol.
 
One of the standout moments for me yesterday, regarding Roux, was when he asked Kim Martin if she had seen the 'accused' to talk to him about his feelings and how he felt. I think there was a slight pause then as Kim digested what she'd just been asked. Why on earth would Roux think Kim would have any interest at all in knowing how OP felt? It might be different if he'd become a recluse since it happened, and only emerged to attend court. Then she might have thought he was suffering. But OP has played his life out in public, so I'm sure Kim knew how he 'felt'. And I think it was extremely insensitive (but typically Roux-ish) to even ask her that question.
 
no photos of OP leaving the courthouse today --
 
Masipa's bias for OP is more than obvious…

When State witnesses testify or Nel makes submissions, Masipa leans back into her chair, crosses her arms and has a stern expression on her face.

When Defence witnesses testify or Roux makes submissions, Masipa hunches forward, rests her head on 1 and then 2 hands, and has an expression on her face of a compassionate grand-mother listening to her grandchildren.

… even when Defence witnesses are grossly misinformed, rely on hearsay, and severely obfuscate during cross-examination… Masipa remains smitten with them.

Shame on you Masipa… you are a disgrace to South Africa and do not deserve the tittle of Judge or the respect it commands.
 
Cherwell said:
I disagree. I think Arnold has been keeping up a front, but underneath he must be raging at the amount of money - and what is probably worse to him, time - that this whole business has cost him. And that OP, during this crucial period, could not restrain himself from displaying aggression while out in public. I'm not convinced that Arnold has a bottomless well of tolerance where OP is concerned.
Click to expand...

I think after that episode at he club in the nightclub Uncle A did not respond. It was another uncle who took up the support but at least it was agreed OP was involved in what happened. Was Uncle A away, or just totally fed up with his beyond-the-pale nephew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 112 more.
Total: 2,765 (members: 113, guests: 2,652)

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,652
Total visitors
2,765
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,831
Messages
18,114,274
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top