Oscar Pistorius

[mewmewmew13]

"Run around"? Good one, Mew...

…………

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

gheezus Oscar…
and he is still free to run around

I know. It has me stumped......

 

[iejeecee]

I doubt he will walk away from this.

 

[veganrob]

He can't walk away from this one.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I doubt he will walk away from this.

I am sure the trial will limp along. I hope at least the lawyers have the legs to make it to the end.....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well, he may be running around now, but he's just a hop, skip, and a jump away from prison.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Sooner or later he will have to take the stand.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And when he takes the stand, I'm betting the prosecutor will knock his legs out from under him with questions about that night.

 

[maxmartin]

So he's getting charged with premeditated murder and reckless use of a firearm? I know nothing about the legal system, he sounds like the second charge is something they will sentence him with if his lawyers convince the jury of the intruder story, like a fallback option.

Also will any knew evidence be presented at this indictment?

Not sure in South Africa, but in US, premeditated murder is the highest degree murder aka first degree in most states, but prosecutor always charge the highest degree crime first, the final verdict by the jury might be much less than original charged.

 

[MarkvW]

Not sure in South Africa, but in US, premeditated murder is the highest degree murder aka first degree in most states, but prosecutor always charge the highest degree crime first, the final verdict by the jury might be much less than original charged.

Hard to believe he'll be tried with murder along with an unrelated reckless firearm charge. You'd have to worry about unfair prejudice from the reckless firearm charge tainting the murder charge (because there's nothing reckless about what Mr. Pistorious allegedly did to Ms. Steenkamp).

Looks to me like the police were really, really, investigating Mr. Pistorious' background prior to the trial. If Mr. Pistorious tries to claim that he's a sweet national hero in his murder trial, the State may be able to introduce evidence of his crazy gun behavior to rebut that claim.

 

[maxmartin]

Hard to believe he'll be tried with murder along with an unrelated reckless firearm charge. You'd have to worry about unfair prejudice from the reckless firearm charge tainting the murder charge (because there's nothing reckless about what Mr. Pistorious allegedly did to Ms. Steenkamp).

Looks to me like the police were really, really, investigating Mr. Pistorious' background prior to the trial. If Mr. Pistorious tries to claim that he's a sweet national hero in his murder trial, the State may be able to introduce evidence of his crazy gun behavior to rebut that claim.

again I don't know how legal system works in SA, but here it is common practice, the prosecutor will try to charge every possible charge he can think of from the highest to lowest crime through the evidence at this earlier stage, like unlawful possession of firearm. Later in the trial, if the prosecutor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant commit the murder, then prosecutor at least can try to prove these lower crime charge if possible.

 

[MarkvW]

again I don't know how legal system works in SA, but here it is common practice, the prosecutor will try to charge every possible charge he can think of from the highest to lowest crime through the evidence at this earlier stage, like unlawful possession of firearm. Later in the trial, if the prosecutor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant commit the murder, then prosecutor at least can try to prove these lower crime charge if possible.

Where I'm from (USA), unrelated charges almost always cannot be joined into one case. That rule is intended to prevent the finder of fact to be swayed by bad evidence against the defendant that doesn't relate to the other charge.

But that rule exists to protect juries. In SA, Pistorious doesn't get a jury trial, so whether the two unrelated cases get tried together might be a discretion call that the judges make.

Too bad we don't have any SA lawyers here!

 

[maxmartin]

Where I'm from (USA), unrelated charges almost always cannot be joined into one case. That rule is intended to prevent the finder of fact to be swayed by bad evidence against the defendant that doesn't relate to the other charge.

But that rule exists to protect juries. In SA, Pistorious doesn't get a jury trial, so whether the two unrelated cases get tried together might be a discretion call that the judges make.

Too bad we don't have any SA lawyers here!

I don't know how you define unrelated charges, as long as the these charges rise under a single continuous event, prosecutor will always bring them together. Otherwise, it will be bared by "Double jeopardy."So for a criminal case, the prosecutor will try to charge as many as possible, basically prosecutor only has one shot.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't know how you define unrelated charges, as long as the these charges rise under a single continuous event, prosecutor will always bring them together. Otherwise, it will be bared by "Double jeopardy."So for a criminal case, the prosecutor will try to charge as many as possible, basically prosecutor only has one shot.

Yea, same operative set of facts, so I'm not sure what he's talking about?

 

[Mortimer]

I am not a lawyer, least of all one in SA or USA, but I believe the reckless discharge events happened months before the death of Ms. Steenkamp (sp.?). So, the events are unrelated, and I would not expect the charges to be brought together. However, as mentioned above, this evidence could be used as character references in the murder trial?
Is this about right?
Cheers,
Mort

 

[MarkvW]

I don't know how you define unrelated charges, as long as the these charges rise under a single continuous event, prosecutor will always bring them together. Otherwise, it will be bared by "Double jeopardy."So for a criminal case, the prosecutor will try to charge as many as possible, basically prosecutor only has one shot.

The "unrelated" charge, or one of them (as I understand it) consists of Pistorious shooting off a gun recklessly from a moving vehicle.

 

[MarkvW]

I am not a lawyer, least of all one in SA or USA, but I believe the reckless discharge events happened months before the death of Ms. Steenkamp (sp.?). So, the events are unrelated, and I would not expect the charges to be brought together. However, as mentioned above, this evidence could be used as character references in the murder trial?
Is this about right?
Cheers,
Mort

Pretty much. But I wouldn't think that it would come in (in the murder trial) unless Pistorious brings in evidence of his good character, though.

 

[Mortimer]

ok, thanks, Mark. so in that case, it would be introduced under cross-examination of a defence witness? If the defence attempted to portray OP as someone who had no interest in/was scared of guns, the fact he kept one under his bed, along with the twitter evidence of his shooting range activities, would put that away without the shooting from a vehicle stuff. Seems the defence would be better off not going down that road at all....
Cheers,
Mort

 

[MarkvW]

ok, thanks, Mark. so in that case, it would be introduced under cross-examination of a defence witness? If the defence attempted to portray OP as someone who had no interest in/was scared of guns, the fact he kept one under his bed, along with the twitter evidence of his shooting range activities, would put that away without the shooting from a vehicle stuff. Seems the defence would be better off not going down that road at all....
Cheers,
Mort

Yeah, that's real close to my thinking. I'm impressed that the SA police are continuing to work this case very hard.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-likely-did-not-prostheses-time-shooting.html

Trial is impending, they're making a lot out of Pistorius internet history. I'm not sure if that means he was watching porn or if he was looking up "how to kill your girlfriend" articles.

 

[blackcat]

prolly just

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com

 

[wirral]

Televised trial with a celebrity = A celebrity circus = Far greater chance of acquittal. IMO.

Bad decision.

All "actors" will think they are starring in a Hollywood movie which they kind of are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26334682

 

[blackcat]

simulcra.

if the prosthetics dont fit, you must acquit

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I am not a lawyer, least of all one in SA or USA, but I believe the reckless discharge events happened months before the death of Ms. Steenkamp (sp.?). So, the events are unrelated, and I would not expect the charges to be brought together. However, as mentioned above, this evidence could be used as character references in the murder trial?
Is this about right?
Cheers,
Mort

You are generally correct. In Canada for example our Criminal Code does not allow another charge related or unrelated to be inserted in Indictment for murder for the reasons Mark W has pointed out. An exception is where there are multiple victims arising out of the same act.

In the case of lesser crimes, where the prosecutor combines unrelated charges in an Information or an Indictment, it is usually good grounds for severance of the Information or Indictment into separate cases and separate trials. This is of course so the evidence of the unrelated charges do not bias the trier of fact against the accused on the main charges.

And it does make a difference if the trial is a jury or a judge alone. In the case of a Jury case, severance would almost always be granted. In the case of a Judge alone s/he may refuse severance where the judge thinks s/he can be impartial. But psychologically this is very difficult for a judge to do and many judges do not understand there are subconscious biases when they do this. In addition a judge is leaving him/herself open to a successful appeal.

In Canada at least the practice of a prosecutor putting every charge possible into an Information or Indictment is frowned upon. A prosecutor who does this tends to show that s/he is being lazy. It tends to show they do not have a good grasp of the provable evidence or an understanding of the law in order to prove a specific crime. Prosecutors who do this are usually derided by the Defence bar. Sometimes a judge will make a direct suggestion to the prosecutor to go with their best charge although in Canada it is always the prosecutor's call.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Apparently Oscar was watching the night he **** Reeva.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...us-murder-trial-family-plead-end-media-frenzy

It also says a former footballer will testify he threatened to break his legs.

No word of the testo-compo-bombo homeopathic remedy though.