Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
I don't know really know what to think about that. Its actually totally unclear to me what the point of bringing on the psychiatrist was. Since Roux says they were going to bring on as their next witness an "expert on flight or fight", I'd imagine they might have been angling towards that. The psychiatrist was very careful about not being drawn out on that herself.
But yeah, I'd say Nel has been pretty clever here. Either way, a diagnosis of any kind of mental defect could have a detrimental on the state's case, even just for sentencing, so no matter what, he'd want to challenge the GAD diagnosis. Roux would have known this surely, but maybe had to adapt after OP's performance (so bad that Nel even told the judge he thought as much which) and so took the risk. So on Tuesday they had to sing for their dinner and actually argue against each other to the court. Both had different interpretations of the law and the semantics used to define mental illness and what the court SHALL do in the case it is present.
The catch is Nel has been stung on this kind of ground before, and so came prepared with case law he was very familiar with that sealed the deal.
BTW - not a lawyer, and never been to SA. I just listened very carefully to the two lawyers arguing yesterday and to what the judge said today. I thought the judge made it pretty clear this morning, and Nel has put it right out on front street why he has made the application (which is totally fascinating - he doesn't seem to try to hide his hand at all and can quite openly make suppositions about what the defence might be playing at) and so the above was my understanding.
ETA - just reading that it is AT LEAST 30 days for monitoring. So yeah - much bigger delays than I thought, and they may well diagnose him with something worse or something with enough grounds for diminished responsiblity.
But yeah, I'd say Nel has been pretty clever here. Either way, a diagnosis of any kind of mental defect could have a detrimental on the state's case, even just for sentencing, so no matter what, he'd want to challenge the GAD diagnosis. Roux would have known this surely, but maybe had to adapt after OP's performance (so bad that Nel even told the judge he thought as much which) and so took the risk. So on Tuesday they had to sing for their dinner and actually argue against each other to the court. Both had different interpretations of the law and the semantics used to define mental illness and what the court SHALL do in the case it is present.
The catch is Nel has been stung on this kind of ground before, and so came prepared with case law he was very familiar with that sealed the deal.
BTW - not a lawyer, and never been to SA. I just listened very carefully to the two lawyers arguing yesterday and to what the judge said today. I thought the judge made it pretty clear this morning, and Nel has put it right out on front street why he has made the application (which is totally fascinating - he doesn't seem to try to hide his hand at all and can quite openly make suppositions about what the defence might be playing at) and so the above was my understanding.
ETA - just reading that it is AT LEAST 30 days for monitoring. So yeah - much bigger delays than I thought, and they may well diagnose him with something worse or something with enough grounds for diminished responsiblity.
Edited by Wrathalanche on Wednesday 14th May 15:50
The judge will hand down the details of his assessment on Tuesday, so I'd imagine a fairly short session on that morning, and then nothing more. It will then all be down to how soon they can get him assessed. They judge stressed she thought it was important not to "punish the accuded twice" and so she was keen that he be treated as an out-patient.
This case is heading towards a guilty plea to manslaughter (or whatever the African equivalent is). Fairly good chance of a non custodial sentence if the medical assessment is favourable. If manslaughter is offered then he should probably take it as his performance in court was terrible. If he were before an a English judge (without a jury) then he'd be in serous trouble. However, the African judge presents as an English Magistrate. I saw one poster here refer to a 'lay bench' and it certainly looks that way - although I may have read somewhere that the two assessors are legally qualified and can outvote the judge. Is it right that the trial judge used to be a court reporter for a local newspaper?
Thanks. Interesting career path - social worker, court reporter, advocate at 44, judge at 51. Now age 66.
This seems spot on:
"[Masipa] is a bit shy, a bit reserved. I don't think she'll like the spotlight, but she'll be okay." Several people described Masipa using the same family of adjectives: pleasant, likeable, good-natured. And the only concerns about her presiding over the Pistorius case came from those very attributes. "There is going to be very bossy counsel in there, getting aggressive," said a legal professional who has had limited professional exposure to Masipa. "If I had to worry about anything, that is the thing."
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-06-oscar-pistorius...
This seems spot on:
"[Masipa] is a bit shy, a bit reserved. I don't think she'll like the spotlight, but she'll be okay." Several people described Masipa using the same family of adjectives: pleasant, likeable, good-natured. And the only concerns about her presiding over the Pistorius case came from those very attributes. "There is going to be very bossy counsel in there, getting aggressive," said a legal professional who has had limited professional exposure to Masipa. "If I had to worry about anything, that is the thing."
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-06-oscar-pistorius...
agtlaw said:
This case is heading towards a guilty plea to manslaughter (or whatever the African equivalent is). Fairly good chance of a non custodial sentence if the medical assessment is favourable. If manslaughter is offered then he should probably take it as his performance in court was terrible. If he were before an a English judge (without a jury) then he'd be in serous trouble. However, the African judge presents as an English Magistrate. I saw one poster here refer to a 'lay bench' and it certainly looks that way - although I may have read somewhere that the two assessors are legally qualified and can outvote the judge. Is it right that the trial judge used to be a court reporter for a local newspaper?
Referring to the bit in bold, I wondered that too, but I don't know if you watched the live coverage at the point where Pistorius finished giving his evidence and his counsel asked for a few minutes before continuing? There was some speculation by the legal expert commentating for Sky that they might be about to change his plea, but they didn't. The expert seemed to infer that this was their one opportunity to do so, otherwise they would have to carry on to the end, and he seemed rather shocked that the opportunity was not taken, which makes me think there has been some discussion about this behind the scenes.So, can he change his plea at any time? I know he could if this trial was taking place here, but does the process differ there?
Edited by TheSnitch on Saturday 17th May 12:29
In England & Wales, you can change your plea at any time - even after the jury has retired. At the close of prosecution case would be a more usual time - rather than after D has finished giving evidence.
He can't plead guilty to an offence not on the Indictment and he isn't charged with manslaughter (or equivalent) yet - it would be for the Prosecution to add a further count and agree an acceptable basis of plea with the defence. Of course, I can't comment on how it works in Africa as my expertise is limited to England & Wales. Here, manslaughter is an alternative verdict murder - so even if you're charged only with murder then manslaughter is a legitimate jury verdict.
The medical assessment will determine the future conduct of the case. My pre trial wild speculation would have been guilty to murder but conviction quashed on appeal due to 'new' medical evidence. Interesting development - completely forseeable and should have been dealt with pre-trial.
He can't plead guilty to an offence not on the Indictment and he isn't charged with manslaughter (or equivalent) yet - it would be for the Prosecution to add a further count and agree an acceptable basis of plea with the defence. Of course, I can't comment on how it works in Africa as my expertise is limited to England & Wales. Here, manslaughter is an alternative verdict murder - so even if you're charged only with murder then manslaughter is a legitimate jury verdict.
The medical assessment will determine the future conduct of the case. My pre trial wild speculation would have been guilty to murder but conviction quashed on appeal due to 'new' medical evidence. Interesting development - completely forseeable and should have been dealt with pre-trial.
agtlaw said:
In England & Wales, you can change your plea at any time - even after the jury has retired. At the close of prosecution case would be a more usual time - rather than after D has finished giving evidence.
He can't plead guilty to an offence not on the Indictment and he isn't charged with manslaughter (or equivalent) yet - it would be for the Prosecution to add a further count and agree an acceptable basis of plea with the defence. Of course, I can't comment on how it works in Africa as my expertise is limited to England & Wales. Here, manslaughter is an alternative verdict murder - so even if you're charged only with murder then manslaughter is a legitimate jury verdict.
The medical assessment will determine the future conduct of the case. My pre trial wild speculation would have been guilty to murder but conviction quashed on appeal due to 'new' medical evidence. Interesting development - completely forseeable and should have been dealt with pre-trial.
Thanks for that - very interesting.He can't plead guilty to an offence not on the Indictment and he isn't charged with manslaughter (or equivalent) yet - it would be for the Prosecution to add a further count and agree an acceptable basis of plea with the defence. Of course, I can't comment on how it works in Africa as my expertise is limited to England & Wales. Here, manslaughter is an alternative verdict murder - so even if you're charged only with murder then manslaughter is a legitimate jury verdict.
The medical assessment will determine the future conduct of the case. My pre trial wild speculation would have been guilty to murder but conviction quashed on appeal due to 'new' medical evidence. Interesting development - completely forseeable and should have been dealt with pre-trial.
In respect of dealing with the issue of his mental health before the trial, upon whom should the responsibility of that fallen? It seems rather unusual for the defence to seek out a psychiatric opinion half way through their case and pop up with it without warning or without the prosecution having even seen the reports, but then nothing surprises me any longer where this case is concerned. I think Roux should avail himself of the same psychiatrist to figure out why he engaged Dixon as an 'expert' witness.
agtlaw said:
Fairly good chance of a non custodial sentence if the medical assessment is favourable. If manslaughter is offered then he should probably take it as his performance in court was terrible.
Personally I very much doubt that's the way it's going to pan out. I reckon a significant sentence either way. You don't usually get let off killing someone just because you find it stressful to be on trial.Bonefish Blues said:
Great reporting, BBC. Did the Dr survive the attack or not, or is it more important that his misfortune means that Oscar might have to wait longer?kiseca said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Great reporting, BBC. Did the Dr survive the attack or not, or is it more important that his misfortune means that Oscar might have to wait longer?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff