GIST: "Olympic Athlete Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. His sensational trial was destined to be controversial. But, marred by prosecutorial misconduct the trial was a study in lawyer theatrics instead of dignified advocacy. The culprit was South Africa’s famous “Pit Bull”, Gerrie Nel. Nel’s approach to his job was jarring because it was so at odds with the Canadian legal tradition. Nel repeatedly signaled he was invested in a conviction, a posture incompatible with the Canadian legal rule that the Crown Prosecutor never wins or loses. Nel lectured as much as he questioned. “You killed Reeva Steenkamp,” he began. “Say it” (details). Nel insulted Pistorius and repeatedly editorialized about Pistorius’ evidence. He screened footage of Pistorius shooting at watermelons with friends, then badgered Pistorius to look at a photograph of Steenkamp’s wounded head and compared her injuries to the exploded fruit.
Pistorius at times vomited and wept in
response. While Canadian law assumes this type of conduct is unfair,
Pistorius’ trial judge took careful notes during Nel’s performance. “You
will blame anybody but yourself,” Nel lectured Pistorius. “You are
lying. You just refuse to take responsibility for anything.” Nel’s
contempt for Pistorius was palpable as he laughed at Pistorius’s answers.
This approach to lawyering would be out of
bounds for a Canadian prosecutor. While entitled to be energetic
advocates, the Crown may not pursue a conviction at any cost. The system
is adversarial, not antagonistic. Canadian prosecutors are trained
that they are ministers of justice duty-bound to approach their role
with integrity and fairness.........While cross-examining Pistorius about his
ammunition storage practices, Nel questioned him about legal advice he
received. He demanded Pistorius explain why a lawyer would give him that
advice. He also asked Pistorius about points his lawyer did not pursue
with a prosecution expert. These questions are logically improper since
a defendant hires a lawyer precisely because he recognizes the lawyer’s
strategic expertise. Solid convictions have been overturned where the
Crown suggested a defendant is responsible for tactical decisions by his
lawyer.".........An insistence in Canada on civility should not be confused with a concession that lawyers be less courageous.[1] Criminal trials are no place for lawyers fretting about their popularity. But skilled lawyers are able to keep zealous advocacy[2]
in place as their primary guide without personalizing litigation. The
Pistorius trial was an example of abusive lawyering at its worst."http://oba.org/Sections/Criminal-Justice/Articles/Articles-2014/September-2014/Did-Oscar-Pistorius-Get-a-Fair-Trial
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
