Defense attorney Mike Cavalluzzi breaks down the verdict in the Oscar Pistorius case and examines how the lack of evidence put forth by the prosecution ultimately resulted in the lesser conviction of culpable homicide.
Pistorius was found guilty Friday in a South African court of culpable homicide in the shooting death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. The judge rejected a murder conviction because she apparently did not believe that the defendant actually intended to kill Steenkamp. A sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin October 13.
Cavalluzzi said he believes the verdict was appropriate based on actual evidence presented in the case. “Specifically, the judge talked about weak, circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecution and I think that’s what she was really focusing on,” Cavalluzzi said.
He added that there was no direct evidence from eyewitnesses testimony that they saw Pistorius perpetrating any crime. There was also no evidence presented that he had ever threatened Reeva Steenkamp before, or directly harmed her, or that the two had been in an abusive relationship.
“So we were left with circumstantial evidence of screams, ear witnesses, things that were heard. And I think the judge, really at the end of the day, I think it was a very measured verdict.”
Cavalluzzi says he believes the judge also rejected as not credible certain text messages entered into evidence in which Steenkamp said that she was sometimes afraid of Pistorius and other allusions to the fact that he sometimes lost his temper and could be a hothead.
Despite those statements, what was absent from any of that testimony was that he actually attempted to harm her in the past. “I do truly believe that this was the right verdict, I do not believe that the evidence supported a verdict of murder,” Cavalluzzi declared.
It is pointed out that in the ruling, the judge found that although she didn’t think the defendant was looking to kill anyone – although he was armed and in a defensive position – and said there was “no direct intent” to kill Reeva. But she also said that in her opinion, he killed someone negligently and could have pursued other options.
Cavalluzzi added that the judge should also take into account the feelings of Steenkamp’s family in the sentencing stage and if they are demanding the maximum penalty, she should certainly consider their wishes.
Comments