This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Pistorius to Undergo Psychiatric Tests, Prolonging Trial
Judge Orders Psychiatric Evaluation of Pistorius
(about 9 hours later)
In a significant turn in a case that has generated drama and delay in equal proportions, the judge in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius on Wednesday said that he should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he had been affected by mental illness when he shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Feb. 14, 2013.
In a significant turn in a case that has generated drama and delay in equal proportions, the judge in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius said on Wednesday that the defendant should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he was affected by mental illness when he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Feb. 14, 2013.
The ruling, which came a day after testimony that Mr. Pistorius suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder, will affect the duration, and potentially the legal architecture, of one of the world’s most closely scrutinized cases, which is being broadcast live across many parts of the globe.
The ruling, which came a day after a forensic psychiatrist testified that Mr. Pistorius had a generalized anxiety disorder, will affect the duration — and potentially the legal architecture — of the closely scrutinized case.
The trial was initially set to last three weeks when it opened in early March, but it is already in its eighth week of hearings. The defense had said that it would conclude its case this week, but, with the ruling on Wednesday, that schedule has now slipped.
When it opened in early March, the trial was expected to last three weeks, but it is now in its eighth week of hearings. Mr. Pistorius, 27, dressed in a dark suit and tie, stood impassively in the wooden dock of the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, the South African capital, as Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa read her ruling.
Mr. Pistorius, 27, dressed in a dark suit and tie, stood impassively in the wooden dock of the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, the South African capital, as Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa read her ruling. Lawyers for both camps had consulted with her privately before the hearing started and Mr. Pistorius’s lead advocate, Barry Roux, held a whispered conversation with the athlete before the judge began to speak.
On Tuesday, Gerrie Nel, the lead prosecutor, formally applied for a 30-day psychiatric observation of the defendant. Judge Masipa, arguing that “the aim of the referral is not to punish the accused twice,” suggested that Mr. Pistorius could be assessed as an outpatient rather than in a state institution. He has been free on bail since shortly after Ms. Steenkamp’s death.
The precise details of the assessment were not clear.
The procedures that will be used in the assessment will be determined in discussions involving lawyers from both the defense and the prosecution.
On Tuesday, Gerrie Nel, the lead prosecutor, formally applied for a 30-day examination, and there had been suggestions that the most likely location of such psychiatric tests would be in a state institution. But Judge Masipa, arguing that “the aim of the referral is not to punish the accused twice,” suggested that Mr. Pistorius could be assessed as an outpatient. He has been free on bail since shortly after Ms. Steenkamp’s death.
The court will reconvene on Tuesday.
The procedure for the examination is to be finalized in discussions involving both the defense and prosecution lawyers before the court reconvenes next Tuesday.
“This is not about convenience, but whether justice has been served,” Judge Masipa said, adding that a psychological assessment would ensure that Mr. Pistorius has a fair trial.
“This is not about convenience, but whether justice has been served,” Judge Masipa said, adding that a psychological assessment was important to ensure that Mr. Pistorius had a fair trial.
In the United States and elsewhere, psychiatric assessment is often used by the defense to establish diminished responsibility — and therefore limited culpability. But in the Pistorius case, the prosecution sought the examination to challenge testimony by the defense suggesting that psychological factors explained Mr. Pistorius’s behavior.
In many cases in the United States and elsewhere, the recourse to a psychiatric assessment is often used as a defense maneuver to establish diminished responsibility — and therefore limited culpability. But in the Pistorius case, the prosecution had sought the examination as a way of challenging defense testimony that came only late in the trial suggesting that there were psychological factors to explain Mr. Pistorius’s behavior.
On Monday, Dr. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist testifying for the defense, said she had held two conversations with Mr. Pistorius this month and had determined from those encounters, and from meetings with his family and friends, that the athlete suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder.
On Monday, Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist testifying for the defense, said she had held two conversations with Mr. Pistorius earlier this month and had determined from those encounters and from meetings with his family and friends that the athlete suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder.
His condition, she said, dated to the amputation of both legs below the knee when he was 11 months old. Mr. Pistorius was also molded by the frequent absence of his father and the anxieties of his mother, who was so worried about intruders entering her home that she slept with a firearm under her pillow.
The condition, she said, dated to the amputation of both legs below the knee when Mr. Pistorius was only 11 months old. He had grown up in an atmosphere molded by the frequent absences of his father and the anxieties of his mother, who was so nervous about intruders getting into her home that she slept with a firearm under her pillow.
The athlete’s condition, which worsened with time, made him “hypervigilant” about potential threats and led him to respond to perceived danger with “fight” rather than “flight,” Dr. Vorster said.
The condition, which had worsened with time, had made him “hypervigilant” to detect potential threats and had led him to develop a response to perceived danger that led to him to “fight” rather than “flight.”
Judge Masipa said on Wednesday that while it may not have been the defense’s intention, Dr. Vorster’s testimony raised a question of “criminal incapacity.” The judge quoted the doctor as saying that even though Mr. Pistorius appreciated the difference between right and wrong, “his ability to act in accordance with this” may have been affected by his disorder.
Mr. Nel, the prosecutor, seized on her testimony to say that, if there was a question of diminished responsibility, Judge Masipa had no choice but to order a psychiatric test to determine whether mental illness had affected the way Mr. Pistorius behaved on the night of the killing. Mr. Roux, the defense lawyer, argued that Mr. Pistorius’s anxiety did not constitute a mental illness under criminal law.
Dr. Vorster’s testimony “cannot replace a proper inquiry” to ensure that the athlete’s trial is fair, Judge Masipa added. Mr. Pistorius has denied a charge of premeditated murder, which carries a minimum jail term of 25 years. He says that he shot Ms. Steenkamp by mistake when he thought an intruder had entered his home in Pretoria.
At several points in the trial. Mr. Pistorius has seemed to be seized by powerful emotions, sobbing, retching and holding his head in his hands, particuarly during graphic testimony relating to Ms. Steenkamp’s death. The prosecution has depicted him as egotistical, jealous, quick-tempered and trigger-happy. Mr. Nel, the prosecutor, has also seemed to taunt Mr. Pistorius, suggesting that his anguish in court is self-generated.
Judge Masipa said that, while it may not have been the defense’s intention, Ms. Vorster’s testimony had raised a question of “criminal incapacity.” The judge quoted Ms. Vorster as saying that, while Mr. Pistorius appreciated the difference between right and wrong, “his ability to act in accordance with this” may have been affected by his disorder.
The laws in question did not define mental illness, Judge Masipa said, and Ms. Vorster’s testimony “cannot replace a proper inquiry” to ensure that the athlete’s trial was fair. There was a reasonable possibility, she said, that Mr. Pistorius’s behavior had been affected by mental illness.
Mr. Pistorius, 27, a double-amputee runner with a once stellar athletic career, has denied a charge of premeditated murder, which carries a minimum 25-year jail term. He says that he shot Ms. Steenkamp by mistake, thinking that an intruder had entered his home in Pretoria.
In a statement after Wednesday’s ruling, Mr. Pistorius’s uncle, Arnold Pistorius, said the judge’s decision inspired confidence in the judicial process. “This is about a fair trial,” he said.
