Oscar Pistorius Trial Day Three
CUOMO: OK, it is day three of the murder trial of Olympian Oscar Pistorius underway in South Africa. There has been testimony already that may move the case one way or another. So let's walk through the major make or break points. We have for the prosecution and defense one analyst for each. Vinnie Politan, the host of HLN's "After Dark" a former prosecutor. He'll take the prosecution's side. Danny Cevallos, CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney, he'll take the other side. First of all, allow me to say, Vinnie, I like the new do. OK? Let me get that out of the way.</s>VINNIE POLITAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Oh, thank you. I'm crazy, wild, and young again.</s>CUOMO: Otherwise, I am objective. So I will begin with you. There has been big testimony very early on in this case. What do you think the prosecution has done well so far?</s>POLITAN: I think one thing they've done is established that there was a woman screaming before the gun shots. And that a key to this case, Chris. If there's a woman screaming before the gun shot, then Oscar Pistorius cannot get up and court and say, "Oh, I thought it was an intruder. Oh, I thought it was burglars coming into the house." He knew that she was awake. He knew who was behind the door when he put the bullets into Reeva Steenkamp. So I think that's one thing they've done really well right out of the gate with three ear-witnesses.</s>CUOMO: Danny Cevallos, countering Vinnie's open collar look with the tie and the clip, more buttoned-down, suggesting that you're going to be very strict on your defense. So how do you rebut not one, but two witnesses saying they heard sounds of a lot of enthusiasm. Vinnie's saying there. But there's two we've heard from so far. How do you counter that as defense?</s>DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I will concede that by now we now have corroboration between the witnesses, the ear-witnesses in this case. But even with corroboration, they're all telling sort of the same story, the problem is virtually every factor negatively affecting ear-witness testimony is in this case. You have a distance of about 200 yards. And at least one of the participants was behind a locked door in the bathroom with the window closed. So even though you had some corroboration, you have the fact that it's been a year, these witnesses have had the opportunity to be influenced by media reports. And now their testimony, while it is consistent, simply is undermined by science. And that is that at least one of the participants was 200 yards away in a locked bathroom. And now they're saying they can hear clearly two distinct screams. It just belies common sense.</s>CUOMO: All right, so Vinnie, you're shaking your head because you don't like the "one of them was behind a closed door." Deal with that, but also this suggestion, that just because there was screaming doesn't mean that you have premeditated murder. So connect the dots.</s>POLITAN: OK, OK, let me start first with the window, OK? The whole thing of being locked in that toilet, that's if you believe the defense attorney in his cross-examination and the statement of Oscar Pistorius. If there's an argument, she's going to be screaming before she gets into that door. And Oscar Pistorius is the one who told us the other window was wide open in that bathroom. Let's put that aside. Premeditation, that's going to be, perhaps, the biggest obstacle because we're in South Africa, and you need a little bit more planning to prove premeditation. But how much time does it take for Oscar Pistorius to go from the bathroom, go back to his bedroom, retrieve his gun and then go back to the bathroom and then decide to shoot? In my world, that's enough for premeditation. He took the time to plan, "I'm gonna get the gun. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna bring it back here, and I'm gonna shoot her."</s>CUOMO: Let me stay with you for a second because this matters. How do you show that Oscar Pistorius did any of those things that you just mentioned instead of what he says happened, which was him making his way over very difficulty because he didn't have his prosthetics on, and firing almost randomly into what he thought was surely a threat and he had had threats like that before in a very dangerous area where he lives that has big walls and barbed wire?</s>POLITAN: It's absolutely dangerous. Electrified barbed wire, by the way. Absolutely true that is dangerous there. But here's the thing, the whole thing about him not being on his prosthetics, I think gives him more time to think about what he's going to do. It's going to take longer to go retrieve the gun. It's going to take longer to follow her into the bathroom. It's going to take longer. So the whole way that he's arguing that one, "Oh, I don't have my prosthetics on, I can't think about what I'm doing," he's just bought twice as much time at least.</s>CUOMO: Danny, what do you make of the suggestion about whether or not he had the legs on -- he says he didn't -- and what that says to premeditation? And also comment on why are you arguing that your client screams like a woman?</s>CEVALLOS: You argue -- you absolutely argue amidst the truth, first of all. And second of all, it's a really brilliant strategy because it shows the panic that Oscar Pistorius may have felt, that he was in anguish after this happened. And that, even though it may be embarrassing, who cares? The truth is, the man was in anguish. He was screaming whether it was like a girl or like a man, it really doesn't matter. And maybe that humanizes him to the jury.</s>CUOMO: What is that, like "The Princess Bribe" defense, where, you know, that is the scream of one who can only be in true love? Who's ever heard of that before?</s>CEBALLOS: Actually -- actually, it is -- no, it's the idea that sometimes the truth is not so glamorous. And if he screamed like some may say a girl, then that may be more credible then him purporting to have done something admirable. Look, at the end of the day, Oscar Pistorius has to convince a judge that instead of having murderous intent, he was merely galactically stupid when he did what he did. So in that sense, he already has to make that sort of concession that he didn't do the right thing. We already know that he shot into a bathroom that most of us wouldn't do. So he already has that sort of defense lined up and ready to go. Ultimately, whether he was -- well, we know that they've conceded he's on -- without his prosthetics. So that will be key in evaluating the ballistics. But ultimately, the key is for the defense to defuse the ballistics, defuse the blood spatter, get rid of the science and attack those ear-witnesses.</s>CUOMO: Still explaining a scenario, though, that just doesn't make sense to a lot of people on the outside, how he lost track of his girlfriend and she wound up shot up in that bathroom so tragically. But a really good take on where we are so far. Danny Cevallos, thank you very much. Vinnie Politan, a pleasure. We're watching you on HLN. Great coverage there. Appreciate it, guys. All right, so what do you think? Those are kind of the -- that's the, kind of, the bedrock of where the case is so far. Let's keep the discussion going. Ask any questions if you want. I'll try to get answers for you. Tweet us with the hash tag new day. Kate?</s>BOLDUAN: Coming up next on NEW DAY, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made some very serious claims defending Russia's involvement, invasion, occupation, whatever you want to call it, in Ukraine. We're going to separate fact from fiction for you. And are even the most conservative parts of America coming around on medical marijuana? Georgia took a big step towards that. Dr. Sanjay Gupta will be here with a preview, talk about that and a preview of his new documentary.