Is Pistorious Prosecutor Too Tough in Cross Examination?

Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss the testimony of the Olympic runner in the South African murder trial.
4:18 | 04/09/14

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

More information on this video
Enhanced full screen
Explore related content
Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Is Pistorious Prosecutor Too Tough in Cross Examination?
Let's go to our league team now. ABC's Dan Abrams and Nancy grace. Nancy, you're a former prosecutor. Is it possible for a prosecutor to be too tough? Absolutely. There are several techniques you can take. You can get the same effect -- the same result, anyway, by a more delicate cross-examination. On the other hand, sometimes you have to go for the jugular. And I think this is the prosecution's thinking. This judge has been extremely solicitous to Pistorius throughout the trial. I'm not saying that's wrong or right. But I can guarantee you in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend and you cry on the stand, we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry. Okay? That's what they're doing there. Again, not judging. And I think at this point, the prosecution has taken the gloves off. Another thing he's doing, other than showing her in death on the screen, is he's gone back to Pistorius' bail statement. And I think he's going to catch Pistorius in inconsistencies about the night of the shooting. That's the key to the case. Right? I mean, the inconsistencies are much more important than the tone. But you asked the question about the prosecutors, telling. That also can be asked of Pistorius, as well. Can you cry too much on the witness stand? And I think both those questions are valid questions. You're right. Number one, the prosecutor has to be careful not to want the judge or the assessors to feel sorry for Pistorius. And Pistorius has to be careful here, if he's crying all the time, and constantly, not to say he's not upset or whatever the case may be. But that can also work against him because this is about his credibility. This is about, do they believe him? And if he's crying at every point, that can detract. One of the hardest things to believe is that he didn't know that reeva steenkamp wasn't in the bed. Oh, yeah. On that line, and back to what I was saying about the bail statement, he had to give a statement about what happened when he made bail. And in that, you might think this is insignificant. He said in the bail statement, he did not go out on the balcony to adjust the fan. He said he stayed in the room, and I guess pulled it in off the balcony. That means he didn't have a chance to not notice reeva getting up and going in the bathroom. He could have argued when he went on the balcony, she went in the bathroom without him knowing. Now, from his bail statement, his story changed a little bit. He never left the room, according to his first statement. And the prosecution's just started with that bail statement right now, in that courtroom. He's just on the first lines. And he's got a whole statement. I guarantee you, he will not be bringing in that statement unless he has the inconsistency with what Pistorius is saying on the stand. And this does relate to the most important question and the biggest inconsistency, which is, the question you asked. How could he have not known that she wasn't in the bed? And there's a whole series of issues surrounding that, related to where his gun was found, where he was. He's screaming her name and she's not responding? And he's not changing his actions based on that. That's the case. I mean, to me, this case comes down to -- Dan, were you feeling a little sorry for him? Were you feeling a little sorry for him when he kept crying? But then, when they put that video of him laughing, shooting the watermelon saying, that's a lot softer than somebody's brain. I didn't feel quite as sorry for him then. Whether this was a murder or an accident, I'm sure he's sorry. Right? I believe that he is upset. I believe he's -- Of course. That some of the tears are real. That doesn't change -- He's getting tried for murder. That's why he's sorry. It may be. But it doesn't change the question, the fundamental question here, which is was it murder? Or was it an accident? Nancy, I was struck by that moment where he had to say he was -- he was forced to say, I'll try not to lie. Oh, yeah. Right. You know what? Talk about a freudian slip. I'll try not to lie. But I can't guarantee. Can't make a promise. That really stood out, you're absolutely right. Whole case comes down to this. Dan Abrams and Nancy grace. Let's get the weather from

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":23252874,"title":"Is Pistorious Prosecutor Too Tough in Cross Examination?","duration":"4:18","description":"Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss the testimony of the Olympic runner in the South African murder trial.","section":"GMA","mediaType":"Default"}