Double jeopardy, no money for more litigation and a misguided prosecution team attacking a court ruling on the basis of inadmissible evidence - these are some of the reasons given by Oscar Pistorius's lawyers as to why the state should not be allowed to try to overturn the Paralympian's culpable homicide conviction. Pistorius, who is serving a five-year sentence at Pretoria's Kgosi Mampuru II prison for the culpable homicide of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, will learn today if he will be granted parole.Pistorius shot Steenkamp, who had locked herself inside the toilet of his Pretoria home, on StValentine's Day two years ago.The state is asking the Supreme Court of Appeal to allow it to appeal against the verdict. It contends that Pistorius should have been convicted of murder, not culpable homicide.The Supreme Court of Appeal can either dismiss or allow the appeal, or refer the case back to the Pretoria High Court for retrial.Pistorius's lawyer, Barry Roux, said allowing a retrial would amounted to his client being exposed to double jeopardy.He said Pistorius did not have money to mount a second defence.Said Roux: "He would again be charged for murder on the same facts, notwithstanding that he was acquitted on a charge of murder on the merits."This is impermissible. There can be no doubt that Pistorius was in jeopardy of conviction for murder in the trial."To refer this matter for a retrial would offend fair trial proceedings as the case was in the public domain and subjected to intense public scrutiny, which could only contaminate and confuse the objectivity and reliability of witnesses and the proceedings."Roux said the state is trying to make the court rethink its verdict that Pistorius was not guilty of dolus directus -the intent to kill Steenkamp.Said Roux: "This the state may not do. The purported questions of law could therefore in any event not affect the outcome of the case."The state's submissions have no relevance."The trial court, on the facts, rejected the circumstantial evidence the state sought to rely on as either unreliable or insufficient to be accepted as the only reasonable inference."The version [of events given by] Pistorius was consistent with the objective facts."Defence lawyer Ulrich Roux said the fact that evidence had already been led and witnesses had testified could result in witnesses' testimonies being tailored if they were called to the stand again...