If Oscar Pistorius is found innocent of murdering Reeva Steenkamp then it is by no means the end of the fallen star's legal woes.
Pistorius, 27, is living at his uncle Arnold's house and awaiting judge Thokozile Masipa to deliver her verdict on the killing of Steenkamp by him, which occured on Valentine's Day last year.
The question of what the paralympian intended to do – or not – that night is front and centre of the trial, which began in March and was expected to last only three weeks.
But there is a raft of other charges being faced by Pistorius, any which of one could land him with serious jail time in one of South Africa's tough prisons.
Here, we take a look at the ways Pistorius could be imprisoned even if he is found not guilty of murder.
Culpable homicide of Steenkamp
Pistorius will be laid open to being found guilty of culpable homicide and jail if he is cleared of pre-meditated murder by judge Masipa.
That is because the law requires the judge to decide – following a verdict of innocence to murder, whether the defendant is guilty of this version of manslaughter.
To do this, Masipa must decide how negligent Pistorius was on a sliding scale, with the jail term rising with the level of negligence.
If the athlete is found guilty of culpable homicide, he faces up to 15 years in prison.
Pistorius hasn't been asked to plead on this charge, it only becomes active after the verdict on the murder charge.
This is one charge that could leave self-confessed gun fan Pistorius with a lot of jail time – up to
He is accused of having .38 bullets designed for a gun for which he does not have a license, nor a permit from a gun dealer, which would make his possession of the ammunition legitimate.
Firing guns in public
Pistorius is accused of two firearms charges, each of which carries a five year sentence.
The first relates to an incident at a restaurant in Johannesburg called Tasha's, just one month before Steenkamp was blasted to death.
Pistorius allegedly fired a gun by mistake after being handed it under a table by his friend – now former friend, Darren Fresco.
The bullet just missed another pal and diners were stunned into silence by the shot. Pistorius admitted in court to begging Fresco to say it was him who fired the gun because the runner feared a PR fallout over the incident.
The second firearms charge relates to Pistorius allegedly firing a gun through the roof of a vehicle in late 2012.
It reportedly happened while Fresco and he were travelling in it with an ex-girlfriend of the runner, Samantha Taylor.
Both Fresco and Taylor testified in court that it happened, while Pistorius denies the charge.
Pistorius' lawyer, Barry Roux, must be privately kicking himself for agreeing to have the firearms and ammo charges heard at the murder trial.
That is because this has allowed prosecutor Gerrie Nel to paint Pistorius as a gun-toting hot head with a temper problem.
The combination of this with Pistorius' problems in the witness box – where he appeared by turns vague, evasive and overly emotion – has made for a more difficult defence than might otherwise have been the case.
Having Roux as a defence lawyer is undoubtedly good for his chances and the runner has reportedly had to sell assets in order to pay his legal fees.
But his fate ultimately rests entirely in judge Masipa's hands as South Africa does not have jury trials – a legacy of apartheid.