The trial of Barry Bonds may not be coming to a start anytime soon after all. Prosecutors are appealing a ruling made by the judge earlier this month that barred crucial evidence from being admitted, forcing them to delay the start of the trial until after the appeal.

The trial was set to begin on Monday March 2, and now may be delayed for several months.

Among the other issues that the prosecution is dealing with is the news that Bonds’ former trainer, Greg Anderson, will not testify at the trial. Anderson’s lawyer made it clear that Anderson won’t answer questions, which has led to specific evidence being inadmissible, as it was only of value if Anderson testified to its authenticity. This included alleged failed drug tests, schedules and notebooks that were said to chronicle Bonds’ steroid use. Anderson was told that he will face prison time for refusing to testify, but he vows to stay silent.

From Bloomberg, quoting Judge Susan Illston:

“I will order you to testify, and if you refuse to testify you will be in contempt of my order and I will send you into custody until you” decide otherwise, Illston told Anderson at today’s hearing in San Francisco. She ordered him back to court March 3, when jury selection is to start.

The problem that the prosecution faces is that Judge Illston has ruled that the physical evidence they have may have no value and no meaning without Anderson’s corresponding testimony.

From SFGate.com:

In her ruling last week, Illston said the evidence is inadmissible hearsay unless the government can persuade Anderson to testify. Without testimony from the man who prosecutors believe supervised the steroid tests and created the documents, the evidence cannot be presented to the jury, she ruled.

The prosecution is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to have them reinstate some of the evidence she disallowed, including three alleged failed drug tests from 2000-2001.

Some experts are saying that the prosecution is making a big mistake by trying to get the judge’s ruling overturned, and that they are hurting their case by doing so. From ESPN.com:

“That’s a stupid move that they’re appealing,” said Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate law school who has been following the case closely. “There is absolutely no chance that an appellate court prior to trial is going to overrule a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

“It’s a foolish move on the part of the government. They’re on eve of the trial, they’ve got the momentum going, witnesses lined up, to call timeout at this point is foolish. It lets the air out of the balloon. They should be putting all their time and effort and energy into preparing for trial based on the evidence they have, rather than some futile effort to get in this evidence. The judge made a legitimate call.”

Illston’s only other options would have been to force the prosecution to move forward or to dismiss the case, but legal experts say that anything less than allowing this appeal would have been unusual.

Share this story...

Discussion

No comments for “Bonds Trial Not Starting Anytime Soon”

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.