Barry Bonds Sentenced To Probation, House Arrest

The case of United States versus Barry Lamar Bonds is scheduled to begin trial on March 21. We'll provide updates as to how this case plays out and whether Barry Bonds ends up going to jail for allegedly lying to a grand jury.

  • Live
45 Total Updates since January 22, 2011
  • Important 35
  • Updates 44
  • Articles 1
  • All Updates 45

Date set for Barry Bonds' appeal

Barry Bonds' appeal will be heard by a federal appeals court in February.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury, Obstruction of Justice Trial Guilty Verdict: Juror Explanation Of Three Remaining Counts

In light of the obstruction of justice guilty verdict handed down by the jury in Barry Bonds’ perjury and obstruction of justice trial, there are three counts remaining that the jury was hung. The decision was to declare a mistrial on those counts, and now some of the jurors are explaining the situation on those three counts of perjury.

Now that the trial is over, jurors are allowed to speak about the case, and some have quickly explained what happened in the jury room. On count two, which dealt with injections (of any substance) by anybody other than a Giants trainer or Bonds physicians, the jury voted 11-1 for a guilty verdict. The lone holdout felt that Kathy Hoskins was not sufficiently credible.

On count one the jury was voting 9-3 for acquittal. This count dealt with Bonds saying he wasn’t sure whether what he was taking was any kind of steroid. There’s no word on where the jury was as to count three. Count three was 8-4 in favorite acquittal.

We’ll have plenty more in our Barry Bonds Trial stream as details come out.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial Verdict: Guilty of Obstruction of Justice, Jury Hung on Other Counts

After days of deliberation the jury in the Barry Bonds perjury case has finally reached a verdict, but only on one count, forcing a mistrial on the other three. Initially, the court’s public relations representative let the court know that they had reached a verdict on all counts, but later came back with only on verdict and were divided on the others. Here’s how it breaks down:

Count 1: False Declaration: jury divided
Count 2: False Declaration: jury divided
Count 3: False Declaration: jury divided
Count 5: Obstruction of Justice: Guilty

Here’s a reminder on what that count entails:

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
(18 U.S.C. § 1503)
The defendant is charged in Count Five with obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count 5, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant corruptly, that is, for the purpose of obstructing justice,
2. obstructed, influenced, or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede the grand jury proceeding in which defendant testified,
3. by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury.

Statement C:

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?
A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

The defense is filing a motion for a directed verdict because Bonds wasn’t found guilty of lying about various things, but was found guilty of being evasive.

The next hearing will be on May 20th, although it will not be the sentencing date.

Stay with SB Nation Bay Area for more news on the situation as it unfolds.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial Jury Deliberations: What Longer Deliberation Could Mean

The jury in the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial begins its second day of deliberations today with the re-reading of Kathy Hoskins testimony. Mark Fainaru-Wada and George Dohrmann are providing play-by-play on Twitter, although it’s just a replay of testimony for now. Hoskins testimony is key to Count Two, which covers the issue of whether Greg Anderson provided any kind of injection to Bonds.

The fact that jury deliberations will be entering a second day is intriguing. I’ve never served on a jury but my understanding is that there would be a vote held at the start of deliberations to see where folks stand. I suppose it’s different for different juries, but it seems logical to take a preliminary vote. That would mean there is some disagreement on at least one of the counts at this point. This could mean disagreement over just one count, or it could mean a lot of disagreement.

I think Count Two seems fairly certain to be a guilty verdict, which would mean to me that there is some disagreement on other counts. However, given that they wanted to hear Kathy Hoskins testimony again, it could be disagreement over Count Two. We can infer a little bit about what the jury is thinking, but it is fairly limited.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial Jury Instructions: Jury Completes First Day Of Deliberations

The Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial went to the jury at the close of business yesterday and 24 hours later the jury has completed their first full day of deliberations. Jury instructions were provided yesterday and the jury picked up deliberations this morning at 8:30am. At one point in the morning the jury had the Steve Hoskins-Greg Anderson tape replayed (along with a viewable transcript). At the end of the day they asked to view a transcript of Kathy Hoskins testimony. The court said that wasn't allowed but they could have her testimony read back to her. Due to the timing of the request, the court and jury decided to do that first thing Monday morning.

As the jury works to determine Bonds' guilt or innocence, they have been provided a rundown of each of the counts against Bonds. The government has to prove a certain number of elements to get a guilty verdict for each count. Additionally, each count is determined separately from each other. The fourth count of perjury was dropped leaving three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

COUNT ONE - FALSE DECLARATION
(18 U.S.C. § 1623(a))

The defendant is charged in Count One with making a material false declaration before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Count One alleges that the defendant made the following material false declaration (underlined below):

Question: I know the answer - - let me ask you this again. I know we kind of got into this. Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? Did he ever give a steroid?

Answer: I don't think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don't think he would do that.

Question: Well, when you say you don't think he would do that, to your knowledge, I mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?

Answer: Not that I know of.

In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count One, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant testified under oath before a grand jury;
2. The testimony described above was false;
3. The testimony was material to the grand jury before which he testified; and
4. The defendant knew that the testimony described above was false and material to the grand jury before which he testified.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury to which it is addressed.

COUNT TWO – FALSE DECLARATION
(18 U.S.C. § 1623(a))

The defendant is charged in Count Two with making a material false declaration before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Count Two alleges that the defendant made the following material false declaration (underlined below):

Question: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

Answer: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?
********************************
Question: So no one else other than perhaps the team doctor and your personal physician has ever injected anything in to you or taken anything out?

Answer: Well, there’s other doctors from surgeries. I can answer that question, if you’re getting technical like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck needles in me and have drawn out - - I’ve had a bunch of surgeries, yes.

Question: So - -

Answer: So sorry.

Question: - - the team physician, when you’ve had surgery, and your own personal physician. But no other individuals like Mr. Anderson or any associates of his?

Answer: No, no.

In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count Two, the government must prove each of
the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant testified under oath before a grand jury;
2. The testimony described above was false;
3. The testimony was material to the grand jury before which he testified; and
4. The defendant knew that the testimony described above was false and material to the grand jury before which he testified.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury to which it is addressed.

COUNT THREE – FALSE DECLARATION
(18 U.S.C. § 1623(a))

The defendant is charged in Count Three with making a material false declaration before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Count Three alleges that the defendant made the following material false declaration (underlined below):

Question: And, again, just to be clear and then I’ll leave it, but he [Anderson] never gave you anything that you understood to be human growth hormone? Did he ever give you anything like that?

Answer: No.

In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count Three, the government must prove each
of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant testified under oath before a grand jury;
2. The testimony described above was false;
3. The testimony was material to the grand jury before which he testified; and
4. The defendant knew that the testimony described above was false and material to the grand
jury before which he testified.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing,the decision of the grand jury to which it is addressed.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
(18 U.S.C. § 1503)
The defendant is charged in Count Five with obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count 5, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant corruptly, that is, for the purpose of obstructing justice,
2. obstructed, influenced, or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede the grand jury proceeding in which defendant testified,
3. by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury.

The government alleges that the underlined portion of the following statements constitute material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading.  In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count 5, you must all agree that one or more of the following statements was material and intentionally evasive, false or misleading, with all of you unanimously agreeing as to which statement or statements so qualify:

1. The Statement Contained in Count One
2. The Statement Contained in Count Two
3. The Statement Contained in Count Three
4. Statement A:

Q: Let me move on to a different topic. And I think you’ve testified to this. But I want to make
sure it’s crystal clear. Every time you got the flax seed oil and the cream, did you get it in person
from Greg?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that fair?
A: Yes.
Q: And where would you typically get it? Where would you guys be when he would hand it to you generally?
A In front of my locker, sitting in my chair.
Q: Did he ever come to your home and give it to you?
A: Oh, no, no, no. It was always at the ballpark.

5. Statement B:

Q: …Do you remember how often he recommended to you about, approximately, that you take this cream, this lotion?
A: I can’t recall. I don’t – I wish I could. I just can’t . . . I just know it wasn’t often. I just think it was more when I was exhausted or tired than like a regular regimen. You know, it was like if I was really sore or something, really tired…that’s – that’s --- that’s all I can remember about that.
Q: … would you say it was more or less often or about the same as the amount of times you took the liquid, the flax seed oil, the thing you understood to be flax seed oil?
A: I don’t know. I never kept track of that stuff. I’m sorry. I didn’t sit there and monitor that stuff. 

6. Statement C:

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?
A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

7. Statement D:

Q: Did Greg ever give you testosterone in injectable form for you to take?
A: No.
Q: Would you have taken it if he gave it to you?
A: He wouldn’t jeopardize our friendship that way. 
Q: And why would that – you’re very clear that that would jeopardize your friendship. Why would that jeopardize your friendship?
A: Greg is a good guy. You know, this kid is a great kid. He has a child.
Q: Mm-hmm.
A: Greg is – Greg has nothing, man. You know what I mean? Guy lives in his car half the time, he lives with his girlfriend, rents a room so he can be with his kid, you know? His ex takes his kid away from him every single five minutes. He’s not that type of person. This is the same guy that goes over to our friend’s mom’s house and massages her leg because she has cancer and she swells up every night for months. Spends time next to my dad rubbing his feet every night. Our friendship is a little bit different.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Government Rests, Ting-Hoskins Tape Inadmissible

The Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial to a huge step towards completion today. The government rested its case after it was unable to get a tape admitted that purported to include specific steroid discussions between Dr. Arthur Ting and Steve Hoskins. The conversation would have contradicted important chunks of Dr. Ting’s testimony last week that blew a sizable hole in the side of the government’s case. However, the judge ruled that too much of the tape was inaudible, and what was audible was largely irrelevant and inadmissible.

The government had spent much of the morning examining Dr. Don Catlin from the UCLA Drug Laboratory. Dr. Catlin confirmed that Clomid and THG appeared in the test. THG is the acronym for the drug (Tetrahydrogestrinone) that is also called The Cream. Clomid is a female fertility drug that can help bring testosterone levels back to normal after wrapping up a steroid cycle. Considering it’s a female fertility drug, the jury could question why a man would be taking that. Of course, Bonds has claimed all along that he took PEDs without knowing they were such.

After all this was complete, the government wrapped things up by reading the grand jury testimony into the record. The four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice are all based on Bonds’ testimony to the grand jury. You can read the edited version of the grand jury transcript that was read to the jury today. Additionally, you can read the original unedited version.

The defense will begin their case tomorrow with a pair of witnesses; one from the IRS and one from the FBI. Additionally, the defense has filed numerous motions on which the judge will need to rule. The defense moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, which would take the case out of the hands of the jury if the judge felt the government had not met its most basic burden of proof. Additionally, the defense moved to strike a variety of evidence including testimony of the athletes, testimony about the side effects of steroids and PEDs, and testimony related to the other recording.

Judge Illston is expected to rule on all these motions in the morning. Her preliminary ruling today was to deny all the motions except to strike testimony about testicular shrinkage and part C of the Hoskins/Anderson tape. After Judge Illston deals with that, the defense will present the witnesses in its case.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Steve Hoskins Provides Government With Tape Of Dr. Arthur Ting Steroid Discussion

The Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial deviated from its expected wrap-up this week as the weekend brought delays and a potentially explosive revelation. The jury was dismissed for the entire day because juror number nine was suffering from kidney stones. He visited his doctor and received tylenol with codeine. Tomorrow the trial will begin with either a doped up juror number nine or one of the two alternate jurors.

More importantly though, the government revealed to the court that Steve Hoskins had informed them he had discovered a taped conversation with Dr. Arthur Ting. In this conversation there are allegedly discussions steroids, which would directly contradict Dr. Ting’s testimony last week that he never discussed specific steroid use.

Naturally the defense has some issues with the tape both in terms of the quality and also the late discovery. If this tape is actually allowed in, it’s possible it could breathe new life into the prosecution’s otherwise withering case. It wouldn’t necessarily secure more guilty verdicts, but it raises serious question marks about Dr Ting’s testimony. Of course, if this has steroid discussions, that means we get another date with Steve Hoskins who thus far has been arguably the worst witness in the history of trials.

The prosecution was originally planning on resting their case following testimony from Dr. Don Catlin of the UCLA Laboratory and the reading of Bonds’ grand jury testimony into the official record. Now I’d have to imagine we’ve got at least another day or two added to the trial, not including the missed day today. Things are officially interesting once again.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial Week Three: Verdict Likely To Come In This Week

The 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial enters its third week today and is likely to finish up sometime in the next four days. The prosecution is likely to rest their case at some point today. Their primary remaining witness is Dr. Don Catlin from the UCLA Olympic Laboratory. They are also expected to call a couple more chain of custody experts to try and bore the jury into guilty verdicts.

Once the prosecution wraps up, the defense is allowed to start calling witnesses. However, at this point it’s entirely possible the defense will choose to call no witnesses. They could call their own expert on steroid side effects, and they could also call Bonds personal strength and conditioning trainer, Harvey Shields.

At this point you could argue defense witnesses could at best do nothing for Bonds case and at worst provide some unexpected ammunition for the government. I wouldn’t expect that by why give the prosecution any sort of lifeline? At this point, it seems like the government’s only going to get a guilty verdict on Count 2 related to Anderson injecting Bonds (with anything, not just steroids). If that’s the case, short of calling Anderson or Bonds, the defense can’t fight that count. Other than that Bonds is in good shape to walk so why call any defense witnesses at this point?

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Kathy Hoskins Observed Greg Anderson Inject Bonds, Government Still Alive

Although the government was fairly decimated following Dr. Arthur Ting's testimony, they rebounded with a little bit of luck with Barry Bonds' former personal assistant Kathy Hoskins. Although the government is highly unlikely to get guilty verdicts on all five counts in the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial, Hoskins testimony might be enough to get them at least one guilty verdict.

Hoskins is Steve Hoskins brother. She has known Barry Bonds since they were both in middle school and apparently she actually asked and took him to her Sadie Hawkins dance. That probably qualified as one of the more amusing moments of the trial. However, things got a bit more intense as Hoskins described her dealings with Barry and the subsequent breakdown of Bonds' relationship with the Hoskins siblings.

The most important part of Hoskins testimony was that she saw Barry receive an injection from Greg Anderson in 2002. This is pertinent because the second count of perjury on the indictment revolves around whether Barry has received an injection from anybody other than the team physician or his personal physician. The key question and and answer from his grand jury testimony was (pertinent questions and answers in bold):

Q: So no one else other than perhaps the team doctor and your personal physician has ever injected anything in to you or taken anything out?

A: Well, there's other doctors from surgeries. I can answer that question, if you're getting technical like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck needles in me and have drawn out -- I've had a bunch of surgeries, yes.

Q: So --

A: So sorry.

Q: -- the team physician, when you've had surgery, and your own personal physician. But no other individuals like Mr. Anderson or any associates of his?

A: No, no.

If the jury believes Hoskins when she said she saw Anderson inject Bonds, then they have to find him guilty. Heading into Hoskins testimony, media members around me figured she'd be like her brother and get torn apart on cross examination. However, Kathy Hoskins was basically the 180 degree opposite of her brother on the witness stand.

She was incredibly confident and actually did a good job of distancing herself from her brother. She emphasized that he had brought her name up to the government, which led to them subpoenaing her to testify. She cried at least twice when discussing the problems between her brother and Barry. Whereas Kimberly Bell's tears seemed a bit contrived the longer she was on the witness, Hoskins actually came across as incredibly broken up by the turn of events between her family and Bonds. She first broke down when discussing how Barry didn't want Steve at Bobby Bonds funeral, which took place not long after Barry accused Steve of theft. The second break down came at the end. Kathy was asked how she felt about testifying and she said she had been put in the middle of this.

At this point I think it would be a bit of an upset if Bonds beat the rap on the second count of perjury. Hoskins was arguably the most effective government witness in terms of substantive testimony. She held up well under cross examination and seems like someone the jury would instill a sense of trust. If that's the case, the very fabric of our legal system would require them to find Bonds guilty on count two.

At the same time, the rest of the counts are a bit more difficult. Kathy did testify that when asked about what he was taking Bonds said that it was "a little something, something for when I go on the road. Can't detect it, can't catch it." I don't know if that's enough to overcome the disastrous Steve Hoskins and Arthur Ting testimony. Throw in questionable Kimberly Bell testimony and it is a tough call for the jury. Count five is an obstruction of justice charge in which the jury must find that Bonds:

[D]id corruptly influence, obstruct, and impede, and endeavor to corruptly influence, obstruct, and impede, the due administration of justice, by knowingly giving material Grand Jury testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, and misleading, including but not limited to the false statements made by the defendant as charged in Counts One through Four of this indictment.

If they can get Bonds on count two, I suppose the obstruction of justice charge really comes into play. Of course, given the bumbling of the government thus far, it's possible they could blow that charge as well. The trial is technically scheduled through April 21, but it sounds like it will likely end in the middle of next week. The government will finish up with Dr. Catlin and might rest their case at that point. That will be followed by a reading of the grand jury testimony into the official record. After that the defense will present its case, which could consist entirely of a steroids side effects expert. Other than that we might be at closing arguments by Tuesday.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Arthur Ting Decimates Government Case On Cross Examination

The second week of the 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial came to a close with a highly entertaining day of testimony. The government called three witnesses, but two of them really made the day what it was. The government called Dr. Arthur Ting, Kathy Hoskins, and Dr. Don Catlin. While Dr. Catlin did not wrap up his testimony, Ting and Hoskins brought a huge mix of good and bad news for the government's case against MLB's career home runs leader.

Dr. Arthur Ting is an orthopedic surgeon who conducted approximately eight different surgeries on Bonds over the course of his career. The most notable for this case was the 1999 elbow surgery that came as a result of bursitis and tendonitis with elbow spurs. Things started out on a positive note as he mentioned Steve Hoskins coming to him for information about the side effects of steroids.

However, the government's case took potentially fatal blows from there on out. Over the course of cross examination, the defense brought up the various things Steve Hoskins claimed to have asked of Ting. Hoskins testified he asked about specific steroids and PEDs, and that among other things he had discussed steroids upwards of 50 times with Dr. Ting. Defense attorney Cris Arguendas asked him about each of Hoskins' statements and Hoskins denied every one of them. I'd say it was like a boxer collecting easy points with his jab, but this was more like the defense hitting upper cut after upper cut and the government unable to stop it.

The government tried to rehab things by getting Ting to admit he wasn't sure, but Ting emphasized not hearing Hoskins statements on re-cross. If you had stepped into the court room during the cross examination, you would have assumed Dr. Ting was a defense witness. Arguendas was masterful on cross-examination in that she knew the right questions to ask Ting, but in reality once again I think a law student could have taken down the government today.

It was really quite fitting then at the end of the examination, as Dr. Ting left the court room, he shook hands with a Bonds family member (or maybe friend) sitting in the front row near the defense table. I think it was as much an instinctual shake as anything else, but it was still fitting. Suffice to say, Barry was mostly smiles at that point. Out in the hallway, most everybody agreed that he was going to walk after the government's disastrous showing.
At the same time, the follow-up witness Kathy Hoskins may have given them a small glimmer of hope.....

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Thursday Expected Witnesses: Don Catlin, Arthur Ting, Kathy Hoskins

The Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial continues on today with the government approaching the close of their case. The government will bring out Dr. Don Catlin, Dr. Arthur Ting, and Kathy Hoskins. They may have some additional witnesses, but these are the most significant remaining witnesses for the government. This morning will also include reading Bonds' entire grand jury testimony into the official record.

The government spent much of yesterday having witnesses describe chain of custody issues related to Barry Bonds' 2003 urine sample. Now that the details have been laid out, we'll get to hear the substantive testimony from Dr. Don Catlin. Dr. Catlin will testify that the UCLA Olympic Lab performed the testing on the Bonds urine specimen collected by Major League Baseball (MLB). He will testify to the results of those tests and their meaning, including the use and results of the Carbon Isotope Ratio test. Dr. Catlin will testifiy that the results of the test were that he found exogenous testosterone, THG, and clomiphene in the 2003 sample. He will also testify that THG was never available from any source (other than through BALCO and its associates) during the time of the defendant’s THG-positive urine specimen.

After Dr. Catlin testifies, Dr. Arthur Ting will testify as to his work as Bonds' orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Ting will testify as to his physical observations of Bonds as well as his observations of Bonds' interactions with Greg Anderson. He will also testify that he drew blood from Bonds for testing, and that he gave the specimens to Greg Anderson to deliver. Ting will also testify regarding photographs of Bonds.

Kathy Hoskins will be the only other witness today. She will testify that she was hired by Bonds as a personal shopper and assistant. She will further testify that she observed interactions between Bonds and Greg Anderson, including Anderson giving Bonds an injection.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Stan Conte, Bonds And What Goes In His Body

Yesterday the 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial consisted primarily of testimony by former Giants trainer Stan Conte, and players Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, and Marvin Benard. The players discussed their interactions with Greg Anderson, including receiving steroids and PEDs from Anderson, as well as the calendars and some injections. That was interesting and all, but I thought Stan Conte raised an issue that was a bit more pertinent.

Conte discussed his interactions with Barry, including observations of what amounted to physical symptoms of steroid and PED use. What I found interesting was the defense's attempts to show that Bonds had his own program from even before the time he allegedly started using performance-enhancing drugs. At one point Conte discussed how Bonds did not want the trainers observing his weight. Instead he would get on the scale and tell them the weight.

Starting with the grand jury testimony, Bonds had stated that he thought Greg Anderson was injecting him with flaxseed oil and give him an arthritis balm. Throughout this whole ordeal, I've always found it hard to believe that a high performance athlete would make such assumptions about what was going into his body. I suppose it's possible he had a strong trust of Greg Anderson, but when you throw in his own concern about the weight and other issues, I just don't believe he didn't know what was going into his body.

Of course, there's a difference between what I believe and what has been proven by the evidence. There's a decent amount of circumstantial evidence about steroid use and knowledge, but it's been subverted much of the time by less than credible witnesses. It's going to be tough for the prosecution to get convictions on any, let alone all the charges.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Tuesday Expected Witnesses: Stan Conte And Bacne

The 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial continues its second week as we get into some of the more circumstantial evidence of the trial. We'll get to hear about Bonds' bacne and other physical changes as former Giants trainer Stan Conte will be testifying today. Conte will testify that he is a licensed physical therapist and certified athletic trainer who began working for the San Francisco Giants in 1992 and became its head athletic trainer in 2000. He will testify regarding his professional background and qualifications and his job duties with the Giants.

Conte will also testify about certain interactions he had with Bonds, about statements by Bonds about Greg Anderson and the search warrant conducted on Anderson’s residence in September of 2003, and about observations related to Bonds physical appearance while working for the Giants. He will also testify regarding photographs of Bonds contained within various government exhibits. Finally, he will testify about his knowledge of the defendant’s relationships with third parties, such as Steve Hoskins and Greg Anderson.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Kimberly Bell Battles Cris Arguedas

The Barry Bonds trial reached arguably its most dramatic moment (short of the verdict) as Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kimberly Bell testified today. Bell was on the government witness list to describe physical and emotional changes in Bonds, as well as his admission of steroid use and his relationship with Greg Anderson. She went through her direct testimony with relative ease, although she did start to cry a little bit when she described Barry's anger at her once he started using steroids. The real fireworks began on cross examination as Bonds attorney Cristina Arguendas began doing everything she could to discredit Bell's testimony.

I won't use this post to go into a ton of detail. You can find detailed tweets through @markfwespn, @georgedohrman, @freedarko, and @gwenknapp. The cross examination covered Bell's planned appearance in Playboy, her appearance on the Geraldo Rivera show, her proposed book, and everything in between. Rather than go after that substance of her testimony, the defense was trying to destroy her credibility. That was to be expected because the evidentiary value of Bell's testimony was really only about five to ten minutes of her whole testimony.

The pertinent substantive testimony was about the back acne, Bonds' admission of steroid use, and Bell seeing Bonds and Anderson go off to a backroom with a little satchel. Really the rest of her direct examination was just window dressing. In attacking Bell's credibility on cross examination, Arguendas had a tough go from what I observed. Initially Arguendas went with a pit bull style of cross in which she tried to break down Bell. However, unlike Steve Hoskins, Kimberly Bell did a solid job parrying the various questions form Arguendas. Prior to the morning break at 10:15am, Bell was holding her own and seemed to be winning the exchange.

After the break, Arguendas attempted to tone down her demeanor, even apologizing if she was disrespecting Bell. Arguendas' tone continued to rise at times, but it was a slightly lighter attacking style. However, the crux of the testimony between the 10:15am break and the noon lunch break actually might have hurt Bell's credibility. The questions focused on Bell's publicity work and book deal, as Arguendas attempted to paint her as an individual with a long range plan to bring down Barry and boost her own publicity.

It was hard to figure out Bell at times because she bounced between painting herself as a victim and remaining in control of the situation. As the folks at @freedarko put it:

KB wants to reserve the right to have been led by the nose, but resents Aguerdas treating her like she's stupid.

I really have no idea how the jury will view all this. Coming off Bell's tears during testimony about Barry threatening her and scaring her, the initially aggressive cross examination likely turned off at least some members of the jury. However, when Bell began throwing her former publicist Aphrodite Jones under the bus, one has to wonder if that also turned off the jurors.

It becomes a battle for credibility. Whether or not Bell had an agenda, was she telling the truth? The problem with having her and Hoskins as your two key witnesses is that they are providing he said-she said evidence. It personifies this trial where we've got little bits and pieces coming together, but we're missing significant chunks of the puzzle that would be necessary to convict Bonds on the whole slate of charges.

As the trial moves on I find myself more and more intrigued by the potential verdict. How does a juror handle a case filled with circumstantial evidence and no real smoking gun that is admissible? At this point, I don't think there's any way the government can get convictions on all five counts of the indictment. I think one or two counts could happen, but even that might be a stretch.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Week Two: Kimberly Bell Headlines Witness List

The Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial enters its second week and will be headlined by the testimony of Bonds' former girlfriend Kimberly Bell. Week one saw three witnesses called including Jeff Novitzky, Steve Hoskins and Dr. Larry Bowers. Novitzky and Bowers were relatively tame, while Hoskins was a veritable train wreck of a witness. While the government was able to provide some solid evidence, it was killed at times by Hoskins self-destruction under cross-examination.

This week, the released list of expected witnesses includes:

Mike Murphy
Mike Wilson
Ana Geter
Kimberly Bell
Stan Conte
Kathy Hoskins

Bell is likely going to be the highlight (or lowlight) of the week as testifies regarding her ten year relationship with Bonds from 1994 to 2003. She will testify that she and Bonds maintained a long-term intimate relationship, that he exhibited controlling behavior throughout the relationship, and he gave her large amounts of cash and provided her with detailed instructions on how to deposit the cash in order to avoid financial institution reporting requirements. She will testify that Bonds told her that he was taking steroids prior to the 2000 Major League Baseball season.

Ms. Bell will further testify to personal observations regarding changes Bonds' body during the period of time beginning in the year 1999, including bloating, acne on the shoulders and back, hair loss, sexual dysfunction, and testicular shrinkage. She will also testify about changes in his temperament, including an increase in angry, threatening, controlling, and violent behavior. Bell will also identify 11 voicemail messages where the defendant exhibited such behavior, identified as government exhibits 55-65. She will also testify regarding photographs of the defendant contained within government exhibits 46-54. Ms. Bell will further testify to occasions in which she saw the defendant and Greg Anderson together.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: USADA Official Larry Bowers Provides Rundown On Steroids

The Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice trial took a twist into expert testimony as the government examined USADA official Larry Bowers this morning. Much of his testimony was meant to establish his expert credentials on the subject of steroids, PEDs and other issues related to performance-enhancing drugs. If you are following the trial on twitter you noticed how dreadfully boring much of the testimony was throughout the morning.

Bowers discussed much of his own background and the testing methodologies related to steroids and PEDs. Where it got a little interesting was when Bowers began discussing the evolution of steroids and PEDs from traditional anabolic steroids to The Clear, The Cream, and HGH. You could even see Bowers getting excited as he discussed the ways the new PEDs were able to slip past traditional testing. The point of all this testimony was to establish the foundation for the re-testing of Barry bonds 2003 test that did not initially test positive.

As we head into the afternoon, the government will need to get more to the testing of Bonds but I'd imagine there isn't a lot of direct examination left. When the defense begins cross examination, they'll likely look to raise doubt as to how accurate the testing is given the relatively novel nature of many of these PEDs. While testing is developing for a variety of PEDs, there have been issues of false positives and the general developing nature of testing. I'd suspect we'll hear all about this on cross examination. At the same time, it can't possible be as brutal as the cross examination of Steve Hoskins.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial 2011, Thursday Expected Witness Testimony: Larry Bowers, USADA

There has been a change in the order of witnesses in Barry Bonds 2011 perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Originally the plan was for Giants clubhouse manager Mike Murphy and former BALCO VP Jim Valente to testify today. Steve Hoskins has to finish his cross-examination and then after that we will apparently hear from Larry Bowers, currently the Senior Managing Director for Technical and Information Resources at the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Dr. Bowers testimony will be about the items identified in a 2003 urine test of Bonds. He'll testify that the urine test reflected anabolic steroids and according to the government witness list " that it is illegal to distribute and obtain those without a legitimate medical condition requiring a prescription from a physician.  Dr. Bowers will also testify to the side effects of steroid use, including effects on blood values, possible organ damage, and other side effects." I can't imagine Bowers will testify too terribly long given that it is some simple basic evidence that is relatively commonly known at this point. I'm curious ih we'll see all that much cross-examination.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: The Flipside To Steve Hoskins Day Three Meltdown

Bonds' former childhood friend was pretty much obliterated on cross examination and did not look particularly solid on direct examination. He struggled with dates, names on audio and had just about every possible problem a witness could have in a trial. The government's case in the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial revolved in no small part around the testimony of Steve Hoskins. His testimony reflected a stuttering fool at times.

And yet, as Lester Munson points out, the damaging evidence is still out there in the form of that tape recording:

Throughout the third day of the trial, the words "steroids" and "syringe" and "human growth hormone" were repeated again and again. With the jurors watching, both sides spent the day talking and arguing about Bonds doing exactly what he told the grand jury he never did.

When you're on trial on charges of making false statements to the grand jury, this is the last thing you want to see. Quietly and relentlessly and with none of Ruby's flair, prosecutors Matthew Parrella and Jeff Nedrow are succeeding in placing Bonds in the middle of a world of performance-enhancing drugs.

As awful as Hoskins looked for much of yesterday, the audio is still there. The jury might question Hoskins motives as to why he recorded the conversation and why he waited to release it. However, it's hard to dispute what they hear on that tape. Bonds lead defense attorney Allen Ruby tried to prove there had been potential enhancements, but it does not sound like that was sufficiently proven. Without Greg Anderson's testimony this is as close as the government may get to proving some link between Bonds and steroids.

Of course, as always, it comes down to what the jury is willing to believe. Hoskins has little credibility, which the jury might reflect in everything he said or with which he is associated. Prior to yesterday I thought Bonds was going to walk with no convictions. Now, I could see a chance of conviction on one or two counts if Hoskins testimony can get even a little more support. Given the performance of the government thus far, that's no small task.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Did Allen Ruby Cross Of Steve Hoskins Sink Government Case?

Day three of the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial is in the books and it could go down as the government's case against Barry Bonds took its biggest hit. The government brought out its key witness, former Bonds childhood friend Steve Hoskins. Today consisted of some brief cross-examination of former BALCO investigator Jeff Novitzky, but then involved closed five to six hours of direct and cross examination of Hoskins, with more cross coming tomorrow.

If Hoskins is actually telling the truth his information is quite damaging to Bonds. He spoke of Barry using him to find out information about steroids. He discussed the various financial dealings with Barry and his women. He also discussed Barry's relationship with Greg Anderson and had quite a bit of information about that. Normally the most damning piece of evidence would have been the recorded conversations Hoskins had with Anderson in which Anderson discussed steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in a variety of contexts. While it was mostly circumstantial, with a normal witness it might have been enough to slam home the government's case.

Unfortunately for the US Attorneys, Steve Hoskins is no ordinary witness. I won't say that he's an idiot, but he was an incredibly poor witness today. During direct examination he was often confused and came across in a stammering and indecisive manner. He couldn't remember a variety of key dates and just generally struggled. After lunch Hoskins was asked a variety of questions about the recorded conversation between himself and Anderson. You had to know it was going to be a long afternoon when at one point he was asked about a voice on the recording and to whom it belonged. Hoskins said it was Anderson's voice. Sorry Steve, it was your voice.

And this was all before Bonds' attorney, Allen Ruby, tore into him. I had to leave and couldn't stay for the cross examination, but from reading through twitter, it was not pretty. Ruby had little trouble working Hoskins into corners and getting him to admit contradictory information left, right, and center. Although the recording contained some damning information, the cross examination appeared to leave Hoskins with absolutely zero credibility. Check out George DohrmannMark Fainaru-Wada, and Gwen Knapp (among others) to get a sense of how ugly it got this afternoon. Without being there, the tweets alone show a witness run in circles by a defense attorney. I'd say a good defense attorney, but in this case it's possible a first year law student would have had little trouble with Hoskins.

In looking back at today's testimony, it's safe to say it was indicative of virtually the entire government case. One has to think the government prepped Hoskins leading up to trial. If they didn't it's a sign of more poor organization. And if they did it's just a sign of the fact that they have had no real chance coming into this thing. It's a lawyer's job to present the best possible case, and that did not take place today for the US Attorneys. I can't imagine a witness testifying in a much worse fashion. Odds that Bonds walks with no convictions have to have increased a sizable amount.

Tomorrow, Rubby will wrap up his cross-examination of Hoskins. After that, Giants clubhouse manager Mike Murphy and BALCO Laboratories Jim Valente are both expected on the stand. We'll be back tweeting live from courtroom 10 tomorrow morning. For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Steve Hoskins Cross-Examination Might Get Ugly

The morning session of day three of the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial has come to a close and the jury is off to lunch. Former BALCO investigator Jeff Novitzky wrapped up his testimony with some cross examination and re-direct/re-cross. As Novitzky noted he has appeared at numerous trials so it's hard to trip him up. What was intriguing was the way he appeared to get under the skin of Allen Ruby at times. Ruby would ask a question and Novitzky responded with a bit of snark about wanting to ask new questions.

However, Ruby will likely have a lot more success when we get to the cross examination of Bonds' former childhood friend Steve Hoskins. This morning Hoskins began his testimony and began by taking us through the history of his friendship with Barry Bonds. After establishing the basis for their relationship, AUSA Parrella went into the many expected areas of testimony. He discussed some of the physical changes in Bonds (shoe and glove size), his handling of financial arrangements with the various women in Bonds' life, and his involvement in getting information on steroid side effects, particularly those from Winstrol.

Hoskins also discussed his involvement in Bonds' relationship with Greg Anderson. Hoskins testified that he would get cash from Bonds to Anderson. He also was involved in various conversations Bonds had with Anderson. We couldn't hear what Hoskins heard Anderson said because of hearsay rules, but we heard what Hoskins and Bonds said. Additionally we heard about how on multiple occasions Hoskins saw Bonds and Anderson go into a separate room and Anderson would come out with a needle. The idea of course being that he was injecting steroids of some kind into Bonds.

Arguably the highlight, or lowlight, of the morning was hearing Hoskins describe Bonds stating that his butt was sore from the injections.These are the kinds of things that clearly make this must-see TV.

Hoskins will likely begin the afternoon discussing a conversation he taped between himself and Greg Anderson. He wanted to have proof for Bobby Bonds about Barry's steroid use so Bobby would try and convince Barry to stop doping. There were issues of hearsay, but the court has decided to allow in the entire transcript.

Whatever the case, cross examination could bring some fireworks. Ruby got to voir dire Hoskins about the mechanics of the recording and he was already getting some inconsistencies out of him. Hoskins is the start witness for the government so Ruby will want to really destroy his credibility. Unfortunately I won't be texting from the court room this afternoon, but we'll keep an eye on texts. We actually will have @basportsguy in the courtroom, so check out his tweets.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Wednesday Witnesses Expected Testimony: Jim Valente, Former VP BALCO

The third expected witness on day three of the 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial is Jim Valente, the former vice president of BALCO Laboratories. While Steve Hoskins and Mike Murphy will be testifying about either their knowledge of Bonds steroid use or their personal observations of steroid- and PED-related symptoms, Valente brings potentially strong circumstantial evidence.

As for the former VP of the BALCO Lab, Valente will testify about his personal observations as an employee. According to the government witness list, he'll testify "that Balco served as a blood testing lab that tested individuals for steroids, and referred their blood and urine samples to external labs for testing." He'll go into his personal relationship with VIctor Conte, Greg Anderson, and Barry Bonds. More specifically, he'll testify that he saw Bonds at BALCO on three different occasions and he will discuss his observations and interactions with Bonds.

This is further circumstantial evidence, but the jury could use this to show actual knowledge of what went on at BALCO. It's not as damning as testimony from Greg Anderson would have been, but it provides a stronger link to steroid and PED usage. I'd argue that if Bonds were to be found guilty, this testimony could be a difference-maker. I won't be here this afternoon so I'm hoping Valente isn't able to testify until tomorrow. I'm curious to hear what he has to say about Bonds and also how his testimony stands up under cross examination.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Wednesday Witnesses Expected Testimony: Mike Murphy, Giants Clubhouse Manager

As we enter day three of the 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial, the government will bring on witnesses testifying to issues ranging from allegedly "actual" knowledge of Bonds' steroid use and also circumstantial evidence that Bonds knowingly used steroids, and thus lied to the grand jury about such knowledge. This latter bit of evidence is where the testimony of Giants clubhouse manager Mike Murphy comes into play.

Murphy is expected to testify as to Bonds' increasing hat size. Additionally, based on the government's opening statement, Murphy will testify about the physical changes in Bonds that were consistent with steroid use (such as back acne). The issue the government has in proffering this testimony is connecting the dots between hat size, back acne, etc and Bonds' knowledge that he was using steroids. One of the running jokes about Bonds has been the ever-increasing size of his head. If you google barry bonds head size you get 100,000 results. However, while the jokes will continue, it remains to be seen whether that is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied to the grand jury and obstructed justice. Murphy is a prime example of the problems with the government's case.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011, Wednesday Witnesses: Steve Hoskins, BB Childhood Friend

Today is day three of the 2011 Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Each evening the court provides a short list of witnesses expected to be called the next day at trial. The order is generally exact, although due to potentially long direct or cross examination, it's not always likely the list will be completed. This morning the trial will begin with the conclusion of cross-examination of former IRS agent Jeff Novitzky, who has been discussing the BALCO investigation and the Steve Hoskins issues. It's appropriate then that witness number two today will be Steve Hoskins, Barry Bonds' former childhood friend.

Given the lack of testimony from Greg Anderson, Hoskins has developed into one of the government's key witnesses, along with Kimberly Bell. Prior to the trial, the government released their entire witness list. Included with each witness was a rundown of their generally expected testimony. This does not cover every detail, but rather provides a basic idea of the planned testimony. When the defense cross-examines the witness, their cross is generally confined to the scope of direct examination. That's not to stop them from raising questions of credibility, but it does confine them to a certain degree.

According to the government:

Mr. Hoskins will testify that he was childhood friends with the defendant and that in approximately late 1992 or early 1993, he began working for the defendant as his assistant. Mr. Hoskins will testify regarding the nature and extent of his working relationship with the defendant, which included handling many of the defendant's personal errands and scheduling, as well as managing the defendant's promotional activities related to his baseball career.

During their relationship, Mr. Hoskins became aware that the defendant was using steroids with the assistance of his personal trainer, Greg Anderson. In this regard, he will testify how he learned of the defendant's steroid use through, among other things, both the defendant's and Anderson's admissions to Hoskins. He will also testify regarding photographs of the defendant contained within government exhibits 46-54. He will also testify regarding the defendant's athletic accomplishments during the relevant time period. Mr. Hoskins will also testify about other aspects of his relationship with the defendant, including handling financial and business transactions for the defendant, as well as the defendant's financial motive to keep his steroid use secret.

For more on the Barry Bonds Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Trial, check out our updated Trial story stream.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Opening Statements, Greg Anderson, Jeff Novitzky

After a Monday filled with jury selection, day two of the Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial has wrapped up and we are right in the thick of things. The two sides took care of their opening statements this morning (governmentdefense) and we moved right into witnesses. After the jury was removed for lunch, the judge called in Greg Anderson to handle the matter of his refusal to testify. He continued to refuse and was accordingly removed by US Marshals for refusing to obey the order to testify.

After lunch, the first witness in the case, former IRS Agent Jeff Novitzky, took the stand. I was in the courtroom leading up to lunch but was unable to stick around after lunch. My plan going forward is to tweet (@sbnbayarea) and post from court until lunch time. For the afternoon I point your primarily to tweets from Mark Fainaru-Wada and George Dohrmann.

In following their tweets this afternoon, Novtizky appeared to come across very well. The government guided him through his BALCO investigation step-by-step to explain all the details to the jury. All accounts indicate he came off very well as he addressed the jury in detail. At the same time, AUSA Jeff Nedrow, who handled the direct, came off as a bit nervous and unclear at times. This can’t reflect well on the prosecution’s case, no matter how clear Novitzky was in his testimony.

Defense attorney Allen Ruby handled the cross examination and the accounts seem to indicate he couldn’t get what he wanted from Novitzky as he worked to raise question marks about his dealings with Steve Hoskins in relation to the indictment. It sounds like it didn’t work as well as he want. Indications that he grew a little hostile towards Novitzky would indicate a man not quite as in control of the witness as he would otherwise like.

There will be plenty of recaps around the Internet. The San Jose Mercury News ran a live-blog that included more details than one can fit in tweets, so feel free to check out their afternoon trial coverage. I’ll be back tomorrow morning from the courtroom as the cross examination of Jeff Novitzky continues. Once Novitzky wraps up, the government will be calling Bonds’ childhood friend Steve Hoskins.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Greg Anderson Refuses To Testify, Taken Into Custody

After the opening statements wrapped up in Barry Bonds perjury and obstruction of justice trial, Judge Susan Illston sent the jury out for an early lunch break at 11:30. Part of the reason for the early break was so that Illston could deal with the issue of former Bonds trainer Greg Anderson. Over the course of the last eight years, Anderson has spent over a year in jail due to continual refusals to testify about his dealings with Barry Bonds.

Anderson entered the courtroom with his attorney Mark Geragos and went through his normal routine. He was sworn in and then asked if he would testify. He said he was refusing to testify, at which point Judge Illston informed him he would be taken into custody by the US Marshals Service until he decided to testify. Assistant US Attoreny Matt Parrella asked for him to be fined as a further coercive measure, but Judge Illston said custody would be as coercive as she would go.

Anderson has been the proverbial smoking gun of this trial as his testimony could be sufficient to prove Bonds lied to the grand jury. However, Anderson has continually refused to testify against Bonds for reasons known only to him (and maybe Bonds and a few others). Geragos indicated he was going to appeal the order to testify to the Ninth Circuit, which could get Anderson back out of custody. It remains to be seen what kind of additional charges the government might consider in the coming months after this trial ends.

I won’t be in attendance this afternoon, but will be back in court tomorrow morning. This afternoon will feature former IRS agent Jeff Novitzky on the witness stand. If he finishes up, Steve Hoskins will start his testimony, with it likely to continue well into tomorrow. Some twitter accounts to follow for the rest of today: Tim Dalberg (AP), Mark Fainaru-Wada (ESPN) and George Dohrmann (SI).

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Defense Questions Credibility Of Government Case

The defense took care of their opening statement in approximately an hour as Bonds’ attorney Allen Ruby brought a more “folksy” turn to his opening statement. Ruby addressed a variety of issues, but wanted to make sure the jury recognized that this was not about their personal feelings about Barry Bonds. Ruby emphasized that it didn’t matter whether they liked Bonds or not, or whether they thought he was a good guy. Rather, it was about the truth. He actually wrapped up his opening statement with a bit of a cliched statement about “the power of truth.”

The opening statement was really broken into two issues. The first was the ease with which Bonds could have been confused when testifying before the grand jury in 2003. Ruby explained some differences between steroids and anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. While the prosecution had trouble trying to clarify the differences, the murky nature of the subject actually benefits Bonds. If the jury decides it’s tough to tell what exactly they’re talking about when talking about anabolic steroids and regular steroids and PEDs and so forth, a reasonable doubt could form as to whether Bonds was confused during his grand jury testimony.

The second issue of the opening statement was the credibility of the government witnesses. Ruby really hammered home the point that two of the government witnesses in particular have had an axe to grind. The witness Ruby went to town on was former Bonds friend Steve Hoskins. The plan is to show Hoskins as a friend of Bonds who eventually started stealing from him through use of counterfeit merchandise and signature forgery to enter business deals.

According to Ruby, Bonds wanted to end their relationship in a business-like manner, but Hoskins was not pleased at all and continued counterfeiting Bonds merchandise. The whole point will be to show that Hoskins has it in for Bonds and thus his credibility is lost.

Ruby made some brief comments about former Bonds girlfriend Kimberly Bell, but it sounds like he’s saving the juiciest stuff for cross examination. He rolled with the woman scorned angle, looking to show Bell as a bitter ex out for revenge. That really summed up the comments about Bell and Hoskins (wanting revenge, not woman scorned).

Seeing the jury react with some chuckles and close attention to Ruby has me thinking it’s an uphill battle for the government. They’ve got a lot of circumstantial evidence, but the defense has a great confusion defense. There’s a lot of time left in this trial, and a lot of witnesses and evidence, but my early prediction is Bonds walks.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Government Opening Statement Includes Cliff Notes Version Of Game Of Shadows

The government (or prosecution if you’d prefer) wrapped up their opening statement, lasting approximately 45 minutes, beginning at 9:05 and wrapping up at 9:50. While Assistant US Attorney Matt Parrella was a bit choppy at times in his opening statement, he basically was there to spoon-feed the jury. He took them on a step-by-step journey that basically was a cliff-notes version of Game of Shadows.

He began his opening statement with a history of the BALCO investigation conducted by former IRS agent Jeff Novitzky. This was the cliff notes of Game of Shadows that most anybody could recite if you’ve read the book. Once he got through the BALCO discussion he went into the side effects of steroids. This is where we heard about witnesses like Giants trainer Stan Conte and Kimberly Bell, who will discuss the physical changes in Bonds.

We also learned a bit about the various ways performance-enhancing drugs can be administered. This is pertinent as we will reportedly hear testimony from individuals who saw Bonds getting specific injections or heard it discussed. Of course, a lot of evidence was tossed as hearsay, so it will affect what we get to hear throughout the coming month.

The government wrapped up by going into the specific statements Bonds made to the grand jury. Parrella went through each statement and discussed the witnesses and testimony that would prove Bonds lied to the grand jury.

The defense is about to get started and it will be an interesting comparison in styles. AUSA Parrella was a bit choppy and sort of all over the place at times. He found his groove whenever he was making hard comments about Bonds, but otherwise it was not the greatest performance. Bonds has a big money team and I’d have to imagine they’ll be fairly solid. We’ll see what they bring to the table in a few minutes.

After the defense concludes, we’ll either start the direct testimony of Jeff Novitzky or the court will deal with Greg Anderson. Although Anderson is a key to the government’s case, he continually refuses to testify. At some point today he’ll appear before the court and continue to refuse to testify, thus likely resulting in a contempt charge.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Live Blog Plans

The Barry Bonds trial enters its second day, with jury selection completed yesterday. Opening statements are scheduled for today, with witnesses starting up in the afternoon. I'll be covering this little shindig until lunch time and then I actually have to go to work. The plan for this week is to blog from 8am to about noon (or whenever they announce the lunch break).

Although we'll have some updates in here, most of the minutiae will come through our SB Nation Bay Area twitter account (@sbnbayarea). You can either follow us through your twitter account, or if you don't have twitter, just click on that link and you can see our updates.

The plan right now is to post updates in our Bonds trial stream after each of the opening statements. Greg Anderson is scheduled to appear before lunch so we'll probably have some related updated around then as well. Whatever the case, make sure and keep an eye on our site and our twitter feed for continual updates throughout the morning.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Jury Selection Complete, Opening Statements Set For Tuesday

The Barry Bonds trial has overcome its first (or at least most recent) hurdle in fairly impressive fashion as it appears a jury has been empaneled for the long awaited perjury and obstruction of justice charge. The jury consists of eight women and four men, with two black women and the rest of the jury consisting of white men and women. The trial will deal with Bonds’ previous grand jury testimony that he did not knowingly take steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs.

The current schedule has opening statements scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) morning. According to folks at the court today, the government requested an hour for its opening statement, while the defense asked for one to two hours. It will be interesting to see what they have to say to fill that amount of time. After opening statements, former Bonds trainer Greg Anderson is scheduled to appear. Barring a crazy change, Anderson will once again inform the court that he won’t testify.

I was not in attendance today but will be coming to you live from the courtroom tomorrow via twitter and this Bonds trial stream. Two to three hours of opening statements won’t make for the liveliest of times, but I am interested in seeing how the two sides frame their cases.

Continue

Barry Bonds Trial 2011: Monday Jury Selection Already Creating Headaches

The Barry Bonds trial is officially underway and that means the circus atmosphere is only just getting started. Barry Bonds is on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to his testimony regarding steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs during the BALCO fiasco.

Today was scheduled to be jury selection and the day in which a full jury was empaneled. However, it looks like jury selection will be carrying over into tomorrow as well. Approximately 90 potential jurors were being called, with 55 scheduled to appear today with the hopes of that being enough to fill the jury. However, 38 jurors have been excused because of their answers to the jury questionnaire. That leaves seventeen jurors and slim odds that we won’t see enough challenges to prevent filling the jury box today.

Beyond the 38 dropped, according to the San Jose Mercury News, the defense has identified eight jurors it wants to bump for cause, and the prosecutors have identified ten (some could be the same on both sides).

The Mercury News will be live-blogging today and I’ll be at the trial starting tomorrow.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Barry Bonds Voicemails Inadmissible At Trial

Judge Susan Illston ruled that voicemails Barry Bonds left for former girlfriend Kimberly Bell are inadmissible in Bonds’ upcoming perjury trial. The voicemails were reportedly meant to show Bonds growing angry and hostile, with the inference being that it was due to his steroid use. One example from the voicemails was this:

“Kim, I just paged you … now I’m pissed … I don’t give a (expletive) what, you better just find me. But if I page you, your ass better drop every (expletive) thing and call me back.”

Bell is still expected to testify at the trial. According to the released government witness list, Bell is expected to testify about her relationship with Bonds. She is expected to testify to her observations of physical changes in Bonds body and temperament, symptomatic of steroid use.

Barry Bonds’ perjury trial has been years in the making but will finally kick off next Monday with jury selection. The prosecution’s case has been beset by problems from day one. They’ve had to make multiple changes to the indictment, dropping a variety of charges. They have had numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible due to hearsay issues. They’ve got a witness in Greg Anderson who is the key to their case but continually refuses to testify in spite of repeated stints in jail for contempt.

If this was anybody but Barry Bonds, you have to think the US Attorney would have tried to cut a deal long ago. Or maybe Bonds is just being stubborn. It wouldn’t be the first time. This circus kicks off in full gear with jury selection on Monday, and the trial set to start on Tuesday and last three to four weeks. It should be an interesting few weeks.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Released Government Witness List Includes Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Benito Santiago

On March 21 the Barry Bonds perjury trial will kick off with jury selection, followed by an expected three week trial. We'll have a rundown of the trial schedule soon, but in the meantime the government has released a list of their witnesses scheduled to appear in United States vs. Barry Lamar Bonds. The government has released lists in the past, but barring in-trial additions this would seem to be the final witness list. The list includes some technical witnesses, but really this trial will get its publicity from the proverbial who's who of former baseball players. It's not loaded with a ton of huge name players, but Bay Area fans will know most of the baseball players involved.

The baseball players that could testify include all the usual BALCO folks. There has been a lot of back and forth between the government and Bonds' attorneys over the inclusion of player testimony. Since Greg Anderson will likely continue to refuse to testify, the various players are being brought in to testify about their interactions with Anderson. Additionally some of the former Giants will testify to Bonds' admissions to them about use of performance enhancing drugs.

Far and away the two most amusing witnesses are Giants clubhouse manager Mike Murphy and various representatives from Nike. In their witness list submission the government indicated that Murphy will testify as to the increase in Bonds' hat size. One of the many bits of anecdotal evidence that raised suspicion about Bonds' alleged use of performance enhancing drugs was the drastic increase in his head size. The Nike representatives would be called to testify as to the increase in Bonds' foot size. This is also meant to support the contention that he was using performance enhancing drugs.

Here is the entire government witness list broken down between baseball folks and others.

Baseball Players
Marvin Benard
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Bobby Estalella
Mike Murphy (Giants clubhouse manager)
Armando Rios
Benito Santiago
Randy Velarde

Personal
Greg Anderson - personal trainer
Kimberly Bell - Bonds' former girlfriend
Kathy Hoskins - Bonds' personal shopper, assistant
Steve Hoskins - Bonds' childhood friend

Government
Wendy Bergland - Special Agent, IRS-CID
Ana Geter - Special Agent, IRS
Jeff Novitzky - Special Agent, IRS-CID
Amjad Qaqish - Special Agent, IRS-CID
Jan Walton - Grand jury reporter
Mike Wilson - Special Agent, IRS-CID

Drug Testing Experts (other medical experts as well)
Dr. Larry Bowers - US Anti-Doping Agency Senior Managing Director
Dr. Don Catlin
Dr. Jean Joseph
Dr. Barry Sample
Dr. Arthur Ting - Bonds orthopedic surgeon
UCLA Olympic Lab witnesses
Doping Control Laboratory, Montreal

Shoe Representatives
Kevin Coles - Fila representative
NIke show representative witnesses

Other
Dale Kennedy
Stan Conte - BALCO
Jim Valente - BALCO

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Federal Prosecutors Drop Six Of Eleven Charges

As the Barry Bonds perjury trial approaches on March 21, the federal prosecutors have done some house-cleaning on the official indictment as they have elected to drop six of the eleven charges. The prosecutors removed six counts of making false statements that focus primarily on Bonds’ testimony about “the cream” and “the clear.”

The charges against Bonds still focus on his lying and obstructing justice. Craig Calcaterra of Hardball Talk at MSNBC.com made some reasoned inferences as to why the prosecution dropped the charges:

I’m guessing that a big reason the government is dropping questions about the cream and the clear from the indictment is that they don’t want Bonds’ defense team to kill them about the “were the cream and the clear illegal at the time” angle, whether such an attack would be legitimate or not. For example, the defense could argue that the questions were based on a false premise which thus confused Bonds and rendered his testimony perfectly kosher.

It makes a lot of sense to remove the charges that could allow the defense to use some misdirection. A person can lie under oath about legal matters. The remaining counts include falsely denying that Anderson ever injected him with any drug, had given him human growth hormone, or had administered any oils or creams before 2003. Even if those substances were not banned at the time, the prosecution only needs to prove the falsely denying and not the legality of the issues.

The dichotomy of opinions on this subject is really quite interesting. In the two links above, Rob Neyer and Craig Calcaterra have decidedly different thoughts on where this is headed:

Rob Neyer
My lawyer friends have taught me a few things during the Steroid Era, one of which is that federal prosecutors rarely take a case to trial unless they’re exceptionally sure they can win.. Doesn’t mean they never lose. They do, sometimes.

Of course anything might happen between now and the end of the trial. But I still think Bonds is going to do some time, though probably less than a year, for lying to a federal grand jury.

Craig Calcaterra
Overall this doesn’t change the nature of the prosecution. Bonds is still accused of lying and obstructing justice and the case against him is still a monumentally weak and wasteful one.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: A Look At the Eleven-Count Bonds Indictment

We’ve got this running stream providing a variety of updates up to and through Barry Bonds Perjury Trial this coming March. Although there has been a lot going on, I’d imagine some folks are still wondering about the specifics of what Bonds has been charged with in the indictment.

The first thing to note is that he’s actually been indicted three times thus far. The initial indictment was filed Nov. 15, 2007. In that first indictment Bonds was charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. However, the judge ruled the four perjury counts were overly broad in that each count included multiple offenses in the same count.

The prosecution went back to the drawing board and came back with a second indictment filed May 13, 2008. This time Bonds was indicted on 14 counts of False Declarations Before Grand Jury and one count of Obstruction of Justice. However, there were further technical errors and that led to the third and most recent indictment.

This third indictment was filed Dec. 4, 2008. This is the current indictment under which Barry Bonds will face a jury. He is indicted on ten counts of False Declarations Before Grand Jury under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1623(a) and one count of Obstruction of Justice under Title 18 of US Code, section 1503. I’ve been trying to figure out the maximum prison time on conviction and thus far I’ve seen posts mentioning maximums of 2 1/2 years or 5 years in prison. A look below at the two parts of the U.S. Code provide years but I’m not sure how it works when combining all the counts together as far as consecutive and concurrent sentences work. Either way, in my research most people do not expect him to get the maximum if convicted.

Here are the two U.S. code sections mentioned above:

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1623(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1503
(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is—
(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and
(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

Continue

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial: Jason Giambi, Among List Of Current, Former Players Expected To Testify

The Barry Bonds perjury trial is expected to kick off in full force on March 21, but in the meantime there are a variety of motions and other legal maneuvers that will be conducted. Yesterday involved one such motion as Judge Susan Illston heard arguments pertaining to the inclusion of evidence and former player testimony.

Last year Judge Illston ruled a large chunk of evidence inadmissible due to hearsay rules. When Bonds’ former personal trainer Greg Anderson refused to testify it struck a huge blow to the prosecution’s case against Bonds. Yesterday, the prosecution managed to win a small victory. Judge Illston ruled that former players on the prosecution witness list will be required to testify. If they refuse, they would likely be held in contempt, much like Anderson when he refused to testify to the grand jury.

The list of players we might see in this trial includes Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Marvin Benard, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estallela, Randy Velarde and retired football player Larry Izzo. If these players do testify they are expected to discuss their dealings with Greg Anderson. Among other things, they would likely testify that Anderson had provided them with a variety of substances and had informed all of them that those substances were steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs known to be banned in baseball or illegal in general.

Since the prosecution can’t introduce many of the documents previously seized and Anderson is refusing to testify, they will instead look to develop a case built around more circumstantial evidence. If these players were told about the substances then Bonds must have also been told, and thus we can infer he lied to the grand jury when he said he didn’t know he was taking illegal substances.

Judge Illston’s calendar indicates next hearing is scheduled for February 11 at 11:00am. That hearing regards Bonds’ motion to bar the jury from hearing a secretly recorded conversation between Anderson and Bonds’ former business partner Steve Hoskins. This will be followed by a pre-trial on Tuesday March 1.

Continue
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join SB Nation Bay Area

You must be a member of SB Nation Bay Area to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at SB Nation Bay Area. You should read them.

Join SB Nation Bay Area

You must be a member of SB Nation Bay Area to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at SB Nation Bay Area. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.