Drug evidence against Barry Bonds is inadmissible, appeals court rules...
LA Times:
Reporting from San Francisco — Drug-test records that prosecutors say link former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds to steroid use cannot be admitted as evidence against him in his trial on perjury charges, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The ruling could derail the nearly decade-long federal case against Bonds, legal analysts predicted, unless prosecutors manage to compel Bonds' former trainer, Greg Anderson, to confirm that the blood and urine samples that tested positive in a confidential 2001 drug screening came from Major League Baseball's home run king.
Anderson, who has known Bonds since grade school, spent 15 months in prison for contempt of court when he refused to testify against the Giants' star.
Get news and stories direct from our Sports desk to your inbox with our daily L.A. Sports Connection newsletter. Sign up »
Bonds' trial in San Francisco on charges of having lied to a federal grand jury about using performance-enhancing drugs has been delayed for more than a year by challenges to the drug-test evidence obtained during a 2003 raid by federal agents on the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative. That search netted drug-testing logs that reportedly showed more than 100 professional baseball players testing positive for banned substances.
The laboratory logs show that samples from "BLB" — which authorities said stood for Barry Lamar Bonds — recorded the presence of designer steroids at least three times in the year leading up to Bonds' record-breaking 2001 season in which he hit 73 home runs. Bonds played until 2007, the year he broke Hank Aaron's all-time home run record.
Prosecutors attempted to connect Bonds to the BALCO test results by calling a lab executive who said that Anderson had told him the samples he brought for testing came from Bonds. But in pretrial proceedings, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston rejected that proposed testimony as hearsay and said she needed to hear directly from Anderson to verify the identity of the samples.
When Anderson refused to testify, Illston deemed the lab records inadmissible as there was no evidence that the blood and urine tested had come from Bonds.
Bonds' defense attorney, Dennis Riordan, did not immediately return a phone call.
Anderson's attorney, Mark Geragos, said he hoped Friday's ruling would be the end of the matter for his client, but he wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. "The prosecutors in this case," he said, "are like a dog on a bone."
Bonds has pleaded not guilty to multiple counts of lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice in 2003 testimony when he denied ever knowingly using steroids. Law enforcement officials had raided BALCO earlier that year as part of an investigation into suspected illegal steroid sales.
Government prosecutors in San Francisco declined to say how they plan to respond to Friday's 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We have no comment at this time," said Jack Gillund, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Prosecutors had subpoenaed more than 40 witnesses ahead of the March 2009 start of trial, which was postponed when the government appealed Illston's evidentiary exclusions. Among those summoned was Bonds' former mistress, Kimberly Bell, who was expected to testify to changes in Bonds' physical appearance and mood linked to drug use. Other ballplayers who were BALCO clients also were called by the prosecution.
Legal analysts point out that the government could petition for rehearing by a full 11-judge panel of the appeals court.
"But the older a case gets, the more stale it gets," said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor and now a professor at UC Hastings College of Law. "The older a case gets, the worse it is for the government."
Robert Talbot of the University of San Francisco law school said the ruling was such a blow that it could force the government to drop the case against Bonds.
"When lawyers have invested a lot of time and emotional capital into a particular case, it is not easy to let go," Talbot said. "But it will be pretty hard for them to win. That was key evidence."
LA Times
LA Times:
Reporting from San Francisco — Drug-test records that prosecutors say link former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds to steroid use cannot be admitted as evidence against him in his trial on perjury charges, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The ruling could derail the nearly decade-long federal case against Bonds, legal analysts predicted, unless prosecutors manage to compel Bonds' former trainer, Greg Anderson, to confirm that the blood and urine samples that tested positive in a confidential 2001 drug screening came from Major League Baseball's home run king.
Anderson, who has known Bonds since grade school, spent 15 months in prison for contempt of court when he refused to testify against the Giants' star.
Get news and stories direct from our Sports desk to your inbox with our daily L.A. Sports Connection newsletter. Sign up »
Bonds' trial in San Francisco on charges of having lied to a federal grand jury about using performance-enhancing drugs has been delayed for more than a year by challenges to the drug-test evidence obtained during a 2003 raid by federal agents on the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative. That search netted drug-testing logs that reportedly showed more than 100 professional baseball players testing positive for banned substances.
The laboratory logs show that samples from "BLB" — which authorities said stood for Barry Lamar Bonds — recorded the presence of designer steroids at least three times in the year leading up to Bonds' record-breaking 2001 season in which he hit 73 home runs. Bonds played until 2007, the year he broke Hank Aaron's all-time home run record.
Prosecutors attempted to connect Bonds to the BALCO test results by calling a lab executive who said that Anderson had told him the samples he brought for testing came from Bonds. But in pretrial proceedings, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston rejected that proposed testimony as hearsay and said she needed to hear directly from Anderson to verify the identity of the samples.
When Anderson refused to testify, Illston deemed the lab records inadmissible as there was no evidence that the blood and urine tested had come from Bonds.
Bonds' defense attorney, Dennis Riordan, did not immediately return a phone call.
Anderson's attorney, Mark Geragos, said he hoped Friday's ruling would be the end of the matter for his client, but he wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. "The prosecutors in this case," he said, "are like a dog on a bone."
Bonds has pleaded not guilty to multiple counts of lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice in 2003 testimony when he denied ever knowingly using steroids. Law enforcement officials had raided BALCO earlier that year as part of an investigation into suspected illegal steroid sales.
Government prosecutors in San Francisco declined to say how they plan to respond to Friday's 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We have no comment at this time," said Jack Gillund, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Prosecutors had subpoenaed more than 40 witnesses ahead of the March 2009 start of trial, which was postponed when the government appealed Illston's evidentiary exclusions. Among those summoned was Bonds' former mistress, Kimberly Bell, who was expected to testify to changes in Bonds' physical appearance and mood linked to drug use. Other ballplayers who were BALCO clients also were called by the prosecution.
Legal analysts point out that the government could petition for rehearing by a full 11-judge panel of the appeals court.
"But the older a case gets, the more stale it gets," said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor and now a professor at UC Hastings College of Law. "The older a case gets, the worse it is for the government."
Robert Talbot of the University of San Francisco law school said the ruling was such a blow that it could force the government to drop the case against Bonds.
"When lawyers have invested a lot of time and emotional capital into a particular case, it is not easy to let go," Talbot said. "But it will be pretty hard for them to win. That was key evidence."
LA Times
