The 2-year old perjury case of home-run king Barry Bonds will definitely extend for a few more months as the judges handling the appeal were not yet convinced on the prosecutor’s arguments. Prosecutors asked the appeals court to overturn the previous ruling of San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston that the evidences being presented by the prosecution were inadmissible to court. They insist that the district judge made a wrong decision by barring evidences critical to the case of Bonds.

During the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Valliere called Judge Illston’s rulings “plainly wrong.” She said that the log sheets that could prove Bonds link to BALCO, Valente’s testimony that Anderson verified the urine samples and Bonds’ own grand jury testimony about Anderson were sufficient to allow the evidence.

Attorney Balliere also argued that Bonds own statements could be used against him. “Bonds told the grand jury that he authorized Anderson to deliver the samples for testing,” a designation that “made Anderson his agent,” she said.

However, 2 judges of the 9th Circuit court expressed some concern on Bonds right to a fair trial if the evidences will be permitted without the testimony of Anderson, Bonds trainer. Judge Mary Schroeder asked the prosecution about the validity and accuracy of the evidences. “What evidence is there that the samples weren’t altered in some way? How do we know they weren’t altered?” she said. This was also the point of Bonds’ lawyer during the hearing. “There is probably no area in which lies and forgeries and misstatements occur more frequently than in the area of drug testing,” Dennis Riordan said.

Anderson’s refusal to testify against Barry Bonds is one of the pains of the prosecution. He even spent a year in jail for contempt. Anderson is the personal trainer of Bonds and his long time friend. Allegedly, Anderson brought urine samples to BALCO for steroid testing. The samples which were labeled as Barry B and Barry were among the evidences the prosecutor wants to present in the court.

Legal experts say that without those evidences, the prosecution will be facing a very difficult stand in winning the case against the baseball slugger. However, if they lose, the prosecution could still present other evidences which were the drug tests on 2000 and 2001 showing positive result for steroids, the testimony of Bonds’ former girlfriend and other witnesses where he allegedly admitted his drug use.

Judge Carlos Bea has doubts whether the government still needs the 2000 and 2001 steroid tests since the prosecutors also say they have evidence from a 2003 steroid test administered by Major League Baseball. The prosecution believes that those tests were vital in the trial because the case revolves around Bonds’ lying about steroid use from 2000 to 2003.

Barry Bonds faces 10 counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice for lying to the BALCO grand jury in December 2003 about using steroids. He pleaded not guilty on these charges.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS