Prosecutors had asked Illston to bar the photos and the article from being used “to inflame the jury’s prejudice against Bell, to portray her as unworthy of belief because of her physical appearance and sexuality.”

From <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-02/playboy-photos-of-bonds-s-mistress-can-t-be-shown-at-trial.html"Bloomberg.

I suspect the DN and SF Chronicle are correct & the government has only requested that the photos themselves (the physical magazine) be barred.

You may think the prosecutor’s case is flimsy but that is for the jury to decide. I think that despite the judge throwing out some of the evidence, the government’s case is strong.

And how in the world would anyone know if Bonds’ testimony would be critical to a BALCO conviction or not before they questioned him under oath? That’s what a grand jury is for. Bonds was linked to BALCO as a client of their illegal steroids distribution. So of course you question the clients. ALL of them. He was never a target of their prosecution. They never go after the users. He only became a target when he decided to lie under oath.

Can you name some of the “lots of others” who lied under oath before a grand jury and who aren’t being chased??

So the Daily News appears to be correct, and the San Jose Mercury News (and others) appear to be incorrect. It doesn’t matter whether “New York’s Picture Newspaper” leads with cartoons or puzzles if they wanted to …. what’s more important is to be accurate as they appear to be.

Prosecutors asked the judge to bar Bonds’ lawyers from showing the magazine to the jury.

I think the interview was also contained in the magazine the prosecution wants to bar. Didn’t read it myself, of course.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F02%2F15%2FBAFI1HN4N2.DTL

I’m going to bet that the Daily News and SF Chronicle — who has been in the lead on the
Bonds story from its inception — are correct.

Not at all puzzling that the DN would lead with the pictures.”New York’s Picture Newspaper”", is what they tell me.

I am rooting for the “buffoons” to win.

Actually, the DN article just mentions “photos” which the prosecution wants to bar. Nothing about the “story” itself. I can understand the governments point in this instance.

Craig, you then continue to lambast the prosecution based on their attempt to bar the “story” which the witness sold, but if it’s true they only want to bar the “photos” as the DN implies, then once again you have inaccurately portrayed a news story or part of it in order to make it fit your personal perspective and rant. I don’t know if this is just more sloppiness on your part and/or you really just need to drink your coffee before attempting these early morning posts … or you’re just reckless and don’t really care. In any event, I don’t think it reflects well that you so often misrepresent a key part of a story. Especially when it’s a legal issue.

“Saying a prosecution is a vendetta or that a defendant was singled-out is generally not admissible, … so, again, it’s amusing in a pathetic sort of way that Bonds probably won’t be allowed to go their either.”

Huh? You admit selective prosecution isn’t a legal defense but then you say it’s amusing/pathetic that Bonds can’t use it as a defense???? Why should he be able to use a defense that millions of ordinary defendants can’t use every day??? Whether it is or isn’t a selective prosecution is pretty irrelevant here.

“…but I don’t see how this isn’t the same thing as the prosecution telling the jury that Bonds is just a bad seed, so you probably should just convict him.”

Because if you can show his behavior changed roughly the same time as when he is alleged to have started his heavy juicing, then you have a good chance to convince a jury it was primarily due to roid rage.

“Finally, anyone who knows anything about athletes and steroids knows that it’s possible for someone to take steroids and not have dramatic changes to their physique.”

Right. But a dramatic change in body physique after an age where most adults have done most of their growing is highly suspicious — especially when your head grows to the size of a watermelon.