UPDATE: Judge in Bonds trial calls newly-discovered tape “almost entirely inadmissible or irrelevant”
Apr 4, 2011, 8:19 PM EST
UPDATE: Judge Susan Illston said in court today that the tape prosecutors claim will rebut the damaging (to the prosecution) testimony of Dr. Arthur Ting is “almost entirely inadmissible or irrelevant.” She added that the contents of the tape “were not very substantive,” and that “almost all of this is people’s comments being driven by what is said to be newspaper articles and news reports” from around the time of the BALCO raid, which makes it less evidence than commentary.
There has not yet been a ruling — everyone is waiting for a full transcript — but based on the judge’s comments it seems highly unlikely that the tape will come into evidence. What’s more, given that the revelation of the tape led to a broader argument in court today regarding the prosecution’s seeming failure to turn over various bits of evidence to the defense, the entire affair could end up being worse for the prosecution than if the tape had never turned up to begin with.
1:35 PM: Remember a couple of hours ago when I said that the testimony of Barry Bonds’ doctor, Arthur Ting, was devastating for the prosecution? Yeah, well, things could turn the other way quickly: prosecutors revealed today that they have a tape that they believe will contradict his testimony from Thursday in which he said he never talked about Bonds’ steroids use with Steven Hoskins.
We don’t yet know what’s on the tape, but the prosecution certainly wouldn’t bring it up if it was bad for them. Well, at least I think not, because I would have assumed that they wouldn’t have called Ting in the first place unless they knew what he was going to say, and given that they didn’t immediately treat him like a hostile witness and confront him with all of this last week suggests that they were just as surprised as anyone else.
The judge is going to take the tape under advisement and rule on its admissibility. Criminal procedure is not my strong suit — so help me IdahoMariner and others with more crimlaw experience than me — but generally you can’t just trot out new evidence like this so late in the game unless it’s newly discovered (and even then not always), exculpatory for the defendant (thus protecting his due process rights) or so damn important that the injustice of not allowing it would outweigh the injustice of letting it lie. It’s unclear from the reports I’ve seen if this truly is new or merely newly relevant in light of Ting’s testimony, so it’s hard to see how this cuts.
If it shows that Ting lied, however, or even if it showed that his memory about conversations regarding Bonds’ steroids use was faulty, it would seem to snap Steve Hoskins’ credibility back into shape. And could even cause the jury to infer that perhaps Ting was trying too hard to help Bonds, depending on what they think of the cut of his jib. That would be a bad thing indeed for Bonds.
The court is in recess now and will be back later this afternoon. There will be no testimony today, however, because a juror got sick.
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 64
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 32
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 13
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 119
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (119)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (93)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)