Comments on: UPDATE: Judge in Bonds trial calls newly-discovered tape “almost entirely inadmissible or irrelevant”

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:20:27 +0000

No where did I say otherwise. Perhaps it wasn’t as clear as it could be but there is a big difference between a conversation that alludes to steroid use and one that directly involves a discussion of a particular individual and their joint knowledge thereof. Plus no judge is going to throw out an entire testimony of a prosecution’s witness if rebutted by the prosecution. You seem to forget whose witness Ting is.

By: Dan in Katonah

Dan in Katonah — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:53:19 +0000

If you play the film back, you will see that Roger McDowell was the second spitter on the grassy knoll.

By: larryhockett

larryhockett — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:28:06 +0000

You’re so right. If only we lived in a society where we convict people for something that we think they did without having to go to the trouble of actually proving it. All that “legal mumbo jumbo” always gets in the way of a good lynching!

By: sdelmonte

sdelmonte — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:14:13 +0000

Seems like every other news story about this is ignoring the judge’s comments. Weird.

By: Gardenhire's Cat

Gardenhire's Cat — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:45:28 +0000

By: ernestbynershands

ernestbynershands — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:34:27 +0000

Defense Closing Statement:
Showing Bonds’ bare back
‘if you don’t see a zit, you must acquit!’

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:54:29 +0000

But the recording reportedly is between Ting and Hoskins. Not Ting talking about Hoskins.

If the recording clearly contradicts Ting’s testimony then the jury can throw out Ting’s entire testimony concluding he is an unreliable witness. That would be a major win for the prosecution.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:57:34 +0000

Something tells me it is going to go something like this. Ting is recorded saying he has spoken to Hoskins. Somewhere in the conversation steroids are discussed or alluded to. So technically Ting’s testimony is impugned, but no where will Ting be recorded addressing his knowledge of a discussion with Hoskins of Bond’s steroid use. So the prosecution gets a small victory, on technicality, and the Defense counters with their establishment of Ting’s intention in his original statement. Small battle win for the P’s, still major win for the D’s. In first year law school do you not learn, never ask a question of your witness you do not already know the answer to?

By: BC

BC — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:37:06 +0000

“Paul is dead…. Paul is dead….” <—- sorry couldn't resist the Beatles reference
So if this is contradictory, what does it matter? It just makes everything tskhdtsdzdxgzs. A tie in this thing goes to Bonds. WHY HAVE THEY NOT DROPPED THE CASE?

By: florida727

florida727 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:06:41 +0000

Everybody already assumed he lied and is guilty of taking steroids, which in and of itself should make sure he never gets into the Hall of Fame. What it should do too is get any/all home run records wiped out. If you listen closely though, Bonds never denied taking steroids. He denied KNOWINGLY taking steroids. Kind of like O.J. No one ever asked him if he WITNESSED the murders. They always focused on trying to prove he COMMITTED them. I happen to have a “friend” that confirmed that “certain people” have a way of making things like murder look just any way they want it to. So it is possible O.J. never committed the actual act. But who’s to say it wasn’t done “for his benefit”? It’s considered common knowledge that he has/had ties to organized crime.

Same with Bonds. He’s only stating he didn’t know what he was being given. Maybe, not likely, but maybe, he’s not lying. It would only make him the most idiotic athlete in history, entrusting someone to give you something without knowing what, exactly, they were giving you. It just so happens your hat size and muscle mass goes ridiculously up and your testicle size goes the other direction. But hey, other than that, this stuff makes me stronger and I can hit more home runs. What a moron.

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:04:52 +0000

What is it that I know he did and what he lied about?

By: metalhead65

metalhead65 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:53:20 +0000

the bottom line is even if they find him not guilty everybody knows he did it and that he lied about. be happy and proud of a system that lets crooks off all the time over legal mumbo jumbo all you want it won’t change what he did.

By: shawndc04

shawndc04 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:53:08 +0000

The judge generally has a lot of discretion. However, with the prosecution yelling “Newly discovered evidence”, she will most likely let them do it and recall both Hoskins and Ting. It still seems like bungling by the prosecution, and that tape had better be pretty compelling, or they’ll just dig themselves in deeper.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:52:51 +0000

easports, the tape discredits the witness (Ting) who discredited another witness (S. Hoskins). In essence, the tape brings credibility back to Hoskins as tapes don’t lie, unless it can be proved it was doctored.

A jury is usually smart enough to sift through motivations and decide whether it is enough to discredit someone’s testimony. They can also accept part of a witnesses’ testimony while ignoring other parts. That doesn’t mean they always get things right, and no one knows what this particular jury is thinking now. So, regardless of what anyone here or in the media thinks, it can go either way.

By: easports82

easports82 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:25:50 +0000

I’d absolutely be pissed if I was being called a liar. But, as a layman watching the commentary on the trial, it seems that how the jury perceives everything is just as important as the facts. Considering the jury has (not to pick on Craig, but I’m using his analysis of the analysis) seen evidence that this witness is biased against the defendant, basically had that witness completely discredited, and then that same witness magically produces a tape of a conversation with the witness who lampooned him, how does that bode well for the prosecution? Even if Hoskins is exonerated by producing the tape, isn’t the prosecution in just as deep a whole, if not deeper, than last week?

Not trying to be argumentative or snarky. I write code for a living, so my questions rise out of curiosity and have absolutely no legal basis (in case there was any confusion)

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:22:59 +0000

Can they recall Ting, I would suspect they would have to.

By: thejokewriter

thejokewriter — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:14:20 +0000

Point of parliamentary procedure.

-Don’t screw around. They’re serious.
-Take it easy, l’m in prelaw.

-Thought you’re premed?
-What’s the difference

By: cur68

cur68 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:13:56 +0000

No matter what, this looks bad for the prosecution. I say this with experience as an expert witness in a trial where sworn witness testimony was refuted by other testimony on the same side of the case. Impeaching your own witness might leave the jury confused, paints your side like they are incompetent, and/or creates doubt about your judgment. IMO juries blame the confusion on the side who created it and a good defense team can really make a meal of that. This wont be over soon enough for me, which is a pity, since I find the whole thing ludicrous and am amazed that a finically strapped government would go ahead with this.

By: heynerdlinger

heynerdlinger — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:10:16 +0000

Or imply.

By: shawndc04

shawndc04 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:57:12 +0000

This one is a bit tricky. Usually if the witness surprises with his/her testimony, the attorney can confront with a prior inconsistent statement to challenge credibility. However, if the statement is unsworn it is not usually admitted for its truth. If the statement is sworn, e.g. grand jury testimony,, depending on the jurisdiction, it may be admitted for its truth as well. The problem here, among others, is that the witness was not confronted with the statement while on the stand. Now, the statement must somehow be authenticated, presumably through Hoskins, which will open him up to further cross, and the doctor would presumably have to be recalled and given the opportunity to elaborate. All in all a messy situation; I’m still not sure what the prosecution was doing calling this man if they did not know what he was going to say, and did not have the tape at the time.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:37:23 +0000

But what is being rebutted here? It’s their own witness. That’s why I’m somewhat confused. It’s not like the defense called Ting. The prosecution is trying to augment their own offer of evidence with new evidence that wasn’t previously disclosed.

By: sc101071

sc101071 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:34:45 +0000

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to dispute the credibility of a witness.

By: kappy32

kappy32 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:31:12 +0000

Craig:

I’m not very familiar with the FRE, however, under may forms of CPL, any audio, video, etc., INTENDED to be introduced at trial, must be given to the Defense upon demand via motion. It appears that the Prosecution called this witness, knowing he was going to lie, therefore they intended to use the tape. If they didn’t provide it to the defense, there is a good chance the judge will rule it inadmissible.

By: stevem7

stevem7 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:28:46 +0000

This tape will come under the heading of REBUTTAL testimony. If you testify that you don’t own a gun for example then a copy of the receipt on your credit card for the purchase of a gun can be brought in. REBUTTAL testimony and/or witnesses are never pre-planned as it would infer that the attorney knew the witness was going to lie. However, once the person veers off line then rebuttal testimony is an open door.

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:28:00 +0000

but wouldn’t that be discoverable in the first place? If they knew or should have known what it said, they should have used it when Ting was testifying

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:16:01 +0000

easport82, wouldn’t you take exception if your sworn testimony were contradicted?

A tape recording is pretty solid evidence, unless it can shown it was doctored.

By: easports82

easports82 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:10:36 +0000

So, the gentleman who has an ax to grind against the defendant didn’t like that someone else contradicted him and is finding new evidence. Sounds like a win-win for the prosecution here.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:08:52 +0000

Yes, I would assume he had been. Don’t know why he didn’t turn this recording over before or how his failure to do so may impact its admissibility.

By: cggarb

cggarb — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:05:02 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. Presumably, Hoskins had been issued a subpoena or two in the course of this litigation.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:02:38 +0000

No, according to Fainaru-Wada, the government just learned of the recording last night. Apparently, Hoskins wasn’t happy about being contradicted by Ting on Thursday, so he dug through his old recordings and found something which supposedly supports his version of events, then turned it over to the government just yesterday.

No matter what the new recording shows, or whether or not Ilston allows it into evidence, I’m not sure that Ting’s testimony last week is necessarily critical to the government’s case. The jury can accept or ignore just part or a witnesses’ testimony, and I think the government has shown enough to get a conviction on at least some of the charges even if they ignore most of Steve Hoskins testimony.