Apr 6, 2011, 12:31 PM EDT
The evidence portion of the Bonds trial is over.
The prosecution rested yesterday, and this morning prosecutors dropped one of the charges: the one about whether Greg Anderson induced him “to take anything before the 2003 season.” Prosecutors had been of the view that the charge could mean that Bonds took any kind of steroid before 2003. The Judge made it clear, however, that the charge properly referred to whether Bonds used the cream and the clear prior to 2003, and there was no evidence in the record about that at all. The judge would have dismissed the count on the defense’s motion, but the prosecutors preempted that.
With that it was the defense’s turn. And they called … no one. Which is actually pretty common in criminal trials, and not terribly surprising here. The prosecution did a good job of rebutting large portions of their own case. The one big problem for Bonds — Kathy Hoskins’ testimony that she saw Anderson inject Bonds with something — is pretty much unrebuttable. At least unless Bonds wanted to take the stand himself and say that she didn’t see what she thought she saw. Which would constitute the biggest bit of malpractice in living memory.
The defense has rested. The jury has been sent home for the day. Closing arguments will begin tomorrow. As it stands, my best guess is that Bonds is convicted on the “did Anderson ever inject you with anything” charge and acquitted on the “did you knowingly take steroids” questions and everything else. If the jury was sufficiently angered or confused by the prosecution’s disorganization, they could just acquit him on everything — I’ve seen it happen — but that would seem to be contrary to the evidence on the injection charge.
But hey, therein lies the beauty and terror of the jury system: you never know what they’re thinking until after they’re done doing that voodoo they do.
- Royals even up World Series with 7-2 Game 2 victory 21
- Craig Kimbrel wins Trevor Hoffman Award; Greg Holland gets Mariano Rivera Award 5
- World Series, Game 2: Giants vs. Royals lineups 9
- HBT Daily: Are the Royals doomed, doomed, doomed? 11
- Giants inhaling the air of superiority after Game 1 7
- What’s in a name? “Big Game” James did not come up big for Kansas City 22
- World Series Reset: The Royals look to pick themselves up off the mat 8
- Royals’ World Series hopes in Yordano Ventura’s hands 7
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (129)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (121)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (95)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)