Prosecutors To Appeal Evidence Ruling; Bonds Trial Faces Delay
Professor Robert Weisberg is quoted in The New York Times in a story about a delay in the the Barry Bonds perjury trial as a result of a last-minute appeal by the prosecution over disallowed evidence. The New York Times writes:
The postponement came hours after Bonds’s former trainer told Illston that he would not testify at the trial. Illston ruled last week that she would throw out several key pieces of evidence — including some that prosecutors said would tie Bonds to positive drug tests and doping calendars — if they could not be authenticated by the trainer, Greg Anderson.
In papers filed Friday afternoon, Bonds’s lawyers asked Illston not to delay the trial, and requested that she dismiss the case against Bonds if the government refused to go forward without the evidence she excluded. Delaying the trial, they argued, will waste judicial resources and, they said, “frustrate Mr. Bonds’s interest in now putting this matter, alleging offenses occurring more than five years ago, behind him once and for all.
Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, said that the late notice to appeal might have angered Illston because it delayed the trial.
“The government is clearly not winning the respect or affection of Judge Illston in this case,” Weisberg said.