|
May 23, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.Friday, February 27, 2009Anderson to stay mumWe knew this would happen, but now we know what Illston is going to do about it:Greg Anderson, Barry Bonds' former personal trainer and the government's most coveted witness in the perjury case against baseball's home run king, still refuses to testify under oath. And, notwithstanding her comments last week about it being "unprecedented" for someone to be jailed mutiple times for refusing to testify, jailing Anderson is certainly within her power. Indeed, I'd argue that she's all but obligated to do it. After all, the stated purpose for this whole prosecution is to make the public point that a witness cannot lie to a grand jury. An equally important point, in my mind anyway, is that a potential witness cannot ignore a lawfully-served and enfocreable subpoena. True, Anderson has already served time and true, the feds have gone beyond decency in trying to compel his testimony, but those are separate tracks. When presented with a witness who will not testify like Anderson is not testifying, Illston has to use every tool at her disposal to make him change his mind lest the public get the impression that you can clam up and walk with zero consequences. This is fun too: Anderson's move immediately triggered the possibility of a delay in the trial. Federal prosecutors told the judge that they will let her know by 3 p.m. if they will appeal her recent order excluding a host of key evidence from the trial, including what they say are three positive steroid tests by Bonds; Illston based that decision largely on the fact that the evidence is hearsay without Anderson's supporting testimony. If I were the judge, I would be profoundly pissed at the prosecution for waiting until just before close of business on the last day before trial to make this decision. If they do appeal the test result evidence, and if they lose that appeal as I think they should, they should probably just end the case, because in addition to having close to zero evidence, they're going to have one profoundly angry judge. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 3:16pm Comments
Chris Simonds said...
nytimes has a profiled of Susan Ilston. this woman has been involved in some heavy duty litigation in her career. impressive. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/sports/baseball/27judge.html?_r=1&ref=baseball Posted 02/27 at 07:06 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: U.S. v. Bonds: Ppd.>> <<Previous Post: A lazy, mid-morning fisk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does Holder have the right to tell the out-of-control prosecutors to end it now? They are beyond belief.