|
May 25, 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, January 30, 2009Loose lips sink shipsThere has been a new piece (or several new pieces) of information leaked about the Bonds prosecution every day this week. We've had the raids on the Anderson in-laws, the steroid tests, and now the latest: Bobby Estalella and the Giambi brothers are going to testify.All of this has come from "a person briefed on the government’s evidence," who "did not want to jeopardize his access to sensitive information." In other words, someone in the U.S. Attorney's office is previewing the government's case to reporters so as to create the impression of overwhelming evidence in the minds of the jury pool. A big reason for this is, in my view anyway, a good amount of this evidence will be excluded from trial after Bonds' people file motions in limine (for the uninitiated, motions in limine are requests that the court exclude certain evidence from trial due to their irrelevance, inflammatory nature, or other reasons). The idea: even if the jurors don't hear about a certain bit of evidence at trial because it was excluded, they may remember reading about it before they were selected and will carry that into the courtroom with them. Yes, attorneys try to screen for this, but it's more of an art than a science. Someone -- probably many someones -- in that jury will have followed this case at least casually. The big danger for prosecutors: I have never met a judge who enjoyed having a case tried in the media before it reaches his or her courtroom. They all saw the kind of laughingstock Lance Ito became post-O.J., and they almost always smack whichever side they believe to be sharing too much with reporters. If I were Bonds' attorneys I'd be raising hell to the judge right now. It probably wouldn't stop the leaks, but it could very well lay the groundwork for some favorable rulings later. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:15am Comments
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: Send in the scholars>> <<Previous Post: Look! The first cliche of spring! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If Greg Anderson was making any serious effort to hide which doping calendar belonged to whom, don’t you think he’d be smart enough (I know, bad assumption) to use a method other than the person’s initials? BLB? Hmmm, who could that possibly be?