Bonds' judge tackles last of BALCO case
Sunday, March 20, 2011; 12:14 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds' lawyers and federal prosecutors bickered at length during a recent hearing about the admissibility of a Playboy interview and photo spread of Kimberly Bell, the slugger's former mistress.
When the issue came up, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston looked out at a packed courtroom and sighed. She's earned a reputation as dignified and unflappable over 16 years on the bench, but at times the buildup to Bonds' perjury trial has tested even her patience.
Illston comes to the Bonds cases, which starts with jury selection on Monday, having handled an enormous variety of legal issues.
She's sentenced child pornographers to prison. She's overruled the Bush administration by barring off-road vehicles in the Mojave Desert. She's presided over a novel human rights trial in which Nigerian villagers were demanding billions from Chevron Corp. after accusing it of backing the deadly military putdown of a protest against the oil giant. And she's in charge of a complex class-action lawsuit alleging price fixing among companies that manufacture television screens and computer monitors.
Illston has kept a matter-of-fact demeanor through it all. But when prosecutors announced in 2009, as the Bonds trial neared, that they were appealing an important ruling of hers barring critical evidence, the judge didn't hide her anger. She lectured the government lawyers about how disruptive and expensive their appeal was to a court that was fully geared up to accommodate a media circus.
Yet in the first hearing after the prosecutors lost that appeal, Illston neither gloated nor mentioned her vindication. It was business as usual again for a case that has dragged on since Bonds' indictment in 2007 - and really since 2003, when the first of the sports Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) doping cases were assigned to her courtroom.
Since the new year began, the Bonds case has generated a blizzard of legal motions in the run up to Monday's trial. The slugger is accused of making false statements to a grand jury and obstructing justice by saying that he never knowingly took performance-enhancing drugs, and Illston has been asked to rule on legal issues small and large, the Playboy dispute among them.
"I don't really care to see the photograph," Illston deadpanned at the time. But she ruled that jurors could read the Playboy article.
It was, legal observers said, the latest example of Illston's ability to cut to the nub of legal disagreements with straightforward and sensible rulings. Prosecutors wanted both items introduced and Bonds lawyers wanted neither.
Illston split the dispute down the middle.
Jurors could use the Playboy interview to help determine the credibility of the former mistress, who will testify that Bonds often flew into steroid-induced rages during their relationship. The photographs, the judge decided, were prurient.
In recent weeks, she's decided: Bell can testify that Bonds' testicles shrank during their relationship (a sign of steroid use) and longtime clubhouse attendant Mike Murphy can discuss Bonds' hat size growing (another sign) and other arcane issues rarely heard in a federal court.