SAN FRANCISCO, CA - MARCH 29: Former Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds leaves federal court at the end of the day on March 29, 2011 in San Francisco, California. Barry Bonds' perjury trial accusing him of lying to a grand jury about his use of performance enhancing drugs when he played for the San Francisco Giants enters its second week. The trial is expected to last two to four weeks. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
It never seemed likely that the Barry Bonds trial would be anything other than odd. (Or, if you prefer Jose Canseco's terminology, "ridiculous.") But Monday's turn of events -- in which the trial was recessed due to a juror having kidney stones, but only after it was revealed the prosecution found some new, possibility incriminating evidence at the literal 11th hour -- is just flat-out weird.
The juror in question, a 60-year-old from Antioch, called in sick on Monday and was reportedly dealing with kidney stones. Interestingly, Judge Susan Illston said she would investigate the nature of the missing juror, and it's possible that he could be replaced by one of the alternates that the court has.
Much more spicy is the tape that's found its way into the hands of the prosecution. Allegedly, it's a recording between Dr. Arthur Ting, Bonds' orthopedic surgeon, and Steve Hoskins, Bonds' business manager.
Hoskins previously testified that he and Ting had multiple conversations (like, upwards of 50) about Bonds' steroid use. Ting denied this on the stand.
And, at 11:00 PM on Sunday night, the prosecution alerted the defense that they had this tape in their possession, because Hoskins allegedly just found it.
This is mildly problematic because the existence of such a tape presumes that Hoskins was aware of its existence. Which is safe presumption, since Hoskins, you know, is the one who recorded it.
If Hoskins knew the tape existed before the trial started, it's an incredibly touchy situation -- legally speaking -- because the defense should have known about it as well. Or at least been told about the tape before the start of the third week of the trial.
On that basis, it's entirely possible that Judge Illston rules it inadmissible as evidence; this would mean that the jurors never get to hear what's on the tape.
If that happens, nothing really changes. But if it is played in front of the jury, and it does contain damning evidence, things could get a little uglier for Bonds. And Ting, as he might find himself in exact same perjury vote as the former Giants slugger.