Many thanks to SayHey for this Q&A about U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's decision to order the U.S. Attorneys prosecuting Barry Bonds for perjury to redraw their indictment. Although I don't have any more knowledge about this case than anyone else, I think I might be able to shed some light on this development.
First, about me: I am spending my first year out of law school clerking for some judges. I help them research and draft opinions, which means I have access to case files. I'm fairly familiar with litigation.
Personally, I think that the media is making a lot out to this. My experience has been that cases take on a life of their own. Attorneys will file complaints with a general idea of what has gone wrong (or right), and then through the life of the case they will fill in the details. They don't really have all the facts at the outset, and oftentimes attorneys will amend their complaints or indictments in order to refine the issues that will be answered during trial. I think that's the case here.
Generally, federal crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. Bonds' testified before the grand jury in December, 2003. The indictment was brought in November, 2007. The U.S. Attorneys had about 13 more months to bring their indictment, but it's very likely that they felt they couldn't get any more facts about Bonds' alleged steroid use unless they could use some of the investigative powers they'd get only through filing an indictment. Things have changed in the last couple of months, without a doubt, and the judge clearly believes that the prosecution ought to be more particular about why it believes Bonds lied. That will very likely mean we'll be seeing some new details emerge about when, why, and how the prosecution believes Bonds lied.
That's about all I can offer. Does anyone know when the amended indictment is due?
