As predicted, Barry Bonds' testicles got their day in court.
This morning the slugger's longtime mistress, Kimberly Bell, touched on not just the size but also the shape of Bonds' balls -- shriveled and misshapen for those scoring at home -- but also claimed the former Giants star blamed steroids for a 1999 injury, sprouted back acne, shaved off excessive chest hair, lost his mojo in the sack, and became ever more petulant as time went by.
Bonds, his mistress claims, threatened to rip out her breast implants -- as "he paid for them."
How will the slugger's all-star team of defense attorneys counter such damning claims? The strategy will be as sophisticated as a Three Stooges plotline. Says University of San Francisco law professor Bob Talbot, the only thing to do at this point is paint Bell as a gold-digging harlot hoping to squeeze one last payday out of Bonds.
"If she's believed, [the prosecution] has gone a long way to proving their case. But the whole question is credibility," he says. "If she is believed, this puts a nail in the coffin. But that's a big if. She has some serious background problems."
It behooves the defense, therefore, to go "digging into her background and hurting her credibility. Showing she's a gold-digger, she wasn't to be trusted in things she did with her life, and everything is geared toward making money from Barry Bonds -- and that is her motive all along." While Bell was subpoenaed and had little choice of whether to testify in the trial, Talbot predicts the defense will push the notion that Bell stands to gain by making her time on the witness stand tabloid-worthy.
"The more dramatic, the more salacious her testimony, the more of a celebrity she becomes," he says.
Predicting the outcome of the trial at this point would be a bit like calling the pennant race in July. But Talbot is willing to make a pitch.
"This is a long shot. But it'll probably be easier to find him guilty about lying about being injected than lying knowingly about steroids," he says. "So there could be a compromised verdict on that. He's guilty about injecting himself and lying about it, and not guilty or a hung jury on the steroids."
Legally, that hypothetical outcome would be far better for Bonds than the worst perjury scenario he faces. But, in the court of public opinion, it'd be a big strikeout.
Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF