two of Bonds’ six attorneys.

Wow

The government's case is extremely weak. For some reason it hinges on "Sopranos" actress Edie Falco.

This complaint is basically analogous to a manager arguing with an umpire -- you don't expect to actually get a ruling in your favor based upon the complaint, but you hope to plant a seed in the umpire's mind so that you get a more favorable call later in the game.

two of Bonds’ six attorneys.

Wow

Six lawyers itself is not extreme for a defendant with this level of resources. But a press story I read -- can't find it now -- suggested that Bonds was really screwing up his defense by mismanaging his legal team. (Part of the story made the news -- the part about Bonds trying to get some prominent lawyer to lower his rates, and the lawyer refusing and declining to represent Bonds. But there was more to the story than that, with Bonds making other mistakes.)

anybody really think it was typo?

it is just part of the smear campaign.

"typos" in the headline really should be in quotation marks; I think it's a long stretch to think that was an honest mistake. It's a foregone conclusion to me, anyway, that Bonds pretty obviously has been all roided up, but the stuff the feds are doing seems to force the conclusion that they know they don't really have a case to stand up in court, and/or somebody has a personal vendetta against Barry Bonds.

Both sides are acting like sleazeballs, to my taste. Which is why I try to avoid paying attention at all.

How is saying he roided in 2001 instead of 2000 going to help prosecute Bonds?

Well, for those who actually read the excerpt (much less the entire article), the claim is that the day of front page news the "typo" generated has helped to contaminate the jury pool - people will tend to remember the falsehood, and not the later retraction.

Part of the story made the news -- the part about Bonds trying to get some prominent lawyer to lower his rates, and the lawyer refusing and declining to represent Bonds. But there was more to the story than that, with Bonds making other mistakes.

I seem to recall that Bonds also wanted an independent law firm to review this attorney's time sheets.

Not surprisingly, the attorney said "thanks, but no thanks."

anybody really think it was typo?

I doubt it. But, I don't know, not having experience in the legal field or knowing the mechanics of how such documents are prepared and reviewed. It would seem that since this is THE BARRY BONDS CASE Federal people would be doing extra double checks on documents etc.

David,

WSJ Law Blog article

And

Article on Keker/Bonds

From what I can tell Keker commands huge fees because of a great track record. And Bonds may well have made a penny wise, pound foolish decision.