Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[MarkvW]

This bogus charge against Armstrong will be dropped.

There is no charge. If there is no charge, then no charge can be dropped. Wait and see.

 

[flicker]

There is no charge. If there is no charge, then no charge can be dropped. Wait and see.

Many charges and convictions against Armstrong in the clinic. Heavily biased against Armstrong. If I write anything against an Armstrong detractor it is either attacked, poo pooed delated and or I am banned. Oh well, let us just continue fighting the good fight against the axis of evil, shall we. In the meantime I will muzzle my7 terretz.....

 

[MarkvW]

You don't know he hasn't been.

Everyone knows the statute of limitations was looming on everything USPS-related. But sealed indictments stop the statutes running, and the public wouldn't know.

Good point. We don't know if any thing has been charged. And if something has been charged, we don't know what has been charged. I still can't see the "slam dunk."

 

[Polish]

Bonds case is much more difficult to prosecute because of the charges. Perjury. Armstrong case is different. His case would seem to be a slam dunk not only because of the charges but I believe everybody is turning on him. He has no friends to protect him like Bonds does with Anderson.

The Bonds case should have been a slam dunk runaway victory for the Feds.
Instead it is coming down to the final seconds nail biter.

The Feds will most likely win whew.
Send a message grrrr.

Not too many people are actually paying attenetion to the trial however.
The Lance case will get much more attention for sure. Much much more.
Lots of backlash that was lacking in the Bond's case.
The fanboy to hater ratio is higher for Lance compared to Barry.

BTW, what is the message the Feds will send?
How about "Screw baseball - go play lacross or race your bike"
Cool!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232753156582750.html
.
.
.

 

[MarkvW]

Many charges and convictions against Armstrong in the clinic. Heavily biased against Armstrong. If I write anything against an Armstrong detractor it is either attacked, poo pooed delated and or I am banned. Oh well, let us just continue fighting the good fight against the axis of evil, shall we. In the meantime I will muzzle my7 terretz.....

I'd love to see evidence of Armstrong's doping.

 

[Race Radio]

You can extend the civil SOL for fraudulent concealment, but the criminal law does not permit that.

Tolling is not allowed in Criminal cases?

 

[Oldman]

Many charges and convictions against Armstrong in the clinic. Heavily biased against Armstrong. If I write anything against an Armstrong detractor it is either attacked, poo pooed delated and or I am banned. Oh well, let us just continue fighting the good fight against the axis of evil, shall we. In the meantime I will muzzle my7 terretz.....

Is that 7 ferrets? Now you're back in the game.

 

[MarkvW]

no tolling

Tolling is not allowed in Criminal cases?

Nope. My experience is state court, but when I was debating the "feds are out to get" Armstrong guy, I did some research on the federal statutes.

 

[Race Radio]

Nope. My experience is state court, but when I was debating the "feds are out to get" Armstrong guy, I did some research on the federal statutes.

Each state court is different.

Most of the SOL stuff relates to the Qui tam case filed by Landis. That case was filed close to a year ago so it appears it was done in time. Most of what is being discussed for the Federal case would either not have a SOL or have recent actions that extended the SOL date.

 

[MarkvW]

Sol

Landis' stuff is civil. Equitable tolling principles can be applied there. Here's a quote from a federal court of appeals (iow, great authority) that discusses an attempt by the federal prosecutors in a criminal case. It ought to conclusively end "the SOL is easy for the feds to avoid in criminal cases" argument:

From United States v. Atiyeh, a 2005 Court of Appeals case:

Government, as a fallback to its unpersuasive statutory interpretation argument, argues that because it relied in good faith on the order of the Grand Jury Supervising Judge suspending the statute of limitations, we should apply equitable tolling to save the untimely counts in the indictment. Although we have never foreclosed the possibility that equitable tolling applies to criminal statutes of limitations, see United States v. Midgley, 142 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.1998) (observing “that criminal statutes of limitations are subject to tolling, suspension, and waiver”), we may invoke the doctrine “only sparingly,” and under very narrow circumstances. Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). “Absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by the defendant, a statute of limitations should be tolled only in the ‘rare situation where equitable tolling is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interest of justice.’ ” Midgley, 142 F.3d at 179 (quoting Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 96 F.3d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir.1996)).


In Midgley we rejected the Government's contention that a good faith exception should be made to equitable tolling in the criminal context, stating:


we must not forget that criminal limitation statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.... However tempting it may be to create equitable exceptions to bright line rules ... the very existence of a statute of limitations entails the prospect that wrongdoers will benefit.... Ultimately, the clear and unambiguous rule afforded by the criminal statute of limitations is preferable to a shifting standard based on the perceived equity of the [the particular case].... While Congress and the courts may continue to weigh competing policy interests concerning the administration of justice, the unqualified limitation period of § 3282 reflects a balance that has already been struck.


Midgley, 142 F.3d at 180 (internal quotations and citations omitted).


In the present case, Atiyeh did not “induce” the Government's current situation, and principles of justice do not demand that the statute of limitations be tolled under the current circumstances. This court has never applied equitable tolling to rescue a Government indictment filed after the statute of limitations has lapsed, and we see no convincing rationale to do so here.FN15

So, I was technically wrong in my last post. On the other hand, in the matter of Armstrong, there is zero likelihood that equitable tolling will be applied because the facts cannot support it.

 

[MacRoadie]

“Absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by the defendant, a statute of limitations should be tolled only in the ‘rare situation where equitable tolling is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interest of justice.’ "

Isn't this where the RICO statutes are brought to play? Does "intentional inducement or trickery" translate into an ongoing concealment of fraud?

In other words, if it can be shown that actions taken by Armstrong and his associates to conceal whatever criminal activity may have been committed, with the intended purpose of avoiding detection and prosecution by law enforcement, would that then toll the statute?

 

[Digger]

Official - tape can't be used. Blow for government.

 

[D-Queued]

Official - tape can't be used. Blow for government.

Not entirely:

The judge, however, told defense lawyers they cannot argue to the jury that there was no tape recording of a conversation between Hoskins and Arthur Ting

Yes, there was a smoking gun.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

rare

Isn't this where the RICO statutes are brought to play? Does "intentional inducement or trickery" translate into an ongoing concealment of fraud?

In other words, if it can be shown that actions taken by Armstrong and his associates to conceal whatever criminal activity may have been committed, with the intended purpose of avoiding detection and prosecution by law enforcement, would that then toll the statute?

No. Not even close. If Lance snuck into the DOJ offices and changed all the calendars, that would probably do it. Or, if Lance brainwashed all the federal prosecutors into believing it was ten years earlier! Ordinary criminal cover-up is not going to cut it. The Court is talking about intentional acts directed at the government. Note that they state that they have NEVER saved a late-filed case with equitable tolling. They're telling you that it is ultra-rare.

RICO has been discussed before. IIRC the last predicate act must be within the SOL.

 

[MarkvW]

recall ting??

Not entirely:

The judge, however, told defense lawyers they cannot argue to the jury that there was no tape recording of a conversation between Hoskins and Arthur Ting

Yes, there was a smoking gun.

Dave.

Can the feds recall Ting?

 

[Digger]

Not entirely:

The judge, however, told defense lawyers they cannot argue to the jury that there was no tape recording of a conversation between Hoskins and Arthur Ting

Yes, there was a smoking gun.

Dave.

But if they can't say anything about its content, what's the point?

 

[MacRoadie]

If Lance snuck into the DOJ offices and changed all the calendars, that would probably do it. Or, if Lance brainwashed all the federal prosecutors into believing it was ten years earlier! Ordinary criminal cover-up is not going to cut it. The Court is talking about intentional acts directed at the government.

Ok, I'll bite.

The two examples you give suggest nothing short of a trip into the realm of the impossible will amount to "intentional inducement", yet the courts still left a very clear caveat for allowing tolling.

You then suggest that the Court "is talking about intentional acts directed at the government" (your quote, not theirs). Can you provide a cite or link to the Court's definition of "intentional acts"?

As an aside, you seem pretty resolute on your interpretation of what would appear to be a rather complex legal argument, one that I would guess would require any number of motions before the Court, yet in your next post you ask if Ting can be recalled (which would seem a rather pedestrian legal question).

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this fight. Just curious as to your legal credentials (within the confines of anonymity).

 

[MarkvW]

Not fairly debatable

Ok, I'll bite.

The two examples you give suggest nothing short of a trip into the realm of the impossible will amount to "intentional inducement", yet the courts still left a very clear caveat for allowing tolling.

You then suggest that the Court "is talking about intentional acts directed at the government" (your quote, not theirs). Can you provide a cite or link to the Court's definition of "intentional acts"?

As an aside, you seem pretty resolute on your interpretation of what would appear to be a rather complex legal argument, one that I would guess would require any number of motions before the Court, yet in your next post you ask if Ting can be recalled (which would seem a rather pedestrian legal question).

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this fight. Just curious as to your legal credentials (within the cionfines of anonymity).

Ting question was a fact question. Did feds try recall? Did judge allow? Such matters are commended to the sound discretion of the trial court.

I used absurd hypos because they were the ONLY ones I could think of right then.

If you want to argue about something that is not fairly arguable, count me out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. Not even close. If Lance snuck into the DOJ offices and changed all the calendars, that would probably do it. Or, if Lance brainwashed all the federal prosecutors into believing it was ten years earlier! Ordinary criminal cover-up is not going to cut it. The Court is talking about intentional acts directed at the government. Note that they state that they have NEVER saved a late-filed case with equitable tolling. They're telling you that it is ultra-rare.

RICO has been discussed before. IIRC the last predicate act must be within the SOL.

You're right it has been discussed before and you keep trying to spin that this is outside of SOL. Tailwind Sports - which Armstrong was a Director of - was in operation until 2007.

 

[MacRoadie]

If you want to argue about something that is not fairly arguable, count me out.

No, I simply asked you to provide an independent definition of what the Court referred to as "intentional acts". You seem at first to be quite confident in your analysis, yet equally defensive when asked a simple question as to additional precedent.

You honestly, with the benefit of all the time in the world (no one had a stop watch on you), are going to submit that the ridiculous hypotheticals you proffered were the ONLY (your emphasis) ones you could think of? Yet you're surprised (or indignant) that your argument isn't given the merit you feel it deserves?

If you want to play the "If you don't like my rules, I'm taking my toys to another sandbox" game. that's fine by me too.

 

[D-Queued]

But if they can't say anything about its content, what's the point?

There is conflicting testimony between two witnesses.

That there is a tape in existince helps corroborate one witnesses testimony. He claimed he had conversation(s) and taped at least one. Now we have the confirmation of a tape of said conversation.

The other witness has denied everything.

The existence of the tape supports the prosecution's case. Whether ruled admissable, or not, the existence of the tape is disclosable evidence.

Dave.

 

[Digger]

There is conflicting testimony between two witnesses.

That there is a tape in existince helps corroborate one witnesses testimony. He claimed he had conversation(s) and taped at least one. Now we have the confirmation of a tape of said conversation.

The other witness has denied everything.

The existence of the tape supports the prosecution's case. Whether ruled admissable, or not, the existence of the tape is disclosable evidence.

Dave.

No I;m aware of the contents of the tape. My point centres around whether the prosecution are allowed state in their closing arguments that there is conflicting versions of events. Are they allowed reference specifically what's on the tape?

 

[D-Queued]

No I;m aware of the contents of the tape. My point centres around whether the prosecution are allowed state in their closing arguments that there is conflicting versions of events. Are they allowed reference specifically what's on the tape?

The tape has been barred, but its existence has not.

I am not sure how the rules of evidence work, but defense cannot argue that there was no tape recording by Hoskins of the conversation. Thus, an educated guess would be that the prosecution can disclose that:

1. There is a tape
2. Of a conversation between Hoskins and Ting
3. Confirming Hoskins' testimony that he
3a. Had at least one such conversation
3b. Did in fact tape at least one conversation

The existence is evidence, if the contents are not.

Not sure on the extent of detail that the prosecution can reveal on the 'subject' of the conversation. But, they can likely say that it was consistent with Hoskins' testimony.

The defense is not allowed to argue that the tape does not exist. They can probably try and allude to why it was not allowed, however.

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

The tape has been barred, but its existence has not.

I am not sure how the rules of evidence work, but defense cannot argue that there was no tape recording by Hoskins of the conversation. Thus, an educated guess would be that the prosecution can disclose that:

1. There is a tape
2. Of a conversation between Hoskins and Ting
3. Confirming Hoskins' testimony that he
3a. Had at least one such conversation
3b. Did in fact tape at least one conversation

The existence is evidence, if the contents are not.

Not sure on the extent of detail that the prosecution can reveal on the 'subject' of the conversation. But, they can likely say that it was consistent with Hoskins' testimony.

The defense is not allowed to argue that the tape does not exist. They can probably try and allude to why it was not allowed, however.

Dave.

SI.com was reporting that a descision hadn't been rendered on the tape and court wasn't in session while a juror was out with health issues. The defense was arguing that the "tape" hadn't been produced for technical analysis, although they have a digital version. If, after arguing that they haven't reviewed the evidence and accept the "tape" for analysis it would then be admissible; wouldn't it?
If this is all old news let me know. I hesitate to rely on SI's news currency.

 

[MarkvW]

only something odd

Ok, I'll bite.

The two examples you give suggest nothing short of a trip into the realm of the impossible will amount to "intentional inducement", yet the courts still left a very clear caveat for allowing tolling.

You then suggest that the Court "is talking about intentional acts directed at the government" (your quote, not theirs). Can you provide a cite or link to the Court's definition of "intentional acts"?

As an aside, you seem pretty resolute on your interpretation of what would appear to be a rather complex legal argument, one that I would guess would require any number of motions before the Court, yet in your next post you ask if Ting can be recalled (which would seem a rather pedestrian legal question).

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this fight. Just curious as to your legal credentials (within the confines of anonymity).

No, I simply asked you to provide an independent definition of what the Court referred to as "intentional acts". You seem at first to be quite confident in your analysis, yet equally defensive when asked a simple question as to additional precedent.

You honestly, with the benefit of all the time in the world (no one had a stop watch on you), are going to submit that the ridiculous hypotheticals you proffered were the ONLY (your emphasis) ones you could think of? Yet you're surprised (or indignant) that your argument isn't given the merit you feel it deserves?

If you want to play the "If you don't like my rules, I'm taking my toys to another sandbox" game. that's fine by me too.

Only an extremely unusual fact pattern would ever possibly warrant equitable tolling in a criminal case. Sorry for my impatience.

Maybe if the defense lawyer, seeking a charging delay in the hope of persuading the feds not to seek indictment, intentionally provided falsely dated material to cause the SOL to lapse . . . .

There is no definition that you seek.