Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[Digger]

What angers me is what was the woman thinking who initially didn't want to find him guilty of any charge whatsoever. I mean that is just mindboggling. Was she deaf or blind maybe?

 

[D-Queued]

The perjury charge #2 that ended in an 11-1 vote wasn't about Statement C quoted above. It was on his answer to whether "anyone other than perhaps the team doctor or your personal physician has ever injected anything into you." Bonds replied "no" to the grand jury.

11 members believed his personal shoppers testimony about seeing Anderson inject Bonds with something. But it takes 12 to make it official, so...

Let's review:

Count 1: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take steroids.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 8-4 to acquit.

Count 2: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctors ever injected him with anything.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 11-1 to convict.

Count 3: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take HGH.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 9-3 to acquit.

ount 4: Obstruction of justice
The charge: Bonds was being evasive when making any one of seven statements to the grand jury.
The verdict: Guilty on a single statement about his childhood as the son of major leaguer Bobby Bonds and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson. The ruling did not address performance-enhancing drugs


So...on all the charges that have to do with PEDs or illegal substances, the jury voted more to acquit than convict. They only were close to conviction on the "Anything" question, and convicted on Bonds' evasiveness on the specific question quoted previously as statement "C".

Let's say you are right. Let's split hairs. Let's say that there is some sort of inate difference between lying and obstructing justice.

Let's even set aside whatever sentencing precedent there might be. (Perjury convictions carry prison terms up to 5 years; obstruction of justice up to 10 yrs).

Which would be the lesser evil?

Sure, lying makes the Bible's Top Ten List. This is a fundamental principle in the moral foundation of Judaism and Christianity (you know, the whole "In God We Trust" thing printed on the greenback). Though, arguably doesn't the 'bearing false witness' Comandment actually speak more directly to obstruction of justice than just plain old lying. There are white lies, lies, and obstruction of justice.

Setting that debate aside, isn't America is bigger than what somebody engraved on some silly pieces of rock?

America promotes its democratic process and system of justice to the world. (No, I am not trying to divert this thread into a political discussion - these are simple statements of fact)

Here we have the biggest star in the American national pastime who has now been convicted of obstructing justice.

Where and how did he obstruct justice?

He didn't obstruct justice in a traffic court or with Judge Judy.

Bonds obstructed justice at arguably the highest possible level. He obstructed Justice before a Senate Hearing. In one fell swoop, he undermined both the US democratic and US justice system. Two RBIs on one at-bat.

You are ok with that?

Why are you somehow trying to minimize this fundamental offense to the US system of laws and its democratic process?

If so, aren't you are even more responsible for foreign criticism of the US justice system than is the person that obstructed the system and was found guilty of it.

The Verdict from his peers: Guilty.

That is all you need to know.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

Let's say you are right. Let's split hairs. Let's say that there is some sort of inate difference between lying and obstructing justice.

Let's even set aside whatever sentencing precedent there might be. (Perjury convictions carry prison terms up to 5 years; obstruction of justice up to 10 yrs).

Which would be the lesser evil?

Sure, lying makes the Bible's Top Ten List. This is a fundamental principle in the moral foundation of Judaism and Christianity (you know, the whole "In God We Trust" thing printed on the greenback). Though, arguably doesn't the 'bearing false witness' Comandment actually speak more directly to obstruction of justice than just plain old lying. There are white lies, lies, and obstruction of justice.

Setting that debate aside, isn't America is bigger than what somebody engraved on some silly pieces of rock?

America promotes its democratic process and system of justice to the world. (No, I am not trying to divert this thread into a political discussion - these are simple statements of fact)

Here we have the biggest star in the American national pastime who has now been convicted of obstructing justice.

Where and how did he obstruct justice?

He didn't obstruct justice in a traffic court or with Judge Judy.

Bonds obstructed justice at arguably the highest possible level. He obstructed Justice before a Senate Hearing. In one fell swoop, he undermined both the US democratic and US justice system. Two RBIs on one at-bat.

You are ok with that?

Why are you somehow trying to minimize this fundamental offense to the US system of laws and its democratic process?

If so, aren't you are even more responsible for foreign criticism of the US justice system than is the person that obstructed the system and was found guilty of it.

The Verdict from his peers: Guilty.

That is all you need to know.

Dave.

Your black and white versions sound so much like GW Bushisms.

 

[D-Queued]

Your black and white versions sound so much like GW Bushisms.

No offense, but you are misunderestimating GW.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

No offense, but you are misunderestimating GW.

Dave.

Actually, your above post was awesome. America is more thatn three presidents in South Dokota, defacing nature. Thank you for rerepresenting our nation in a colorful light, mission accomplished, you have never misrepresnted our wonderful way of life we have here. Many accomplishments, makes me feel all warm inside.

 

[Yeahright]

reading the last few posts, the scariest thing that jumped out at me was the 'USA promoting its system of democracy and justice to the world'
That sends a shudder through me even typing it!!

 

[Zweistein]

Of course it matters how they started. One may argue that pursuing perjury charges is important because it upholds the legitimacy of our justice system. But it should matter to all of us how and why a person was called into court and asked the questions that they lied about (allegedly) or were evasive about (legally). Is the original investigation and subpoenaed testimony about something that is actually important enough and high enough up on our list of priorities? Is it likely to lead to an improvement in our society? Are the methods used by the prosecution ones that we find appropriate and in keeping with the ideals of our country?

Of course those are important questions to ask ourselves. And if we are not satisfied by the answers, it's not crazy to not be too upset if the witnesses are less than truthful answering the questions we've decided they really shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

You are right. It is ok to lie in court. I had it all wrong.

 

[kurtinsc]

Um, how did he obstruct justice? By lying.

No... he evaded the question.

They asked him if he ever was injected by Anderson.

He went on to tell a story about being the child of a famous person and other silly stuff.

He never said yes or no.


The only thing people in Bonds situation learned from this is that if nobody can prove that you KNEW you were lying at the time... it's okay to lie under oath. But if you try to avoid answering the question thorugh rambling discourse... you might get convicted of obstructing justice.


I still don't understand why whoever asked the question didn't respond after Barry's rambling answer:

"That's nice Barry. Now how about actually answering the question?"

 

[kurtinsc]

I do have a question for you legal types.

Is giving a rambling answer that doesn't answer the question a textbook definition of obstructing justice?

I ask because it would seem to me that someone should restate the question if someone's answer doesn't meet requirements before obstruction of justice is thrown out there. Obviously repeatedly refusing doing the same thing would qualify... but a single instance seems odd to me.

I mean, if I were in court and someone said "Where do you live?" and I responded: "I like pie."... would I be guilty of obstructing justice... or should the person have said: "That's nice... but seriously, where do you live?" to give me a chance to actually answer properly?

Not defending Bonds here... he was a doper and was lying his behind off on the stand. I'm just confused that the charge that seemed most far fetched (obstruction of justice) got a conviction while the more obvious lying under oath charges didn't fly.

 

[Oldman]

Then the prosecution will probably re-litigate. There was obviously one sports nut on the jury very similar in character to this stephens. He would't convict if there were videos, because like this stephens, he had no respect for the US Justice system. People like this stephens believe that a fair system of justice can exist by ignoring the crimes of those they like, and only pursuing those they deem deserve to be prosecuted. Its a fu*ked up system you find in third world countries, and it generally benefits those with power and wealth. Great precedent he wants to set. Thankfully, there are people out there who actually understand why the system works the way it does, and protect it from people with a keyboard and hero to worship.

Agreed. And while those that are obliquely defending LA's chances based on whatever precedent they can draw from Bond's case think they have a ray of hope they should remember: it is about big money. USADA is spending peanuts compared to the associated income that comes to the Treasury from legal drugs. If they could reconcile their populist version of "justice" and let the two juicers go; would they also back up their opinion with their wallet?
Experience shows cyclists can be pretty cheap when it doesn't involve an equipment upgrade to their Trek TT machine.

 

[Clearly Unstable]

I figure I'll just burn a certain percentage of my yearly tax payment. If it's going to be flushed down the toilet, I'd just as soon waste it myself thankyouverymuch.

 

[MarkvW]

I do have a question for you legal types.

Is giving a rambling answer that doesn't answer the question a textbook definition of obstructing justice?

I ask because it would seem to me that someone should restate the question if someone's answer doesn't meet requirements before obstruction of justice is thrown out there. Obviously repeatedly refusing doing the same thing would qualify... but a single instance seems odd to me.

I mean, if I were in court and someone said "Where do you live?" and I responded: "I like pie."... would I be guilty of obstructing justice... or should the person have said: "That's nice... but seriously, where do you live?" to give me a chance to actually answer properly?

Not defending Bonds here... he was a doper and was lying his behind off on the stand. I'm just confused that the charge that seemed most far fetched (obstruction of justice) got a conviction while the more obvious lying under oath charges didn't fly.

If you answer non-responsively, the judge will (upon request of the attorney examining you) direct you to answer the question. If you persist with the nonresponsive question, you may (and probably will be (if you're not insane or incompetent)) be held in contempt of court.

A decent lawyer never takes a nonresponsive question (unless his tactic is to demonstrate the witness' unwillingness to tell the truth). He keeps asking the question, knowing he will be backed up by the court.

It is too hard to interpret jury behavior. I would note that there was a witness who actually saw Barry take the needle in his belly. All the jury had to do was believe that witness. The other counts all hinged on "knowingly" doping. Apparently some jurors believed that the feds had enough evidence to prove that, and others did not.

 

[fatandfast]

I figure I'll just burn a certain percentage of my yearly tax payment. If it's going to be flushed down the toilet, I'd just as soon waste it myself thankyouverymuch.

If this kind of stuff gets you really upset you should look into the millions we spend on kelp farm research or potato museums, or civil war reenactments. I read that some people in NJ/PA asked for federal funding for the annual Washington's crossing fest, because they needed cash. The 10 million we spent on Bonds,should also be looked at as indirect policing of other sports. It made the big ones pick up the pace on testing before the government got involved. FBI/FDA at the local race asking for a peepee samples

My neighbor, who comes from a family who owns carpet and house ware stores in NYC (they are worth millions) she was given a government grant to teach children how to sketch using pencils and charcoal,she doesn't work and has a space in Brooklyn and Soho, all w tax money paying the bills. I have seen lots of the drawings and we are not getting much for our money

 

[kurtinsc]

If you answer non-responsively, the judge will (upon request of the attorney examining you) direct you to answer the question. If you persist with the nonresponsive question, you may (and probably will be (if you're not insane or incompetent)) be held in contempt of court.

A decent lawyer never takes a nonresponsive question (unless his tactic is to demonstrate the witness' unwillingness to tell the truth). He keeps asking the question, knowing he will be backed up by the court.

It is too hard to interpret jury behavior. I would note that there was a witness who actually saw Barry take the needle in his belly. All the jury had to do was believe that witness. The other counts all hinged on "knowingly" doping. Apparently some jurors believed that the feds had enough evidence to prove that, and others did not.

So to the first part... is it normal to not seek to clarify when a witness doesn't answer responsively, not have the witness be held in contempt of court, but instead file obstruction of justice charges at a later date?

Or is it something specific to grand jury testimony?


The witness who saw him inject is kind of my point... that was a much easier charge to prove in my mind. He said he didn't ever get an injection of any type from Anderson... and someone claims she saw him do it.

That seems pretty straight forward. The whole "evasive answer" thing seems a lot more wishy washy... I'd wonder why he wasn't asked to clarify when he was questioned rather then convict on that. Not suprised he was found guilty... just suprised WHICH charge he was found guilty on.

 

[skippythepinhead]

I figure I'll just burn a certain percentage of my yearly tax payment. If it's going to be flushed down the toilet, I'd just as soon waste it myself thankyouverymuch.

Maybe you could use it for a pleasure cruise to Somalia and check out the Atlas Shrugged Here exhibit.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Maybe you could use it for a pleasure cruise to Somalia and check out the Atlas Shrugged Here exhibit.

Just make sure you're flying the 'stars and bars', and make a nice image of being unarmed... Pirates are only from history, right?

 

[Cal_Joe]

Conviction Upheld

Obstruction of justice conviction upheld -

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6900309/barry-bonds-obstruction-justice-conviction-upheld

 

[Race Radio]

Obstruction of justice conviction upheld -

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6900309/barry-bonds-obstruction-justice-conviction-upheld

That was fast.

Funny, I remember Berry complaining about leaks from the Fed's as well.....wonder why he never included that at trial?

Bonds was the hardest case of the three

 

[veganrob]

Bonds was indeed the hardest to prosecute. That they got the obstruction charge upheld is good anyway.

 

[MacRoadie]

Let's keep in mind, as well, that Bonds was testifying before the GJ because he wasn't the target of the investigation. Only when he decided to become evasive, coupled by Anderson's apparent willingness to sit in jail rather than testify, that the Feds lost patience.

Bonds goal, along with Anderson, was to collude to keep Bonds' name clean. The Feds wanted Victor Conte and BALCO, not Barry Bonds.

The Armstrong investigation is apparently about Armstrong (and possibly/likely others).

 

[fatandfast]

I am glad to see that the sleuths are happy with anything about this trial. Millions spent and the only charge that stuck was because of procedural screw ups by Bonds as he tried to defend himself. The total process was an example of everything that could go wrong on both sides. Bonds still the drug using numbskull he was at the start and the public's defense was like watching legal stooges waste cash and time in order to anger the paying public.Epic legal fail

 

[stephens]

Yep. And all defendants with ADD better be shaking in their boots! Wander off topic into irrelevant stuff when giving an answer and you can be later charged with obstruction, ha!

 

[fatandfast]

Yep. And all defendants with ADD better be shaking in their boots! Wander off topic into irrelevant stuff when giving an answer and you can be later charged with obstruction, ha!

Clemens and Armstrong were both trying to be proactive. It looks like the best defense is to let the the government goons runs with it for years and it will self destruct before anything every goes to trial. Armstrong appears to have learned nothing from recent politics or court conditions. He is hyper active about his case rather than looking at all the drops made by federal teams. He will end up getting whipped because he is the aggressor rather than let the public's complete disregard for this to take shape. A PR firm rather than a lawyer is his best approach. Spending the millions to nab the needle using uniballer is so low on the public priority list only his honey badger ego will keep things in the forefront. If Lance can't do the math on the Bonds/Clemens expenditures and get it in front of the public he is plain dumb. The government convicting sports stars is bad business and and even bigger waste of money.

 

[Velodude]

Clemens and Armstrong were both trying to be proactive. It looks like the best defense is to let the the government goons runs with it for years and it will self destruct before anything every goes to trial. Armstrong appears to have learned nothing from recent politics or court conditions. He is hyper active about his case rather than looking at all the drops made by federal teams. He will end up getting whipped because he is the aggressor rather than let the public's complete disregard for this to take shape. A PR firm rather than a lawyer is his best approach. Spending the millions to nab the needle using uniballer is so low on the public priority list only his honey badger ego will keep things in the forefront. If Lance can't do the math on the Bonds/Clemens expenditures and get it in front of the public he is plain dumb. The government convicting sports stars is bad business and and even bigger waste of money.

Is there a non legal precedent of a government agency discontinuing an indictment(s) against an alleged felon due to the weight of public opinion?

Non legal precedent as the person you are referring to has to date not been formally accused by the grand jury through an indictment.

The inept PR campaign he has been waging to date can only have the objective of:

1. Hoping to dissuade sufficient grand jurors to not indict him based on non factual grounds.

2. Keeping his huge sponsorship income intact for as long as possible.

3. Protecting his ego and existence of Livestrong (that was only commenced and exists as a personality cult).

 

[MarkvW]

Clemens and Armstrong were both trying to be proactive. It looks like the best defense is to let the the government goons runs with it for years and it will self destruct before anything every goes to trial. Armstrong appears to have learned nothing from recent politics or court conditions. He is hyper active about his case rather than looking at all the drops made by federal teams. He will end up getting whipped because he is the aggressor rather than let the public's complete disregard for this to take shape. A PR firm rather than a lawyer is his best approach. Spending the millions to nab the needle using uniballer is so low on the public priority list only his honey badger ego will keep things in the forefront. If Lance can't do the math on the Bonds/Clemens expenditures and get it in front of the public he is plain dumb. The government convicting sports stars is bad business and and even bigger waste of money.

No doubt about it: Time is the friend of the defendant.