114 replies to this topic

[Spacemans Bong]

Do I think it's worth spending 6 million of our tax dollars just so we can say "naughty naughty" to Bonds? Nope. Do I understand why the goverment goes after someone who tries to publicly make a mockery of a Federal prosecution? Yes.

If Barry thought he was just going to be able to take a deal from the Feds and then make them look stupid on the stand with all the media attention this got, he's insane. Barry wasted our money with his vain need to protect his already tattered image.

And the US government wasted our money with their vain need to protect their already tattered image.

It's hard to look at Rough's listing of financial criminals who got off scot-free to think this prosecution is in any way necessary or just.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

And the US government wasted our money with their vain need to protect their already tattered image.

It's hard to look at Rough's listing of financial criminals who got off scot-free to think this prosecution is in any way necessary or just.

The whole proceedings are terribly flawed.

Anderson struck a plea-bargain deal with federal prosecutors which did not require him to reveal any athletes' names; the feds went back on that promise and when Anderson refused to cooperate the feds and name names they threw him in jail for contempt.

Bonds' original grand jury testimony was leaked to the media in violation of court order by one of Conte's attorneys. The attorney who leaked the info later did a few months in prison for the breach.

[Ananti]

Well, Bond's is spending a lot of money too fighting the charges, right? If the penalty is so meaningless why not just plead guilty?

Clearly it's not meaningless to Bonds.

For the government it's about the integrity of the legal system. If people can lie under oath with impunity then the entire legal system might as well be dismantled.

[nvalvo]

And the US government wasted our money with their vain need to protect their already tattered image.

It's hard to look at Rough's listing of financial criminals who got off scot-free to think this prosecution is in any way necessary or just.

At the same time, as you all realize, the financial cases are much more difficult and resource-intensive to prosecute. There's not a ton of top-flight forensic financial attorneys, and most of the best of them work for the defense, where the money's much better. I would expect financial indictments to dribble out over the coming years.

[Average Reds]

Do I think it's worth spending 6 million of our tax dollars just so we can say "naughty naughty" to Bonds? Nope. Do I understand why the goverment goes after someone who tries to publicly make a mockery of a Federal prosecution? Yes.

If Barry thought he was just going to be able to take a deal from the Feds and then make them look stupid on the stand with all the media attention this got, he's insane. Barry wasted our money with his vain need to protect his already tattered image.

I agree with your perspective about perjury and have no sympathy for Bonds. But the overall picture here is not as black and white as you are implying.

Bonds testified under subpoena in front of the Grand Jury. The immunity he received for that testimony was granted to compel testimony from him, not as part of any negotiated agreement. To characterize it as "taking a deal from the Feds" is pretty misleading.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Well, Bond's is spending a lot of money too fighting the charges, right? If the penalty is so meaningless why not just plead guilty?

Clearly it's not meaningless to Bonds.

For the government it's about the integrity of the legal system. If people can lie under oath with impunity then the entire legal system might as well be dismantled.

Here's a crazy thought: because he doesn't think he's guilty? I know, I know, cue laugh track.

I don't want to minimize the severity of lying to federal prosecutors: that is certainly a serious charge. But IMO it's important to remember this whole thing started as part of a money-laundering investigation of BALCO, and that Jeff Novitzky was an IRS agent, not some sort of anti-PED guru. Someone leaked the list of players' names to the feds and the public despite the fact that those samples were supposed to be destroyed. There's quite a bit of evidence that the focus on Bonds was due to Novitzky's intense, personal dislike of the guy, and it's at least questionable if the public's best interests are being served by spending a stupendous amount of money on this case.

Bonds testified that he indeed took The Clear and The Cream, but didn't know they were steroids when he took them. That's what the prosecutors are alleging is the lie at the heart of the perjury charges. That's a very, very difficult thing for the feds to prove, particularly as Anderson has told them to go fuck themselves. And Anderson is refusing to testify because the government has reneged on his plea agreement with them.

FWIW, in Giambi's testimony the other day, they read to him his testimony back in '03 that Anderson told him that The Clear and The Cream would provide steroid-like effects without actually being a steroid, and he affirmed those previous statements.

[Ananti]

Here's a crazy thought: because he doesn't think he's guilty? I know, I know, cue laugh track.

Well then, maybe the prosecutors are going after him because, a crazy thought: they think he is.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Well then, maybe the prosecutors are going after him because, a crazy thought: they think he is.

And the question is that is it worth pursuing him for possible perjury when the costs are astronomically high for the case and the likely result in case of conviction is 6 months of home detention?

Just saw this today:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Prosecutors called Barry Bonds' orthopedic surgeon to the witness stand Thursday at the slugger's perjury trial.

They may wish they hadn't.

Dr. Arthur Ting contradicted the testimony of a key prosecution witness, former Bonds business partner Steve Hoskins.

Ting denied speaking about Bonds and performance-enhancing drugs with Hoskins, and also denied telling Hoskins that Bonds' serious elbow injury in 1999 was caused by steroid use.

Hoskins earlier testified that he had as many as 50 conversations with Ting about his concerns that Bonds' health was in jeopardy because of steroid use.

Ting also testified that he gave Bonds legal steroids to ease swelling after surgery. Ting said those type of steroids have similar side effects as performance-enhancing steroids -- acne, weight gain, mood swings and loss of libido.

Ting testified that he has operated on Bonds eight times, the last time in 2009.

[Rough Carrigan]

Hmm. I thought a lawyer was never supposed to ask a question to which he didn't know the answer that was going to be given. Looks like the prosecutors did.

Point . . Barry!

[Average Reds]

Just saw this today:

I just saw the story on ESPN as well. Apparently, even the prosecutor admitted to the judge that the testimony has pretty much destroyed Steve Hoskins as a credible witness against Bonds. Besides the importance of this on its face, it also reinforces the contention of the defense that the primary motivation of the people testifying against Bonds is payback.

A big "oops" for the prosecution.

[Ananti]

And the question is that is it worth pursuing him for possible perjury when the costs are astronomically high for the case and the likely result in case of conviction is 6 months of home detention?

And the answer is that once you get into a situation where you calculate your willingness to prosecute based on how hard the defense will fight it (and raise the cost of prosecution), then you might as well never go after anyone wealthy because you can always divert those resources toward easier convictions by going after someone poor who might be less guilty but more vulnerable because he can't afford the costs of defense. and I don't think it's in anyone's interest (except those who are wealthy) to see our justice system weight such factors.

So you prosecute because you believe the person is guilty and you can prove it, and let the costs fall where they may.

[Alternate34]

I just saw the story on ESPN as well. Apparently, even the prosecutor admitted to the judge that the testimony has pretty much destroyed Steve Hoskins as a credible witness against Bonds. Besides the importance of this on its face, it also reinforces the contention of the defense that the primary motivation of the people testifying against Bonds is payback.

A big "oops" for the prosecution.

It certainly looks bad for the prosecution, but it seems likely the defense would have called Ting anyway. If the prosecution had reason to believe that, their move is strategically the best way to approach a situation that ultimately fucks them. Best to call the witness to prevent the dramatic gotcha when the defense calls them rather than wait on it.

Of course, they might have also not called Hoskins at all as bringing in a witness just to have his credibility destroyed doesn't help them. If Hoskins is integral to their case, then they should have built a better case.

[Average Reds]

It certainly looks bad for the prosecution, but it seems likely the defense would have called Ting anyway. If the prosecution had reason to believe that, their move is strategically the best way to approach a situation that ultimately fucks them. Best to call the witness to prevent the dramatic gotcha when the defense calls them rather than wait on it.

Of course, they might have also not called Hoskins at all as bringing in a witness just to have his credibility destroyed doesn't help them. If Hoskins is integral to their case, then they should have built a better case.

Apparently, there may be more to the picture that we've been lead to believe....

SAN FRANCISCO — Barry Bonds's perjury trial had been on schedule to wrap up by the end of this week, when the jury was expected to start deliberating. Until the government sent an e-mail to the defense at 11 p.m. Sunday, that is.

That e-mail, sent on the eve of the trial's third week, disclosed to the defense that a government witness — Steve Hoskins, Bonds's childhood friend and former business manager — had unexpectedly found a piece of evidence that could be pivotal in the case. The e-mail said Hoskins had located a tape recording he had repeatedly said was long lost: a recording between him and Dr. Arthur Ting, Bonds's orthopedic surgeon.

Ruh Roe...

Of course, there is also new information from the defense. (Well, actually the prosecution. But this info has caused the defense to complain about the prosecution's lack of disclosure.)

The defense said it also wanted to discuss with the judge a meeting that Ting had with the government in 2006, before he testified to the grand jury. The government said that meeting was not substantive, but in a court filing Thursday, Ting's lawyer said that meeting lasted two and a half hours.

http://www.nytimes.c...ds.html?_r=1

Edited by Average Reds, 04 April 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

"Judge Susan Illston said in court today that the tape prosecutors claim will rebut the damaging (to the prosecution) testimony of Dr. Arthur Ting is ”almost entirely inadmissible or irrelevant.” She added that the contents of the tape “were not very substantive,” and that “almost all of this is people’s comments being driven by what is said to be newspaper articles and news reports” from around the time of the BALCO raid, which makes it less evidence than commentary."

The tape has been excluded from the trial evidence.

[smastroyin]

I don't see how anyone can look at Steve Hoskins producing this tape at the eleventh hour as anything other than D-list theatrics, and to me it really throws into focus the fact that the government in this case has either been duped, or are willingly abetting Hoskins in co-opting the governments resources to get some revenge on Barry Bonds. I realize there is also a chance that he really did just find it, but I'm guessing even in that case he didn't start looking until Wednesday.

[dcmissle]

Predicting the outcome of these things is very tricky; Jeffrey Toobin made an ass of himself when the Simpson jury came back much sooner than people expected, and Toobin solemnly intoned on Court TV, "OJ met the law and the law won."

That said, it looks like the prosecution is facing a third-and-13 on its 22 yard line, trailing by 15 points, with 1:58 left. The prosecutors wouldn't waste 2 minutes on this excluded, apparently inaudible tape if they thought they were in good shape.

I don't think this is Bonds specific. The gov't often goes nuts when people lie under oath, and in such cases, the more celebrity he has, the worse it is for the defendant. It's certainly understandable, but still, someone at a high level should have exercised better judgment.

Edited by dcmissle, 05 April 2011 - 03:19 PM.

[Average Reds]

I don't see how anyone can look at Steve Hoskins producing this tape at the eleventh hour as anything other than D-list theatrics, and to me it really throws into focus the fact that the government in this case has either been duped, or are willingly abetting Hoskins in co-opting the governments resources to get some revenge on Barry Bonds. I realize there is also a chance that he really did just find it, but I'm guessing even in that case he didn't start looking until Wednesday.

Can't make this stuff up, can you?

Prosecution here really looks like a bunch of buffoons.

[WayBackVazquez]

I can't imagine the Bonds team feels it needs to present much evidence in its case. I have to believe they already have a Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal already teed up, and from the reports I've read of the Government's case and the Judge's rulings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was granted.

[gaelgirl]

I've been following the trial on twitter, following Mark Fainaru-Wada of ESPN (and co-author of "Game of Shadows") and George Dohrmann of SI. Both of them (and the rest of the stuff I've read tonight) seem to think that she won't go that far.

However, it appears that she's going to drop at least one of the charges (that Anderson didn't give Bonds anything pre-2003), and strike the part of the recording between Hoskins and Anderson about the clear/cream being undetectable and the testimony about testicular shrinkage. The testes stuff probably doesn't matter -- Bell had many different versions about how much they were affected, so it's hard to say when/if she was exaggerating. It's pretty subjective anyway. For the prosecution, there was plenty of other testimony (from more than one witness) about physical changes. For the defense, it's a wash.

I can't believe the jury is taking anything from the Hoskins testimony seriously at this point, anyway. And the defense is going to recall him to further humiliate him, addressing his recording with the lawyer, Enos, that the defense is framing as a Bonds extortion effort.

I doubt it matters if the government loses one of their counts, either. I don't think they're winning on anything except one: that nobody injected Bonds except for Ting. That was the one piece of evidence that was provided by an engaging and reliable Bonds-associated witness. If Bonds is convicted of anything, it will be that count. However, I think the government still has to prove that Bonds lying about it impeded their case? Is that the standard for perjury?

I think Bonds' defense will focus on Novitzky and the defense's belief that convicting Bonds was beyond a professional interest, but a personal vendetta. And they need to somehow get away from the injection charge. Kathy Hoskins apparently came off as engaging, likable and believable. She also seems like she still likes Barry and the rest of the Bonds family, and that she didn't want to be there testifying against him. That's the only trouble for the defense, I think.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Of course Novitzky is pursuing this as part of a personal vendetta: he was a friggin' IRS agent who initially got involved with the BALCO case because it involved money laundering charges. He was not any type of doping expert or anti-drug guy when he got involved in the case. He's taken it upon himself to try to get Bonds in any way possible because he hates Bonds with a passion.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

One charge dropped. And the defense rests, your honor:

SAN FRANCISCO -- One of the five charges in Barry Bonds' perjury trial has been dropped, and the defense has rested without calling a single witness.

Bonds' attorney, Allen Ruby, announced the move Wednesday morning. Declining to call a witness underscored the defense's belief prosecutors have failed to prove that the all-time major league home runs leader lied to a federal grand jury by saying he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

It also means Bonds will not take the witness stand...

[Judge} Illston began the session by tossing out one of the charges pending against Bonds. Prosecutors asked for the dismissal after Illston made it clear she was planning to throw it out anyway.

The dismissed charge accused Bonds of lying to the grand jury when he denied taking the designer steroids dubbed "the clear" and "the cream" prior to the 2003 season. Bonds admitted taking those steroids in 2003, but said his personal trainer misled him into believing they were legal supplements.

None of the prosecution's witnesses tied Bonds to use of the designer steroids before 2003.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Michael McCann at SI gives an overview of the case:

3. What are the prosecution's chances for landing a conviction?

The odds are stacked against the prosecution. Despite the years they have had to prepare for this trial, prosecutors struggled to make the case that jurors should believe -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- that Bonds knowingly lied under oath.

Most damming, purportedly compelling government witnesses -- Kimberly Bell, Steve Hoskins and Ting -- contradicted one another and collectively gave the impression of a case built on unreliable memory, uncertain credibility and indirect evidence.

Should Bonds be found not guilty, the prosecution's decision to call Ting to the stand will be second-guessed for a long time. If prosecutors knew that Ting would blatantly contradict other witnesses, including in regards to conversations with Steve Hoskins and whether purported changes to Bonds' body were caused by steroids, why did they put him on the stand? If they didn't know of his testimony, why didn't they know? If Ting knowingly lied on the stand, then he should be charged with perjury. We'll see if that happens...

The government can still secure a conviction. Kathy Hoskins was a believable witness. The defense, moreover, declined to offer any witnesses or evidence to rebut her incriminating statements. If the jury reasons that Kathy Hoskins was telling the truth about Anderson injecting Bonds, it could decide to convict Bonds on Count Two.

But jurors may be wary of convicting Bonds based on the lone testimony of one, albeit credible, witness. They may also conclude that given the totality of limitations in the government's case, no conviction is warranted. In light of its decision to not call one witness, the defense seems to be banking on the jury viewing the case against Bonds on the whole rather than on the specific pros and cons of each count.

[BucketOBalls]

And the question is that is it worth pursuing him for possible perjury when the costs are astronomically high for the case and the likely result in case of conviction is 6 months of home detention?

To bad they can't just fine him 200% of court costs or something.

[smastroyin]

One thing I don't quite understand is that most of the coverage of this case is just going with the "did he lie or didn't he?" angle.

So is the material affect on the case relevant or not? I'm starting to think not, even if the law says it strictly is, because otherwise why would the defense not at least make that case? Or did they make the case in arguments instead of by calling witnesses? Or is this their back pocket for an appeal? Can they even keep it in their back pocket? I guess I can see the reason to not want to rely on the jury to come to a conclusion that Bonds could have lied and still not be indicted, but it seems risky to not even bring it up. (Again, I have not heard all of their arguments and this may have come about in cross-examination somewhere?)

[WayBackVazquez]

One thing I don't quite understand is that most of the coverage of this case is just going with the "did he lie or didn't he?" angle.

So is the material affect on the case relevant or not? I'm starting to think not, even if the law says it strictly is, because otherwise why would the defense not at least make that case? Or did they make the case in arguments instead of by calling witnesses? Or is this their back pocket for an appeal? Can they even keep it in their back pocket? I guess I can see the reason to not want to rely on the jury to come to a conclusion that Bonds could have lied and still not be indicted, but it seems risky to not even bring it up. (Again, I have not heard all of their arguments and this may have come about in cross-examination somewhere?)

First, the materiality element is not whether Bonds's alleged lies "had a material effect on the case." It's whether the lies were concerning matters material to the grand jury's investigation. There's a difference there. The first could be disposed of simply by noting they got the indictments, convictions etc. The actual element just means the answers COULD impact the way the investigation would proceed.

Second, yes, it's still there. It will be in the jury instructions; it will be discussed in closing arguments; it's the reason Bonds's testimony was read into the record; it's one of the reasons Giambi was called (so in closing, the prosecutor can say, "see, these same questions that were asked led to the convictions of...") etc. The defense didn't present evidence on the materiality element for the same reason they didn't present evidence on anything else: because they don't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Bonds's team believes they didn't meet that burden. In closing arguments, Ruby will blow up the jury instructions on a big screen, he'll highlight the word material, he'll talk about how the prosecution never proved that the questions mattered for anything other than to attempt to embarrass Bonds.... These things don't get explicitly discussed during witness examinations, but they are a part of the case.

[smastroyin]

First, the materiality element is not whether Bonds's alleged lies "had a material effect on the case." It's whether the lies were concerning matters material to the grand jury's investigation. There's a difference there. The first could be disposed of simply by noting they got the indictments, convictions etc. The actual element just means the answers COULD impact the way the investigation would proceed.

Second, yes, it's still there. It will be in the jury instructions; it will be discussed in closing arguments; it's the reason Bonds's testimony was read into the record; it's one of the reasons Giambi was called (so in closing, the prosecutor can say, "see, these same questions that were asked led to the convictions of...") etc. The defense didn't present evidence on the materiality element for the same reason they didn't present evidence on anything else: because they don't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Bonds's team believes they didn't meet that burden. In closing arguments, Ruby will blow up the jury instructions on a big screen, he'll highlight the word material, he'll talk about how the prosecution never proved that the questions mattered for anything other than to attempt to embarrass Bonds.... These things don't get explicitly discussed during witness examinations, but they are a part of the case.

Thanks for that.

I guess I still wonder why most of the coverage focuses solely on the question of whether he lied.

[dcmissle]

Thanks for that.

I guess I still wonder why most of the coverage focuses solely on the question of whether he lied.

What are you reading? Unless it's NYT -- or comparable -- and not written by a sportswriter, there is very little chance of getting even the broad outlines of the story right.

An example this morning. Adam Schefter wondered aloud whether, if Judge Nelson grants the injunction the NFLPA is seeking and declines to stay her ruling, she can "prevent" the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals from granting a stay.

[WayBackVazquez]

Thanks for that.

I guess I still wonder why most of the coverage focuses solely on the question of whether he lied.

Probably a combination of a) it's not sexy; and b) most of the reporters are not lawyers, and they don't understand it; and c) you're not paying as close attention as you might think. The government called 20+ witnesses, and you didn't hear about most of them. The very first witness, Novitzky, for example, was primarily called to prove materiality. LINK

The judge, in ruling on one of the pre-trial motions in limine had this to say:

Defense motion Number 4, about Mr. Novitzky. It's granted in part and denied in part. Agent Novitzky may not opine on his opinion of the truthfulness of the defendant's grand jury testimony. He's specifically precluded from saying that. Nor may he allude to or suggest the existence of the materials that are being excluded from evidence in this case.

But if he wants to testify about the existence of inconsistencies between the defendant's testimony and other evidence which caused him to do further work, why, that's fair game. And he may testify as to how that impacted the grand jury and the investigation. It is relevant to the question of materiality, and the government must be allowed to prove that element.

If you'd like to see what that ruling was in response to, you can read Bonds's reply brief here:

www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/568/237.pdf

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 07 April 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[smastroyin]

Thanks for this. It is very enlightening.

[gaelgirl]

First, the materiality element is not whether Bonds's alleged lies "had a material effect on the case." It's whether the lies were concerning matters material to the grand jury's investigation. There's a difference there. The first could be disposed of simply by noting they got the indictments, convictions etc. The actual element just means the answers COULD impact the way the investigation would proceed.

Second, yes, it's still there. It will be in the jury instructions; it will be discussed in closing arguments; it's the reason Bonds's testimony was read into the record; it's one of the reasons Giambi was called (so in closing, the prosecutor can say, "see, these same questions that were asked led to the convictions of...") etc. The defense didn't present evidence on the materiality element for the same reason they didn't present evidence on anything else: because they don't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Bonds's team believes they didn't meet that burden. In closing arguments, Ruby will blow up the jury instructions on a big screen, he'll highlight the word material, he'll talk about how the prosecution never proved that the questions mattered for anything other than to attempt to embarrass Bonds.... These things don't get explicitly discussed during witness examinations, but they are a part of the case.

And we have a winner. I followed along on Twitter again today, and Ruby (Bonds' lawyer, or one of them anyway) pretty much did exactly what you predicted. He and the other lawyer talked about how Bonds was asked questions ranging from his athletic achievements to BALCO, and to be convicted not only does the government have to prove that Bonds knowingly lied, but that he also lied about things that would be material to the investigation AND that he KNEW his lies would negatively impact the investigation. Or something like that. You'd have to read the twitter transcripts.

It sounded/read like both parties did well in presenting their case. The government was dry and boring, but ended with a flourish. The defense was folksy and funny, got a little muddled in the middle, but again finished strongly. It's really hard to say how 12 people who supposedly don't know anything or much about the case or Barry Bonds will feel about the whole thing. I guess we'll find out soon. I think early next week. Hung jury. Someone will likely not be willing to change their vote.

[mandro ramtinez]

On Twitter, it is being reported that a verdict has been reached and will be read in about 15 minutes.

markfwespn Mark Fainaru-Wada by MrMichael_Smith
Jury will be in in 15 minutes

Or not, sorry about that:

markfwespn Mark Fainaru-Wada by rosssiler
Now Court PR person changes her original message, now saying there is NO verdict

Edited by mandro ramtinez, 13 April 2011 - 03:46 PM.

[ifmanis5]

CNN reporting verdict has been reached, we'll know the outcome soon...

[mt8thsw9th]

What was the point of this witch hunt?

[Alternate34]

What was the point of this witch hunt?

To find a witch?

[mandro ramtinez]

georgedohrmann George Dohrmann
So, if I am interpreting this correct, we will have what could be called a partial verdict. That is what Parrella just called it as well.


Looks like the jury may have come to agreement on some but not all of the counts against Bonds.

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

What was the point of this witch hunt?

To maintain the integrity of the justice system? He lied to a grand jury ("allegedly"). You can't do that.

[dcmissle]

It was at about this moment many years ago now that Jeffrey Toobin predicted,

"OJ met the law ... and law won."

It will be interesting to see what this jury brings.

[mt8thsw9th]

To maintain the integrity of the justice system? He lied to a grand jury ("allegedly"). You can't do that.

That's nice. What was the point of putting him in front of a grand jury? As I said, what was the point of this witch hunt?

[ifmanis5]

That's nice. What was the point of putting him in front of a grand jury? As I said, what was the point of this witch hunt?

This isn't Vietnam, there are rules.

[bankshot1]

That's nice. What was the point of putting him in front of a grand jury? As I said, what was the point of this witch hunt?

Clinton lied to a Grand Jury about a blow-job, and got impeached.
I think the point is the legal system and our society has certain rules that should be followed, otherwise we run the risk of anarchy.

Or something like that.

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

That's nice. What was the point of putting him in front of a grand jury? As I said, what was the point of this witch hunt?

It was part of a criminal probe into a company that was dealing illegal drugs. Is this so hard to understand?

[ifmanis5]

CNN: Bonds guilty on 1 charge, mistrial on 3 other charges.

[zeraza]

Guilty on obstruction of justice

Will be interesting to see what the other charge counts were

[ifmanis5]

Buster Olney: Bonds still gets my vote for the Hall, but not Manny!

(j/k. sorta.)

[Bdanahy14]

Guilty on obstruction of justice

Will be interesting to see what the other charge counts were

Makes no sense... how can they nail him for obstruction when the jury is hung on whether or not he was lying on any of the other 3 counts? The obstruction was the overall whammy. He would have to be guilty of lying on one of the others... and if he lied of one, I think they would have to say he lied about all 3.

Sounds fishy... If I was the defense I'd be going ballistic.

[bluefenderstrat]

Makes no sense... how can they nail him for obstruction when the jury is hung on whether or not he was lying on any of the other 3 counts? The obstruction was the overall whammy. He would have to be guilty of lying on one of the others... and if he lied of one, I think they would have to say he lied about all 3.

Sounds fishy... If I was the defense I'd be going ballistic.

I believe the obstruction charge was related to Bonds' testimony that no one other than his doctor ever performed an injection on him. The jury was hung on the question of whether Bonds lied when he testified he never "knowingly" took steroids or HGH. This is a reasonable outcome, really.

Edited by bluefenderstrat, 13 April 2011 - 05:13 PM.

[mabrowndog]

I believe the obstruction charge was related to Bonds' testimony that no one other than his doctor ever performed an injection on him. The jury was hung on the question of whether Bonds lied when he testified he never "knowingly" took steroids or HGH. This is a reasonable outcome, really.

The obstruction charge stems from giving evasive, irrelevant answers (a rant on being the son of a celebrity) when asked a question about needle use.

I don't see any chance this conviction holds up on appeal, and there's no chance in hell the feds retry the case on the other counts.

Bottom line: Barry walks. Not the outcome I'd hoped for, but the feds totally screwed the pooch in this case and in the Balco investigation as a whole.

[Adirondack jack]

It was part of a criminal probe into a company that was dealing illegal drugs. Is this so hard to understand?

Not to speak for mt8thsw9th, but I am in full agreement with him. This entire case is absurd, calling this racket a witch-hunt sums it up nearly perfectly.

I haven't paid attention to one minute of this trial (just came in to see the reactions), but the moral outrage surrounding steroids is just outright stupid. How much have all these investigations cost the taxpayers? If people want to chase after Bonds for obstructing justice, then fine, you all should go around with a cup and see how many people want to chip in, I sure as fuck don't want to pay for this "justice". An investigation for some of the big fish in the 2008 financial meltdown, perhaps, but not this soap opera.

[smastroyin]

It was part of a criminal probe into a company that was dealing illegal drugs. Is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the question of whether parading Barry Bonds in front of the press was an act of sensationalism or whether it was actually necessary to have his testimony to move forward with the BALCO indictment. The whole thing has been a shitshow from the start and of course it has been about going after those nasty high paid ballplayers. As I have said from the earliest parts of this, I am much more worried about the illegal events surrounding the case (leaked testimony, illegal search and seizure, etc.). And I think it is worse that Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada served no jail time despite PUBLISHING what they knew was leaked grand jury testimony (and of course, doing so for profit, even if they haven't made any money). Nevermind their proselytizing about how important it was to expose these illegal drug users and MLB cover-up but then hiding behind the sanctity of their profession when they obstructed justice themselves by not revealing who leaked them the sealed testimony. Yeah yeah yeah Deep Throat whatever. Deep Throat wasn't in it because he didn't like Richard Nixon or because he got an erection at the thought of being a whistle-blower. And he wasn't revealing legally sealed testimony.


Put it this way, I'm much more concerned with the idea that I should be able to give grand jury testimony without it being published than I am with the idea that prosecutors have a harder time seeking an indictment because someone lied.

[Wills Eeks]

To maintain the integrity of the justice system? He lied to a grand jury ("allegedly"). You can't do that.

I don't like selective enforcement. Another thing you can't do is leak sealed grand jury testimony but apparently no one cares? That is what is so hard to understand. Other things you can't do are defraud taxpayers, insider trading, and get free money given to your wife and her shopping budy from the Fed's unelected Government officials, but apparentently no one cares about that either. That is what is so hard to understand. How many articles does Matthew Taibbi have to write? How can someone, a reasonable man or woman, care about something as de minimis as Barry Bonds; lying's impact on the integrity of the justice system, when the lack of integrity of the system is flaunted and laughed at by the richest, most corrupt sons of bitches with nary a protest because the only people who could do anything about it aspire to those very same corrupt sons of bitches one day.