Barry Bonds Article

[sturg1dj]

this is written by a pretty liberal guy, so you conservatives may not like it; heck moderates and liberals may not like it, but it is an interesting read


Indicted! Barry Bonds Busted by a Broken System

By Dave Zirin

Barry Lamar Bonds faces thirty years in prison because the Department of
Justice is a corroded husk of political decay. The baseball Home Run King
has now been officially indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice
charges and it only took three years and millions of tax dollars to make it
happen.

The DOJ's entire case hinges on the ridiculous question of whether Bonds
"knowingly" was on the juice, or lied on the witness stand when he said he
took such substances "unknowingly." The actual indictment parses in
language that would shame a Clinton. It reads, "During the criminal
investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the
presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances
for Bonds and other athletes."

This is idiocy raised to the level of law. It makes me wonder what they're
teaching at Jesus-land Legal Academy these days. Did Bonds actually test
positive for steroids or were pharmaceuticals only found in these
mysterious un-indicted "other athletes"? And what is a "performance
enhancer"? That's not even a legal or medical term; it's sports radio
shorthand. The cortisone shot into Curt Schilling ankle in the 2005
playoffs was a performance enhancer. The Viagra coursing through Bob Dole's
veins is a performance enhancer. Whatever keeps that smile glued to Laura
Bush's face is a performance enhancer. It's a colloquial phrase tells us
nothing. It only raises the question whether the indictment was written by
Mike or the Mad Dog.

Most of the media has focused on the prison release of Bonds' trainer and
childhood friend Greg Anderson. Anderson has spent the last four months in
jail for refusing to testify against his friend. The press is atwitter with
speculation that Anderson may have finally turned. But his attorney Mark
Geragos says that this is absolutely and unequivocally notthe case.

It's far more likely that Anderson was released because now that the
indictment has been served there is no legal basis for holding him. The
media, however, has their eye on the wrong ball. The timing that's
important here is not Greg Anderson's release but the ascension your brand
spanking new Attorney General, Mike Mukasey, and his desire for a cheap
hit.

Mukasey believes that the pillars of these United States are Mom, apple
pie, and protracted torture. As the New York Times wrote on November 1st,
"Mukasey, a well-respected trial judge in New York...has stunned us during
the confirmation process by saying he believes the president has the power
to negate laws and by not committing himself to enforcing Congressional
subpoenas. He also has suggested that he will not uphold standards of
decency during wartime recognized by the civilized world for generations."

The fact is that Bonds is under attack from a collection of torture-loving,
Habeas Corpus shredding, illegal wire tapping, political operatives. The
idea that a Barry Bonds indictment becomes the first act of Mike Mukasey's
Justice Department only exposes Sens. Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer,
and the other Democratic pols who backed his confirmation. They called him
"a man of character" as well as "a strong leader, committed to
depoliticizing the agency's operations." There is no evidence of character
and leadership in this indictment; only the tawdry political desire for
headlines.

Mukasey and friends may have worked themselves into a lather over the
thought of their "Capone" behind bars. But they shouldn't be picking out
his orange jumpsuit just yet. The indictment comes on the heels of the
resignation of San Francisco US Attorney Kevin Ryan. Ryan was by all counts
a Bush loyalist but he had earned the ire of the DOJ for, among other
things, not indicting Bonds. He apparently didn't relish the thought of
prosecuting the local hero in a San Francisco courtroom. Prosecutors will
have that same hurdle of convicting Bonds on his home turf with apparantly
no fresh evidence.

Because it appears that the DOJ has nothing new to say, the plan will be to
scorch the jury pool by raising the temperature on the story. Already in
the wake of the indictment, the White House felt the need to weigh in
saying, among other insipid platitudes, "learly this is a sad day for
baseball." You would never know that there are wars and occupations going
on that might require some attention. This is like FDR delivering a
fireside chat on the death of Fatty Arbuckle. It's also yet another sign
that the justice system has more holes than the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Tomorrow (Friday) I will be demonstrating in front of Mukasey's Department
of Justice along with thousands of my closest friends. We will march
because they refuse to indict people for hanging nooses, or see the rape
and torture of Megan Williams as a hate crime, or do anything to change the
perception that justice means "just-us." But my vocal chords might be a
little more raw than usual at days end. The idea that they have no time for
Megan Williams, but invest years in the prosecution of Barry Bonds should
make any good person of conscience utterly enraged.

Think about it: Barry Bonds joining Marion Jones in prison. Feel any safer
yet?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I just skimmed the thing. I don't think Mukasey has anything to do with this, and with that "Jesus-Land" comment, he's looking to slime the Bush administration, which is a bit uncalled for. All this shows is the incompetence and bureaucracy of the federal government in general, regardless of who is in charge.

I do have something else to say about the last line, though. "Feel any safer yet?" , even if it's sarcastic, almost implies that non-violent criminals shouldn't go to prison. I do believe that the feds have bigger fish to fry than Bonds and Jones.

[Elvis]

I do have something else to say about the last line, though. "Feel any safer yet?" , even if it's sarcastic, almost implies that non-violent criminals shouldn't go to prison.

It's like the idiots who get the speeding tickets and complain that cops are "writing tickets instead of catching drug dealers."

Meh, just another idiot writer. :yawn:

[sturg1dj]

i would agree that most non-violent criminals should not be in prison, and since most of the people in prison are non-violent I would think that not putting them in prison would save us some cash.

[SamtheBravesFan]

i would agree that most non-violent criminals should not be in prison, and since most of the people in prison are non-violent I would think that not putting them in prison would save us some cash.

Criminals still need to be punished, even if they're non-violent. I guess there may need to be some kind of reform with that.

[west coast orange and black]

stbf: I don't think Mukasey has anything to do with this...

if you will recall, u.s. attorney general ashcroft personally announced the indictments of the original 4 balco defendants, so i would not be surprised at all if mukasey had a hand in the indictment of bonds.

from jump, much of the steroids story has been politcally charged and motivated.

[SamtheBravesFan]

All right, then. I still don't see what the ultimate point is then. It is my belief that Bonds would have been prosecuted regardless of what administration is in power (Bush, Gore, Kerry, President X, take your pick). Why paint this as the Bush administration having an axe to grind if it's a given that Bonds would be prosecuted for breaking the law? Just because they're in power?

[sturg1dj]

Criminals still need to be punished, even if they're non-violent. I guess there may need to be some kind of reform with that.

I don't think anyone is saying that criminals need to be punished. I just think the punishment needs to fit the crime.

Prison isn't a good thing, and many people have no problem with how bad prison is since they imagine that most people in prison are killers or rapists. So the horror stories that go on in there fall on many deaf ears.

The problem is that most people in prison are not violent criminals and yet they are treated in the same inhumane way.

I know many think that this creates a deterrence, however we are a society that believes that the punishment should fit the crime, and the punishment should not be cruel. So you tell me some poor kid gets a year for possession (or even six months) goes to jail and is brutalized while there. Even though he was not violent violent acts are now being done to him. Is that right?


Barry Bonds could get 30 years for lying about taking steroids? Maybe a fine, or heavy community service. BUT 30 YEARS???? For lying about receiving performance enhancing drugs? 30 years for obstructing the investigation into a PED ring? Seems pretty crazy to me.

[MyDogSparty]

All right, then. I still don't see what the ultimate point is then. It is my belief that Bonds would have been prosecuted regardless of what administration is in power (Bush, Gore, Kerry, President X, take your pick). Why paint this as the Bush administration having an axe to grind if it's a given that Bonds would be prosecuted for breaking the law? Just because they're in power?

Obviously the author has an ax to grind with the administration. The author is guilty of the same thing he's accusing Mukasey of, try to make a name for himself.

[Elvis]

Barry Bonds could get 30 years for lying about taking steroids? Maybe a fine, or heavy community service. BUT 30 YEARS???? For lying about receiving performance enhancing drugs? 30 years for obstructing the investigation into a PED ring? Seems pretty crazy to me.

Community service for committing 4 counts of perjury before a federal grand jury seems pretty crazy to me. Lying isn't a crime, but perjury and obstruction of federal investigators, last I checked, were felonies.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Obviously the author has an ax to grind with the administration. The author is guilty of the same thing he's accusing Mukasey of, try to make a name for himself.

Absolutely.

[sturg1dj]

Community service for committing 4 counts of perjury before a federal grand jury seems pretty crazy to me. Lying isn't a crime, but perjury and obstruction of federal investigators, last I checked, were felonies.

seriously, perjury should get you 30 years?

so Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby should be in jail? I guess naming those 2 would get a yes from most people...haha


but my point it that shouldn't get you the same thing as killing someone

[west coast orange and black]

stbf: It is my belief that Bonds would have been prosecuted regardless of what administration is in power .... Why paint this as the Bush administration having an axe to grind if it's a given that Bonds would be prosecuted for breaking the law?

except, it was not ever a given, stbf.

if it is true, as anderson's attorney claims, that anderson did not talk, then it seems that the feds have no new evidence. the feds steadfastly argued that anderson's testimony was the lynchpin in the investigation - that without his testimony against bonds, they would be unable to indict.
that now appears to be a sham.
that makes anderson being held, and the indictment itself, politically motivated.

there are several reasons why the wounded attorney general's office would seek a high profile indictment immediately after a new ag took charge without the motivation being "an axe to grind".

[Elvis]

seriously, perjury should get you 30 years?

so Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby should be in jail? I guess naming those 2 would get a yes from most people...haha


but my point it that shouldn't get you the same thing as killing someone

But he wouldn't GET 30 years--that's the max allowed by law. All crimes have min and max recommended sentences. If convicted on all counts he'll probably only get 1-2 years. A convicted murderer would not get a 1-year sentence.

[sturg1dj]

But he wouldn't GET 30 years--that's the max allowed by law. All crimes have min and max recommended sentences. If convicted on all counts he'll probably only get 1-2 years. A convicted murderer would not get a 1-year sentence.

my point is, and hopefully you agree with me


the mere chance of 30 years in jail for that crime is crazy


and I will say a 2nd degree murder would get the same...is that fair?

[Elvis]

my point is, and hopefully you agree with me


the mere chance of 30 years in jail for that crime is crazy


and I will say a 2nd degree murder would get the same...is that fair?

It's not a fair analogy because your not discussing the reason that it's a 30-year maximum, and why Bonds would never get that kind of sentence. The reason that there's such a wide margin between a crime's minimum and maximum sentence is to take into account the level, for lack of a better word, of the perjury. As it seems to stand, Bonds crime is only "worth" about one year because of the circumstances. If, however, the perjury was related to matters of national security, or something else much more "serious" than an illegal steroid trafficking and distributuon investigation, the sentence would probably jump to 20-30 years. See?

[Mattingly]

I would suggest in the future that *ALL* articles posted onto BBF contain a link. If we are to reliably refer to an article, it certainly helps that the link is there, insuring that someone hasn't "added" anything to the article in any way.

I've found two links to this:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/indicted-barry-bonds-busted-by-a-broken-system/

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14310

[Mattingly]

It's not a fair analogy because your not discussing the reason that it's a 30-year maximum, and why Bonds would never get that kind of sentence. The reason that there's such a wide margin between a crime's minimum and maximum sentence is to take into account the level, for lack of a better word, of the perjury. As it seems to stand, Bonds crime is only "worth" about one year because of the circumstances. If, however, the perjury was related to matters of national security, or something else much more "serious" than an illegal steroid trafficking and distributuon investigation, the sentence would probably jump to 20-30 years. See?
For some strange reason, I don't see Barry Bonds perjuring himself in court being one of national security. Was the safety of the United States of America put into jeopardy because of alleged lies under oath about PED and/or other steroids usage?

I'm not fully versed upon how the range of years served can be affected, but I would hardly think he'd get a sentence similar to an armed robber, airline hijacker, murderer/robber, etc.

[sandlot]

stbf: I don't think Mukasey has anything to do with this...

if you will recall, u.s. attorney general ashcroft personally announced the indictments of the original 4 balco defendants, so i would not be surprised at all if mukasey had a hand in the indictment of bonds.

from jump, much of the steroids story has been politcally charged and motivated.Perhaps it is worth recalling that Mr Ashcroft has since left office under terms that, were they written as an Army discharge, might be described as less than honorable. Be that as it may, it's worth it for anyone who might be joining this discussion for the first time to go back into the BBF archives, and read the lengthy and informed exchanges on what constitutes an indictment and why. It would be time well spent. In sum, I'll just say that a prosecutor can charge anything he damned well pleases in an indictment and he or she never has to prove a word of it. In some (many?) cases, proof is an irrelevancy because proving the charge is not really a consideration. There are many reasons to lay an indictment, and pursuit of justice need not be one of them. That's fact, not ideology, and it's not said with the intent of defending any particular person. It is simply that the Grand Jury system has been abused to such a degree and for so long that its potentially beneficial purposes may no longer be sufficient justification for retaining it.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
despite you being in greenwich mean time +8, and i in gmt -8, again we meet exactly in the same place.

thank you for reminding us, sandlot.

[SamtheBravesFan]

"It's not the amount of evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge" seems to be the mantra in law these days. I'll leave this thread with that. I don't care if it sounds stupid.

[sturg1dj]

even if Bonds get 1-2 years in jail isn't that crazy too? We are talking about losing freedom because he lied about putting something into his body.

this is not banning him from a sport or a hall of fame, this is taking away his freedom. That just seems insane to me.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: I would suggest in the future that *ALL* articles posted onto BBF contain a link. If we are to reliably refer to an article, it certainly helps that the link is there, insuring that someone hasn't "added" anything to the article in any way.

addition can be had by subtraction, as well.

perhaps, if you have not already, you can make this request in the mod forum for discussion.

[LouGehrig]

It's like the idiots who get the speeding tickets and complain that cops are "writing tickets instead of catching drug dealers."

Why are the cops writing tickets and not catching criminals like CEO's who steal money?

[sturg1dj]

It's like the idiots who get the speeding tickets and complain that cops are "writing tickets instead of catching drug dealers."

Meh, just another idiot writer. :yawn:


thats not the same thing. Those are civil infractions that result in a fine; unless you have a crazy amount of them.

we're talking about first offense going to prison

I would even feel better if he got probation and when he was also convicted of tax evasion then went to jail for violating probation.

[dl4060]

even if Bonds get 1-2 years in jail isn't that crazy too? We are talking about losing freedom because he lied about putting something into his body.

this is not banning him from a sport or a hall of fame, this is taking away his freedom. That just seems insane to me.

I agree to some extent, however I understand the belief that Grand Juries need to hear honest testimony.

Personally I see the government as having let us down in a huge way. Grand Jury testimony is supposed to remain sealed. I know it was not an official who leaked the testimony to those writers, but it should be the responsibility of the government to make certain that this does not happen. Period. End of story. They are responsible for the behavior of those under them. And the jury member who leaked this info should be punished harshly.

If they want us to tell the truth, they need to guarantee secrecy, and deliver.

One thing that has been lost here is that the whole purpose of the grand jury was to go after those making synthetic drugs, not clean up baseball. I think dragging Mcgwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro in front of congress was more ridiculous than using Giambi, Bonds et al. to go after Balco.

[Elvis]

even if Bonds get 1-2 years in jail isn't that crazy too? We are talking about losing freedom because he lied about putting something into his body.


What he lied about has little to do with it because he's not being charged with the crime of lying. For the umpteenth time--this isn't about lying. Lying isn't illegal. Why do you have such a hard time saying perjury and obstruction in a federal investigation? And please explain why you think these crimes are not a big deal and should be allowed without any major penalty.

[sturg1dj]

What he lied about has little to do with it because he's not being charged with the crime of lying. For the umpteenth time--this isn't about lying. Lying isn't illegal. Why do you have such a hard time saying perjury and obstruction in a federal investigation? And please explain why you think these crimes are not a big deal and should be allowed without any major penalty.

-Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.-

-Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.


so what act did he do that put him in the situation that he is in??

HE LIED (or so they are trying to prove)

why is this not a big deal? Its not a big enough deal to put a man in jail, take away his freedom for a year or multiple years. It is a big enough deal for 6 months, maybe probation or a fine.

maybe if he was protecting a murderer, but he was really protecting himself which in turn protected a lab that makes steroids.

The way you make it sound you want to throw him in jail and throw away the key, and that is crazy.

[Elvis]

so what act did he do that put him in the situation that he is in??


Why does that matter? :noidea Since when does the motivation for a crime become the crime itself?

The way you make it sound you want to throw him in jail and throw away the key, and that is crazy.

What's crazy is me saying he probably deserves a 1-2 year sentence if convicted on all counts, and you coming to the conclusion that I want him thrown in jail forever.

[sturg1dj]

Why does that matter? :noidea Since when does the motivation for a crime become the crime itself? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MOTIVATION, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME ITSELF. LYING IS THE ACT THAT CAUSED HIM TO BE CHARGED WITH WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH. SAYING A CERTAIN THING APPARENTLY WAS WORTH A CHARGE OF PERJURY AND A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

[sturg1dj]

sorry, that was a little over the top...haha

hopefully you now understand my point here

[Elvis]

[SIZE="5"]
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MOTIVATION, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME ITSELF. LYING IS THE ACT THAT CAUSED HIM TO BE CHARGED WITH WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH. SAYING A CERTAIN THING APPARENTLY WAS WORTH A CHARGE OF PERJURY AND A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.[/SIZE

Sorry, but you said, "What caused him to lie?"--That's motivation. If my motivation for murder was lying should i be excused too?

Whether you like it or not, perjury is a felony. :)

[sturg1dj]

Sorry, but you said, "What caused him to lie?"--That's motivation. If my motivation for murder was lying should i be excused too?

Whether you like it or not, perjury is a felony. :)

ok, let me clarify

you quoted this

"so what act did he do that put him in the situation that he is in??"

and in full context I wrote
"so what act did he do that put him in the situation that he is in??

HE LIED (or so they are trying to prove)"

now the point I was trying to get across is that lying is what got him into trouble, since you kept correcting me saying that it was perjury and obstruction of justice. I know thats what he is charged with, but what did he do to be charged with those crimes. And is that act worth that much? And I know it is a felony, thats not my point at all. My point is should it be a felony. Arguing that a punishment is ok because that's the punishment seems a little silly to me.

I guess I am just thinking outside the box here, just like the author of the article. Its not a question of if what he did is a crime, thats not what I am saying at all. I am questioning the fact that something like this can put someone in jail for multiple years. Should it be this serious. Bonds did not hurt anyone, he did not try to hurt anyone. Thats the point I keep making, which can be lost I guess. Its not that if he did what he did or if the current laws say he should go to jail; but if the current laws are right to punish as severely as they do.

[Elvis]

now the point I was trying to get across is that lying is what got him into trouble, since you kept correcting me saying that it was perjury and obstruction of justice. I know thats what he is charged with, but what did he do to be charged with those crimes. And is that act worth that much?

What he did was lie under oath to a federal grand jury. When you swear under oath you are made well aware of the consequences of the law if you fail to be truthful and how serious a crime it is.

If it were "no big deal" to lie under oath, do you have any idea of the astronomically horrific ramifications that would have?

Should a drunk driver be excused because what "got him into trouble" was going out to dinner?, and "going out to dinner" is not illegal? You're trying to separate the crime from the motive.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
elvis, it is alleged that bonds lied under oath.
i do not understand how you can state as fact that he did.

please explain which questions bonds answered untruthfully, and how it is that you know that his answers were untruthful.

simply relying on the underlined answers in the indictment will not suffice, as the explanations are not included.

if you can not explain how it is that bonds did in fact lie while under oath, will you please agree to not state that he did?

[sturg1dj]

What he did was lie under oath to a federal grand jury. When you swear under oath you are made well aware of the consequences of the law if you fail to be truthful and how serious a crime it is.

If it were "no big deal" to lie under oath, do you have any idea of the astronomically horrific ramifications that would have?

Should a drunk driver be excused because what "got him into trouble" was going out to dinner?, and "going out to dinner" is not illegal? You're trying to separate the crime from the motive.

no, you are not understanding me. The motive for Bonds would be to save face and to keep himself out of jail, the act would be he lied, and the crimes were perjury and obstruction of justice

to look at your example I would point out that what got him into trouble would not be "going to dinner" but the act of driving while intoxicated.

If it were "no big deal" to lie under oath, do you have any idea of the astronomically horrific ramifications that would have?

that would seem like an overstatement. I doubt if you change the punishment to a slap on the wrist that many people would change their mind on how they act on the stand. People with nothing to lose would tell the truth and people trying to save face would not. They do now and would then.

The difference is people who are lying for something that is embarrassing, but did not hurt anyone would get a slap on the wrist, while people who lied about their involvement with something that hurt others would be tried for that act.

[west coast orange and black]

agreed, sturg1dj, that commiting perjury is a very big deal.
the courts - the people -must be able to rely on sworn testimony being truthful.

i am having a very difficult time, however, figuring out how the prosecution can prove that bonds lied, and that he did do willingly.

[sturg1dj]

agreed, sturg1dj, that commiting perjury is a very big deal.
the courts - the people -must be able to rely on sworn testimony being truthful.

i am having a very difficult time, however, figuring out how the prosecution can prove that bonds lied, and that he did do willingly.

you are agreeing with the other guy

I am saying that perjury should not be AS BIG A DEAL (read: a somewhat big deal, but not as big as current) as it is now.

haha, thats two people who didn't get what I am saying, which means I am not making myself clear. I apologize, looks like I need to figure out what I need to say before I write it and be clearer...haha

[west coast orange and black]

sturg1dj, why have testimony if it need not be truthful?

the entire court system would quickly collapse if testimony could not be relied upon as truthful.

[sturg1dj]

sturg1dj, why have testimony if it need not be truthful?

the entire court system would quickly collapse if testimony could not be relied upon as truthful.

well having a perjury law and no perjury law is not going to change much. Either way people are going to lie in order to save one's skin or help out someone else. Sometimes we catch them and sometimes we do not. When we do catch them in a lie then what? well we know they lied. On the other hand what if we don't catch them, well they don't get charged with perjury anyways.

There should be some punishment, I agree with that, but being in jail for multiple years seems excessive. 1 year...maybe. 6 months, ok? For someone like Bonds a huge fine, probation, community service; annnnnnnd Baseball can suspend him.

[west coast orange and black]

^^ having a perjury law and no perjury law is not going to change much.

indictments are sworn testimony.
arrests are made on behalf of the people.

indictments and arrests must be proper, in all accordance with the law.
perjury, and the idea of validity and factuality - truth - is not limited to defendants.

[Elvis]

^^
elvis, it is alleged that bonds lied under oath.
i do not understand how you can state as fact that he did.

please explain which questions bonds answered untruthfully, and how it is that you know that his answers were untruthful.

simply relying on the underlined answers in the indictment will not suffice, as the explanations are not included.

if you can not explain how it is that bonds did in fact lie while under oath, will you please agree to not state that he did?

Ya got me. I rephrase the statement: What he allegedly did was give knowingly false testimony, under oath to a federal grand jury, and in doing so, obstructed the investigation.

[west coast orange and black]

^^ haha. coolio. welcome to our side.

[ESPNFan]

Look I think we can use allegedly and reportedly all we want. At some point you need to formulate an opinion based on the information available.

I think Bonds lied. I'm sure of it. I have no problem saying it. The same way people can say that Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson were guilty.

Barry is too smart not to know what he was putting into his body. The other ball players that Anderson was working with knew what they were taking, why not Barry? Why would Bonds send Anderson Minnesota to give Gary Sheffield "falxseed oil" and "Arthritis balm" (not to mention testosterone pills)? Was Shef not able to make it to Rite -Aid? Did Anderson decide to spend the last year in jail just for kicks because of course Barry is innocent, right?

Please...

I could go on and on and on. Bonds Lied.

[rockin500]

well having a perjury law and no perjury law is not going to change much. Either way people are going to lie in order to save one's skin or help out someone else. Sometimes we catch them and sometimes we do not. When we do catch them in a lie then what? well we know they lied. On the other hand what if we don't catch them, well they don't get charged with perjury anyways.

There should be some punishment, I agree with that, but being in jail for multiple years seems excessive. 1 year...maybe. 6 months, ok? For someone like Bonds a huge fine, probation, community service; annnnnnnd Baseball can suspend him.
thats what the fifth amendment is for. Now, I dont think he should get much time (if convicted), but based on precedent and all that fun stuff, he should get a few months behind bars.

there HAS to be some penalty for lying under oath. Otherwise, as mentioned before, the judicial system would be worthless. For a first time offender though it will be on the low end, as it should.

[sturg1dj]

^^ having a perjury law and no perjury law is not going to change much.

indictments are sworn testimony.
arrests are made on behalf of the people.

indictments and arrests must be proper, in all accordance with the law.
perjury, and the idea of validity and factuality - truth - is not limited to defendants.

haha...well I could get into radical criminology and point out that they say they arrest on behalf of the people but actually arrest in order to keep the powerful in power; of course I doubt many of you prescribe to that idea. Since that is where I stand on that I doubt my part of this discussion will move any further.

haha...oh well, it was fun while it lasted

[NickU]

I know many think that this creates a deterrence, however we are a society that believes that the punishment should fit the crime, and the punishment should not be cruel. So you tell me some poor kid gets a year for possession (or even six months) goes to jail and is brutalized while there. Even though he was not violent violent acts are now being done to him. Is that right?
.

I mean no disrespect about what I am about to say, so don't take it that way, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Understand that there are different prisons. That kid that you speaking about that is doing six months or a year for possession is going to go to a county prison, with other non-violent offenders. Those that do the brutal crimes go to state prisons to do hard time. Anything under 23.5 months is typically a county sentence. Anything over 24.5 months is state time. There is that one month grace period that is subject to the judges discretion. People in county prisons aren't getting raped, or even beat up. They typically have showers that are divided with walls and curtains. Surely it's not a nice place to go, but it beats the alternative. It's not the blue-collar place you hear of, but it's not a horrific place either.

Chances are, that kid, if he is first time offender gets probation. If not, the worst he is going to get is a reduced sentence to be served out in a work release program where he is allowed to leave through certain hours, get's a one hour block to visit home on Sunday's, and has to report back to prison every night at a certain time. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

The crime typically fits the punishment and vice versa.

Bonds lied to a GRAND JURY! Just because he is a baseball player and a national icon that shouldn't excuse him for the laws that were laid out in the constitution. If we allow this man to violate the principals that we fought for, then we stand for nothing. I don't think there would be an outcry if he had lied about knowledge he had about a serial killer. But since it's a friviolous detail about baseball it shouldn't matter, right? Come on! Wake up. All he had to do was tell the truth and he would have been vindicated. America loves to forgive and forget. They love a good rehab story of redemption.

[west coast orange and black]

sturg1dj: ...they say they arrest on behalf of the people but actually arrest in order to keep the powerful in power

that is to ocynical for me, sturg1dj.
i will agree, though, that things are not always as they seem, and that things can get very complicated and convoluted.

[west coast orange and black]

nicku: Bonds lied to a GRAND JURY!
there seems to be enough reasonable doubt to have given the feds more than just simple pause.
for years.
reasonable argument can be made that bonds did not testify untruthfully.

[nothing should] excuse him for [sic] the laws that were laid out in the constitution.
bonds has not been excused; bonds has been indicted.
there is a system in place.

[sturg1dj]

I mean no disrespect about what I am about to say, so don't take it that way, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Understand that there are different prisons. That kid that you speaking about that is doing six months or a year for possession is going to go to a county prison, with other non-violent offenders. Those that do the brutal crimes go to state prisons to do hard time. Anything under 23.5 months is typically a county sentence. Anything over 24.5 months is state time. There is that one month grace period that is subject to the judges discretion. People in county prisons aren't getting raped, or even beat up. They typically have showers that are divided with walls and curtains. Surely it's not a nice place to go, but it beats the alternative. It's not the blue-collar place you hear of, but it's not a horrific place either.

Chances are, that kid, if he is first time offender gets probation. If not, the worst he is going to get is a reduced sentence to be served out in a work release program where he is allowed to leave through certain hours, get's a one hour block to visit home on Sunday's, and has to report back to prison every night at a certain time. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

The crime typically fits the punishment and vice versa.

Bonds lied to a GRAND JURY! Just because he is a baseball player and a national icon that shouldn't excuse him for the laws that were laid out in the constitution. If we allow this man to violate the principals that we fought for, then we stand for nothing. I don't think there would be an outcry if he had lied about knowledge he had about a serial killer. But since it's a friviolous detail about baseball it shouldn't matter, right? Come on! Wake up. All he had to do was tell the truth and he would have been vindicated. America loves to forgive and forget. They love a good rehab story of redemption.

wow, apparently at some point I said that Bonds deserves special treatment for being a baseball player. Apparently I did not start out saying that no person should get a 30 year sentence for a non-violent crime. Apparently I also did not talk about how I understand he probably won't get the 30, and apparently I never said that he should get some punishment, just not multiple years.


And let me finish by saying

COME ON! WAKE UP!

Barry Bonds is one of the most hated people in America and millions of people have been waiting for him to at some point slip up and admit steroid use so that we could crucify him. People without evidence wanted him kicked out of baseball, wanted an * by all his numbers, and wanted him out of hall of fame consideration. To assume that people would forgive him for admitting is total folly. If anything things would get worse for him. Maybe if the government could have granted him immunity he would have talked, maybe if the government could have guaranteed him testimony would never get out he would have talked; but they couldn't. So with your career, your name, and your image on the line would you ruin everything?

Until we are on that stand we may never know.

Irregardless, if it looks like my world will fall to pieces either way but lying at least buys me some time, then you know what I would do.....I'd lie.

[dl4060]

nicku: Bonds lied to a GRAND JURY!
there seems to be enough reasonable doubt to have given the feds more than just simple pause.
for years.
reasonable argument can be made that bonds did not testify untruthfully.



Do you seriously believe that Barry did not knowingly take steroids? I am not talking about whether or not he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of perjury in this case in a court of law. I have a very hard time believing that he did not know what he was doing.

This may very well be a hard case for the government to prove. If it were a slam dunk they would probably have bought it a long time ago. I am curious as to what evidence they have that is now different. If Greg Anderson was crucial, the case is either very weak, or they have new evidence.


For what it is worth, I think countless players in this era took steroids, so I really don't care all that much. I think Barry Bonds is a first ballot HOF regardless of anything that comes down in this case. I would vote for Barry and I would vote for Mcgwire. That being said I am 99% certain that Bonds knowingly took steroids. It may never be known for sure. The outcome of this case will not have much to do with my opinion. I already think Bonds took steroids, and a not guilty verdict would do nothing to ease that suspicion.

If Bonds made a decision not to ask what he was being given because he did not want to know, that is also a very dubious level of innocence.

[west coast orange and black]

dl4060:
Do you seriously believe that Barry did not knowingly take steroids?
i believe that it is more than likely that bonds used.

I have a very hard time believing that he did not know what he was doing.
what bonds did, apparently, is rely upon his employees. lots of employers do that.

This may very well be a hard case for the government to prove .... If Bonds made a decision not to ask what he was being given because he did not want to know, that is also a very dubious level of innocence.

the raids on balco and anderson's home were more than 4 years ago, so there appears to be no new evidence since the december 2004 leaked grand jury report. it seems foolish for the government to rely upon the evidence / claim of bonds failing 2 balco-administered or balco-requested steroid tests - that has more holes than swiss cheese. anderson will not testify against bonds. neither, it seems, will victor conte. bonds certainly will not incriminate himself.
that leaves the feds where?

politically charged at least, and politically motivated, at worst, the feds' case against bonds supposedly has had "mountains of evidence" against bonds for years, yet they did not strike while the iron was hot.

or, maybe they did.
maybe the hot iron is new u.s. attorney general mukasey.
or maybe it's northern california's interim u.s. attorney scott schools.
or maybe it's the u.s. attorney general's office wanting to make a splash to coincide with their announcement of just-nominated joe russoniello to the position.

those who question the motivation and actions of the feds (and specifically this investigation), the mandatory length of sentences, or just the fact that the government has spent so much time and resources have a right to question.
recall that anderson spent more time for contempt of court than he or any of the other jailed defendants for their original steroid-related convictions, even though prosecutors stated that he was crucial to their case, that it could not be made without his testimony.

[Mattingly]

mattingly: I would suggest in the future that *ALL* articles posted onto BBF contain a link. If we are to reliably refer to an article, it certainly helps that the link is there, insuring that someone hasn't "added" anything to the article in any way.

addition can be had by subtraction, as well.

perhaps, if you have not already, you can make this request in the mod forum for discussion.
I will if that's what you want. I just thought that most Mods were already aware that links were expected. This insures that the article they're quoting is just that, and that no text information which is materially important has been changed, nobody misquoted. If there's an error, it's up to the publication to correct, not us.

I may just add something to my already large sig asking people to use links when quoting articles.

[Mattingly]

^^
elvis, it is alleged that bonds lied under oath.
i do not understand how you can state as fact that he did.

please explain which questions bonds answered untruthfully, and how it is that you know that his answers were untruthful.

simply relying on the underlined answers in the indictment will not suffice, as the explanations are not included.

if you can not explain how it is that bonds did in fact lie while under oath, will you please agree to not state that he did?
Should people not state that Barry Bonds had lied/perjured himself, or should people not state that Barry Bonds had allegedly lied/perjured himself?

[NickU]

COME ON! WAKE UP!

Barry Bonds is one of the most hated people in America and millions of people have been waiting for him to at some point slip up and admit steroid use so that we could crucify him. People without evidence wanted him kicked out of baseball, wanted an * by all his numbers, and wanted him out of hall of fame consideration. To assume that people would forgive him for admitting is total folly. If anything things would get worse for him. Maybe if the government could have granted him immunity he would have talked, maybe if the government could have guaranteed him testimony would never get out he would have talked; but they couldn't. So with your career, your name, and your image on the line would you ruin everything?

Until we are on that stand we may never know.

Irregardless, if it looks like my world will fall to pieces either way but lying at least buys me some time, then you know what I would do.....I'd lie.

First of all, I wasn't addressing anything you said about Bonds, that is why i took the single quote out about the kid smoking pot going to jail for 1-2 years in a violent prison. I won't rehash the facts, go back to page 2 if you want to see it, but that would never happen.

Now onto this. Let's not make Bonds out to be the martyr. Everything he did he did to himself so I will not feel bad for him. Maybe he wouldn't be able to say sorry and everyone would have forgiven him. Who knows, but it worked with Giambi. Bonds could have said I used roids to the GJ, he would have gotten suspended for however long first time offenders get, then he could have came back and pursued the record like he was before. Nothing would have changed, he was still the most hated man in America, and he still would have been. He still would have gotten the same signs from fans, the same middle finger, the same everything. The only difference is that he wouldn't be facing 30 years in prison and he would break the record in 2008 instead of 2007. The man is a dumb ass.

His image was ruined before hand, nothing would have changed if he would have said I used roids.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: Should people not state that Barry Bonds had lied/perjured himself, or should people not state that Barry Bonds had allegedly lied/perjured himself?
it's up to the individual to either go with facts, or go it alone.
either way, though, the negative tends to throw people off.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: Should people not state that Barry Bonds had lied/perjured himself, or should people not state that Barry Bonds had allegedly lied/perjured himself?
it's up to the individual to either go with facts, or go it alone.
either way, though, the negative tends to throw people off.
In that case, let me ask you this:

If you met with someone over lunch about Barry Bonds, I presume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if he/she said that Bonds had lied under oath, you'd call him/her on this.

If, however, that same person said that Bonds had allegedly lied under oath and was under indictment for perjury--which, in its simplest form, is lying under oath--that this would be understood as fact to you?

If I'm wrong on either of these, please correct me.

[dl4060]

dl4060:


I have a very hard time believing that he did not know what he was doing.
what bonds did, apparently, is rely upon his employees. lots of employers do that.

I agree on all counts except this one. I see a very large difference between someone who employs a CPA going on the CPA's tax recommendation without checking it and putting substances in one's body without at least asking what they are. While many people do rely on their employees, this situation is a pretty special one. Someone such as Bonds who is already an elite athlete and is searching for an edge would probably be more likely to ask questions, not less. As I said before, this is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but I have a very hard time he did not know what was being put into his body. I think relying on one's employees in other cases is much more reasonable than this.

It reminds me a little bit of the Contra affair, where Poindexter testified that he decided not to tell Reagan so that the president could have an out. This does very little to convince me of his innocence, if someone would decline to tell his superior for that reason it is also likely that he would lie to cover for that superior. That type of testimony makes me think that Poindexter was going to protect Reagan regardless of whether or not he told him about the situation. I have a very hard time believing Bonds did not at least ask Anderson what was in the clear, or some of the other substances he is known to have used. If he did ask, and Anderson told him "you don't want to know so don't ask" that is guilty to me. It might not work that way in a court of law, but I don't accept that as being truly innocent.

If Barry had no idea that the substances he was being given were illegal, he really is not too bright. Everyone else involved with Balco seemed to know exactly what was going on.

So no, the short answer is that there are times when it is reasonable to say "I was listening to my employees," this is not one of them. Also, not asking questions of employees because one does not want to know the answer is not a very strong defense.

I think it is likely that Anderson did disclose to Bonds exactly what he was taking. This is part of the reason he would not testify, if he could get out of it with an "I purposely did not tell Barry because I wanted him to have an out" the way Poindexter did, he probably would have.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: I presume that if he/she said that Bonds had lied under oath, you'd call him/her on this.
most likely, i would ask for the reason(s) of the certainty.

If, however, that same person said that Bonds had allegedly lied under oath and was under indictment for perjury--which, in its simplest form, is lying under oath--that this would be understood as fact to you?
i do not understand your question.

fact: perjury, in its simplest form, is lying under oath.
fact: bonds was indicted for perjury.

[west coast orange and black]

dl4060: Someone such as Bonds who is already an elite athlete and is searching for an edge would probably be more likely to ask questions, not less.
maybe bonds did ask lots of questions. i have neither read nor heard one way or the other.

I have a very hard time [believing] he did not know what was being put into his body.
bonds testified that to the best of his knowledge, he did know what he was using.
the government not only asserts that bonds used steroids, but that bonds knew that he was using steroids. that is the merry-go-round.

I have a very hard time believing Bonds did not at least ask Anderson what was in the clear, or some of the other substances he is known to have used.
why would you have a difficult time?
according to the transcripts, bonds asked, and anderson answered.

If Barry had no idea that the substances he was being given were illegal, he really is not too bright.
coolio. but not knowing or not being bright does not automatically inherit prison.

Everyone else involved with Balco seemed to know exactly what was going on.
no, not everyone. look at sheffield's situation, f'rinstance.
and although tim montgomery knowingly used hgh, he claimed that victor conte assured him that "clear"/"the clear" was an allowable substance.
many track + field athletes referred to thg as the "magic potion", which hints that they did not know, exactly, what the substance actually was.

Also, not asking questions of employees because one does not want to know the answer is not a very strong defense.
according to the leaked transcripts, bonds asked.

[dl4060]

dl4060: Someone such as Bonds who is already an elite athlete and is searching for an edge would probably be more likely to ask questions, not less.
maybe bonds did ask lots of questions. i have neither read nor heard one way or the other.

I have a very hard time [believing] he did not know what was being put into his body.
bonds testified that to the best of his knowledge, he did know what he was using.
the government not only asserts that bonds used steroids, but that bonds knew that he was using steroids. that is the merry-go-round.

I have a very hard time believing Bonds did not at least ask Anderson what was in the clear, or some of the other substances he is known to have used.
why would you have a difficult time?
according to the transcripts, bonds asked, and anderson answered.

If Barry had no idea that the substances he was being given were illegal, he really is not too bright.
coolio. but not knowing or not being bright does not automatically inherit prison.

.

If Bonds did ask all of these questions, then everything should be very simple. Either Anderson lied to him, or he did not. If Anderson lied then he should be able to testify without fearing that he would incriminate Barry. If Anderson told Barry the truth then it seems to me that he would avoid testimony if he could, as such testimony would incriminate his friend. I am only speculating(like just about everyone here), but it seems pretty clear that it is extremely likely that Bonds knew what he was doing, and lied about it. Whether that is provable in a court of law is another story.

I do think this is a bit of a witch hunt. Without Anderson or some new evidence this is not a very easy case. In all likelihood it is a prosecutor with something to prove. Also, SF is the only place where Barry is truly loved, a place where much of the population seems to want to see absolute proof. That is not a place I would want to have a trial.

WCOAB, do you believe that Barry knowingly used steroids? Also, if you made an acquaintance who described OJ as a murderer would you insist that they added the word allegedly? I'm not saying this to be combative, I am just curious. OJ was found not guilty, but I have no doubt that he is. We cannot always prove what we believe, that does not discount our opinion.

Part of the issue here may be the difference between lying and not being entirely forthcoming with the truth. Bonds may not have been literally lying on the stand, but still not told the whole truth. Never the less, it is up to the prosecution to ask him the proper questions. Our system does not require people to state something that is beyond what is asked. Answers like "not too my knowledge" may very well save Bonds in the end. If there is someone on a block who gives others around him weed, and he is asked if he SELLS weed, to answer no would not be a lie. If the question was asked "did you give weed to the people on your block," this would be a different situation, but it is up to the prosecutor to ask this question. If Barry was asked "did you suspect that there was something illegal in the substances you were given?" And answered "no," that would in all likelihood have been a lie, but one that would be next to impossible to prove.


.

[sandlot]

Also, if you made an acquaintance who described OJ as a murderer would you insist that they added the word allegedly? I'm not saying this to be combative, I am just curious. OJ was found not guilty, but I have no doubt that he is. Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal action but was forced to pay damages to the family after losing a civil suit.

[west coast orange and black]

dl4060: WCOAB, do you believe that Barry knowingly used steroids?
he might have, but i am unsure to the point that i hafta say "i dunno".

Also, if you made an acquaintance who described OJ as a murderer would you insist that they added the word allegedly?
i would first insist that simpson's nickname not be used around me.
i don't do first-names-only of those who are not my friends.
after that, i would consider "murderer" a simple matter of semantics. after all, it is uncommon to hear one refered to as "manslaughterer", even if that was the actual conviction.
if pressed, i would bring up the civil court verdict, as sandlot just did.

[dl4060]

Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal action but was forced to pay damages to the family after losing a civil suit.

Good answer. But is the civil suit the reason it is acceptable to not use the word allegedly in this case? Regardless of the outcome of the civil suit most people would probably not bother to use that word. Most people consider OJ Simpson a despicable scumbag, and do not base their assumption of his guilt on the fact that he was convicted in civil court. His conviction in civil court does nothing to change my opinion, or the justification one would have in not using the word allegedly.

[sandlot]

Good answer. But is the civil suit the reason it is acceptable to not use the word allegedly in this case? Regardless of the outcome of the civil suit most people would probably not bother to use that word. Most people consider OJ Simpson a despicable scumbag, and do not base their assumption of his guilt on the fact that he was convicted in civil court. His conviction in civil court does nothing to change my opinion, or the justification one would have in not using the word allegedly.I think that your point, in its simplest form -- and I hope that I'm not oversimplifying -- is that there exist both a court of law and a court of public opinion. They operate independently, although sometimes they blur; one has strict rules, the other has none. Some people are greatly influenced in their own thinking by what has happened in a court of law, others form their opinions independently. Sometimes public opinion affects what happens in a courtroom, but other times a courtroom is like a hermetically sealed parallel universe where events occur according to a calculus divorced from whatever reality exists outside. Sometimes one courts says Aye and another says Nay with the same facts put before them. That's why we end up, for example, with Simpson found not guilty for homicide in a criminal court yet still found guilty on a related csrge in a civil action and forced to pay damages. In this case, to get to your question, the use of the world "alleged" turns on the standard of proof applied. No, OJ is not an alleged murderer, not any longer. The word alleged no longer applies becasue he was found not guilty. But he was indeed alleged to have violated someone's rights in a civil suit, and was forced to pay up -- he's not alleged on that charge, he was proven guilty. So maybe the best way to describe him if one must, is to say that he was found not guilty of killing his girlfriend, yet later forced to pay damages to her family after they successfuly brought a civil action against him. Not short and snappy, though. Maybe just say that he was unsuccessfully prosecuted for murder (he beat the rap).

As for Bonds, he has so far testified before Grand Juries, which are a tool of the prosecution, but he has not testified to my knowledge in a court of law where he's been the defendant (I stand to be corrected by those who've followed this more closely). If that is right, then any perjury alleged to have been uttered occurred before a Grand Jury. That would still be perjury, no doubt, but the context is different and worth noting. Perjury is not simply lying -- that's oversimplifying. The charge is wider reaching and includes giving misleading or incomplete testimony. So if what Bonds and Anderson have is a wink-and-nod defense -- I didn't ask and he didn't tell -- then the Feds have to show that Bonds did in fact know, and what he knew, and that he lied; or, that even if he didn't know at the start but he came later to suspect or know, and that his testominy to the jury is thus incomplete and misleading. I suppose they also could try to demostrate a collusion or conspiracy existed between Anderson and Bonds such that if the scheme were exposed, they would agree to defend themselves in a certain manner designed to thwart prosecution. This could quite difficult to prove. There is always the possibility, too, that Bonds did ask and that Anderson lied, but that nailing Anderson is not nearly so attractive as getting Bonds.

In the court of public opinion, Bonds has -- I think -- been hurt further by the Marion Jones case.

My own out-of-court suspicion is that so many guys in baseball were using so many different PEDs that the only questions that mattered to anybody were: What's it do? What's it cost? Where can I get some?

[dl4060]

I think that your point, in its simplest form -- and I hope that I'm not oversimplifying -- is that there exist both a court of law and a court of public opinion. They operate independently, although sometimes they blur; one has strict rules, the other has none. Some people are greatly influenced in their own thinking by what has happened in a court of law, others form their opinions independently. Sometimes public opinion affects what happens in a courtroom, but other times a courtroom is like a hermetically sealed parallel universe where events occur according to a calculus divorced from whatever reality exists outside. Sometimes one courts says Aye and another says Nay with the same facts put before them. That's why we end up, for example, with Simpson found not guilty for homicide in a criminal court yet still found guilty on a related csrge in a civil action and forced to pay damages. In this case, to get to your question, the use of the world "alleged" turns on the standard of proof applied. No, OJ is not an alleged murderer, not any longer. The word alleged no longer applies becasue he was found not guilty. But he was indeed alleged to have violated someone's rights in a civil suit, and was forced to pay up -- he's not alleged on that charge, he was proven guilty. So maybe the best way to describe him if one must, is to say that he was found not guilty of killing his girlfriend, yet later forced to pay damages to her family after they successfuly brought a civil action against him. Not short and snappy, though. Maybe just say that he was unsuccessfully prosecuted for murder (he beat the rap).

As for Bonds, he has so far testified before Grand Juries, which are a tool of the prosecution, but he has not testified to my knowledge in a court of law where he's been the defendant (I stand to be corrected by those who've followed this more closely). If that is right, then any perjury alleged to have been uttered occurred before a Grand Jury. That would still be perjury, no doubt, but the context is different and worth noting. Perjury is not simply lying -- that's oversimplifying. The charge is wider reaching and includes giving misleading or incomplete testimony. So if what Bonds and Anderson have is a wink-and-nod defense -- I didn't ask and he didn't tell -- then the Feds have to show that Bonds did in fact know, and what he knew, and that he lied; or, that even if he didn't know at the start but he came later to suspect or know, and that his testominy to the jury is thus incomplete and misleading. I suppose they also could try to demostrate a collusion or conspiracy existed between Anderson and Bonds such that if the scheme were exposed, they would agree to defend themselves in a certain manner designed to thwart prosecution. This could quite difficult to prove. There is always the possibility, too, that Bonds did ask and that Anderson lied, but that nailing Anderson is not nearly so attractive as getting Bonds.

In the court of public opinion, Bonds has -- I think -- been hurt further by the Marion Jones case.

My own out-of-court suspicion is that so many guys in baseball were using so many different PEDs that the only questions that mattered to anybody were: What's it do? What's it cost? Where can I get some?

The court of public opinion is part of what I am getting at, but part of it is also in response to something WCOAB stated earlier. He is one of the few(only?) ardent Bonds supporters on this board. He had stated that people needed to use the word "allegedly" in describing Bonds, so I brought up OJ in response to that. My feeling is that one's personal opinion need not coincide with the rulings of the court. I guess that could be called the court of public opinion. I look at OJ as a murderer who got away with it, in common discussion of him I will not use the word "allegedly" because I think there is no point in that. I have no doubt as to his guilt. Many people feel the same about Bonds, to them using the word "allegedly" is an aggravating waste of breath. The public opinion on OJ is even more pronounced than Barry, so I was seeing if WCOAB was willing to go so far as to insist that people refer to OJ as an alleged murderer. Unfortunately, the civil case gave him a bit of an out, and allowed him not to answer the question directly. I would love to hear him answer without regards to the civil suit. That is, if the civil suit did not exist would it be fair for people in casual conversation to refer to OJ as a murderer without using the word allegedly? To put it another way, OJ either is or is not someone who has committed murder. Whether he is found guilty or not has nothing to do with whether or not he committed the crime.

[sandlot]

The court of public opinion is part of what I am getting at, but part of it is also in response to something WCOAB stated earlier. He is one of the few(only?) ardent Bonds supporters on this board. He had stated that people needed to use the word "allegedly" in describing Bonds, so I brought up OJ in response to that. My feeling is that one's personal opinion need not coincide with the rulings of the court. I guess that could be called the court of public opinion. I look at OJ as a murderer who got away with it, in common discussion of him I will not use the word "allegedly" because I think there is no point in that. I have no doubt as to his guilt. Many people feel the same about Bonds, to them using the word "allegedly" is an aggravating waste of breath. The public opinion on OJ is even more pronounced than Barry, so I was seeing if WCOAB was willing to go so far as to insist that people refer to OJ as an alleged murderer. Unfortunately, the civil case gave him a bit of an out, and allowed him not to answer the question directly. I would love to hear him answer without regards to the civil suit. That is, if the civil suit did not exist would it be fair for people in casual conversation to refer to OJ as a murderer without using the word allegedly? To put it another way, OJ either is or is not someone who has committed murder. Whether he is found guilty or not has nothing to do with whether or not he committed the crime.I see what you're trying to drive at, but I think you missed what I wrote exactly on this point: We should NOT refer to OJ as an alleged murderer because he was tried and acquitted of the allegation. He was found NOT guilty, or put another way, his innocence was upheld. That means there is no longer any allegation against him, because he was cleared of it. You can believe whatever you want, no one can stop you, but if you respect the legal system at least refer to him as "the guy who was charged with/accused of/alleged to have," etc. If someone were to publish or say on a broadcast without qualification that "OJ Simpson murdered his wife," that person could be sued for libel or slander.

Strictly speaking, you are wrong when you say that whether he was found not guilty has nothing to do with whether he committed the crime. Exactly to the contrary: He was charged with committing the crime and the prosecution failed beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that he did commit it. Therefore, he didn't commit it. If new evidence to the contrary were to be adduced, he could possibly be tried again, but that would be a fresh charge, and a court would have to be persuaded that the new evidence were enough to warrant the charge plus the cost to all parties of a new trial. In short, the judge would have to be convinced that a new trial would be in the interests of justice. The fact that OJ's prosecutors did not persist suggests that they didn't think they could meet that test.

This gets to the point that WCOAB and others, including me, have been writing until our fingers drop off (or until they've given up posting, unlike WCOAB who soldiers on): Innocence is a state of being, it is a presumption -- a Constitutionally endowed and protected presumption -- that every person shares, be it you, me, OJ or even non-citizens. We are all presumed innocent, unless and until we are proven guilty. This is the very core of the US legal system and what sets it apart from many systems elsewhere. Bonds enjoys that fundamental presumption, even when he has been indicted, i.e., alleged, to have broken the law.

In fact, an especially critical time to protect anyone's presumption of innocence is the period after a charge has been made and before a lawful judgment has been reached. This is where the court-of-public-opinion issue usually arises first, because once a person is publicly known to be the subject of a charge, a segment of public opinion will automatically swing toward the presumption of guilt. That's why it's so easy to try people in the press, and this is the center of the tension between free press and fair trial.

It's no less important to protect the presumption of innocence after a court decision has been reached, as in the OJ case, where public sentiment runs counter to the official verdict. And that's part of the reason (though not the only one) that some people are strongly against the various "asterisk" proposals that have been made: That kind of branding imputes guilt even where it has not been proven, or might even have been explicity disproven. It's the "shame" that goes on shaming. Hester Prynne and her Scarlet Letter might seem far away from baseball but she is not far away at all. Hawthorne understood the scornful, punitive puritanism that ran deeply through our society from the very start, continues to to this day, and is strongly evident in the world of competitive sport. Baseball may well be its most hallowed repository, outside of religion itself.

I can't think of anything more on the Bonds saga to be said until the prosecutors either fail again, or finally succeed in assembling a Grand Jury as minded to bring charges as they are. If the latter arises, we can all hear at last what's said in an open court, and not through selective leaks of testimony made in what has esentially become a Star Chamber proceeding.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: I presume that if he/she said that Bonds had lied under oath, you'd call him/her on this.
most likely, i would ask for the reason(s) of the certainty.

If, however, that same person said that Bonds had allegedly lied under oath and was under indictment for perjury--which, in its simplest form, is lying under oath--that this would be understood as fact to you?
i do not understand your question.

fact: perjury, in its simplest form, is lying under oath.
fact: bonds was indicted for perjury.
I haven't revisited this thread in awhile, but you've answered my questions. In the first case, you'd asked why the degree of certainty, which I can understand. This being that Bonds was indicted for something he's *ACCUSED* of, which is that he's been accused of lying under oath, and that the Federal Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to go forward.

In the second, you'd basically said, as far as I'm reading this, that if someone said that Bonds had been indicted for lying under oath (perjury), that you'd have no problem with this. This being that his being indicted for perjury is factual, not opinion. The only unsure opinion being whether or not Barry Bonds actually lied under oath, as he's accused of having done.

Clear as mud now? :D

[Walt Zink]

I've skimmed through all of this. Personally? I feel as though Bonds lied. The prosecution rate by the feds is ridiculous. I want to say we're talking 97-98% of the time they get a prosecution. They wouldn't advance something like this unless they really had something concrete, outside of the testimony of his former friend as well as his former girlfriend. That's "he-said, she-said" but if the feds have other evidence to corroborate their testimony? He's done.

As for the article initially written? I'm a liberal guy. Very. And what this guy does is nothing that possesses anything that comes close to having any semblance of substance. I hate the system, too. I think it's flawed and mind-numbingly so. Pinning it all on the purported ineptitude of the case on Bonds is going too far. Try using Ken Ley, instead. Then I, as an informed American, could buy it. I'm so sick of people on my side of the political spectrum using doom and gloom, just as I'm sick of neo-cons railing about people being traitors and terrible people for not supporting war. It's silly and asinine.

What do I think will happen to Bonds? He'll be convicted of something. He's going to become to the baseball world what Martha Stewart was for the business world. He'll get about a year in a low-security prison, and probably another year or two of probation. It's as simple as that.

The even larger picture, though, is that now that he's been indicted, he will NEVER play another baseball game. He also will never get into the Hall. Never. I said that word, and will get lambasted, but that's fine. He will NEVER get into the Hall of Fame. I've listened to two interviews with people that have a vote for the hall who said they would not vote for Bonds. Why? On the ballot, they stated that the ballot says to also consider character of the person in consideration. The man's been indicted by a federal court, and I think from this point on, unless he REALLY makes an effort to clean up the mess he made and show the world he knows what the words remorse and regret mean, he will have to live with the consequences.

[west coast orange and black]

walt zink: The prosecution rate by the feds .... we're talking 97-98% of the time they get a prosecution.

in 2006 perjury cases had a conviction rate of 86%.
obstruction of justice, 79%.

the conviction rate overall in federal court is higher, but the issues at hand are p+o.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: you'd asked why the degree of certainty .... This being that Bonds was indicted for something .... and that the Federal Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to go forward.
mattingly, it seems to me that you are unaware of the intrincities of the grand jury system - who sits and hears; what is brought forward, and how; the politics...

and, if i get you right, your position is that bonds is guilty because he was indicted.

[Mattingly]

mattingly: you'd asked why the degree of certainty .... This being that Bonds was indicted for something .... and that the Federal Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to go forward.
mattingly, it seems to me that you are unaware of the intrincities of the grand jury system - who sits and hears; what is brought forward, and how; the politics...

and, if i get you right, your position is that bonds is guilty because he was indicted.
You have a point that I'm unaware of the grand jury system. I've served as a petit juror in my local courthouse before on a criminal case, but I've never served as a grand juror. To my knowledge, they hear whatever evidence is presented by prosecution (I believe that would be the IRS et al in this case), and then decide if there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial.

I don't have any idea what makes you think that I'd presumed Bonds' guilt. From the beginning of this thread, I'd said that Bonds hadn't admitted anything. What makes you think that I'm saying he's guilty based upon an indictment? A grand jury has only stated that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. Where do you get guilt from this?

Do I need to rephrase my last question to you, or do you wish to answer it? I still haven't received a reply; I've only gotten an accusation from you (which I have no idea how this came about, nor have I seen any reason why you feel this way) that I'd presumed Barry Bonds' guilt.

[dl4060]

I see what you're trying to drive at, but I think you missed what I wrote exactly on this point: We should NOT refer to OJ as an alleged murderer because he was tried and acquitted of the allegation. He was found NOT guilty, or put another way, his innocence was upheld. That means there is no longer any allegation against him, because he was cleared of it. You can believe whatever you want, no one can stop you, but if you respect the legal system at least refer to him as "the guy who was charged with/accused of/alleged to have," etc. If someone were to publish or say on a broadcast without qualification that "OJ Simpson murdered his wife," that person could be sued for libel or slander.

I understand what you mean here. I also do understand the slander laws. In a formal situation such as print media I would preface what I said with OJ with an "I believe" type statement.


Strictly speaking, you are wrong when you say that whether he was found not guilty has nothing to do with whether he committed the crime. Exactly to the contrary: He was charged with committing the crime and the prosecution failed beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that he did commit it. Therefore, he didn't commit it.



I understand what you mean here, but that is in regards to the crime of murder in the strictest sense. What I meant(and should have said) was that he either did or did not do something, and whether or not he is found guilty does not change whether he committed the act or not. He may not have committed the CRIME or murder, but he may have killed those people. He either did or did not kill those people, the outcome of the court case cannot change what happened in the past. Just because the prosecution failed to show that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that he did not kill those people. Furthermore, just because he was found not guilty does not mean that the public should believe that he did not kill those people. I understand your point, and the strictness of the terms that I used may have been inappropriate.



This gets to the point that WCOAB and others, including me, have been writing until our fingers drop off (or until they've given up posting, unlike WCOAB who soldiers on): Innocence is a state of being, it is a presumption -- a Constitutionally endowed and protected presumption -- that every person shares, be it you, me, OJ or even non-citizens. We are all presumed innocent, unless and until we are proven guilty. This is the very core of the US legal system and what sets it apart from many systems elsewhere. Bonds enjoys that fundamental presumption, even when he has been indicted, i.e., alleged, to have broken the law.


I am aware of this, and I agree on all points. There is a big difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion. It is perfectly fair for those involved with OJ to judge him to have killed people and to not be worthy of support. It is perfectly fair for companies who use him as a spokesman to drop him, it is perfectly fair for people to not vote for him if he were to run for public office based on what they think happened back in 1994. In fact, this is good, the court of public opinion helps give out what one might see as a type of social justice.




In fact, an especially critical time to protect anyone's presumption of innocence is the period after a charge has been made and before a lawful judgment has been reached. This is where the court-of-public-opinion issue usually arises first, because once a person is publicly known to be the subject of a charge, a segment of public opinion will automatically swing toward the presumption of guilt. That's why it's so easy to try people in the press, and this is the center of the tension between free press and fair trial.

It's no less important to protect the presumption of innocence after a court decision has been reached, as in the OJ case, where public sentiment runs counter to the official verdict.


I agree here. It is important to note that I see a large difference between public and judicial sentiment. OJ's current charges are another example of this, there are some who would like to see him sent away even if that is not appropriate in the case against him. He should be treated by the courts as someone who is innocent of the crime he was alleged to have committed a decade ago. An attitude of "well he got away then we'll get him now" is something of a lynch mob mentality, and has no business in a court of law. I agree with you about the necessity of the presumption of innocence in this case. I have heard that part of the reason OJ allegedly went vigilante is that he went to the police and they would not help him. I have also heard that he says this is common since his trial a decade ago. That is absurd, OJ deserves the same rights and freedoms under the law as anyone else does. Regardless of what we think he may have done, our system did not find him guilty. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned. I think it would be perfectly understandable for Fred Goldman to kill OJ, but such behavior cannot be tolerated. If he did so, he should be prosecuted in the same way as if he had killed someone with no affiliation.

Again, there is a large difference between a consumer not buying a product OJ endorses(not that there are many of those left) because they believe he killed those people, and a police officer blowing OJ off and not protecting him.



And that's part of the reason (though not the only one) that some people are strongly against the various "asterisk" proposals that have been made: That kind of branding imputes guilt even where it has not been proven, or might even have been explicity disproven.

I agree here. I don't think an asterisk is appropriate unless something is explicitly proven.

[Walt Zink]

walt zink: The prosecution rate by the feds .... we're talking 97-98% of the time they get a prosecution.

in 2006 perjury cases had a conviction rate of 86%.
obstruction of justice, 79%.

the conviction rate overall in federal court is higher, but the issues at hand are p+o.

Here's the thing. Do you really think the feds would risk egg on their face in such a high profile case if they didn't have something damning? Those percentages are still quite high, regardless. I think one count will come down as guilty, and even if he gets away scot free, Bonds' image is forever tarnished.

[plask_stirlac]

Bonds' image is forever tarnished.

As opposed to a month ago?

[west coast orange and black]

zink: Do you really think the feds would risk egg on their face in such a high profile case if they didn't have something damning?

what do you suppose the new evidence is that the first and second grand juries rejected (and chose not to indict)?

[digglahhh]

First, I'm certainly not above using baseball as a tool to make political points, or as a window through which to view history, class, bias, language or anything else - as if I had to say that to you guys... But this piece is mostly a thinly veiled attack of the Bush administration that really doesn't relate to Bonds at all. The springboard to this piece could be any single misappropriation of justice, jurisprudence, severity of sentencing, etc. Bonds, as it relates to this argument was ostensibly picked out of a hat, with a forever growing diameter. I had to give them one joke, WCOAB.

But, I don't really want to talk about Bonds at all. I want to clarify why perjury is a crime.

I'm going to quote something I wrote in another another thread because I don't feel like writing it out again. Assuming he is guilty, and not because I do, but just to clarify the argument

The "what he did" in this case, isn't take steroids. What he (allegedly) did was lie under oath and willfully obstruct a federal investigation. That is a big deal, in the eyes of the law. It is the principle of it. The offense is no less serious if you are lying about how hit balls over fences than it would be if he was lying about not knowing the location of Bin Laden. The offense lies in the act of undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system, encouraging it to fail by supplying disinformation.

How I feel about criminal justice system as it plays out notwithstanding...

What he is lying about is entirely irrelevant. If perjury can't be levied as a credible threat, you jeopardize the integrity and efficacy of the criminal justice system, period.


...whatever remains of it.

[sandlot]

There are still some serious misunderstandings of the process running through this thread (and other related threads) and I have to say that they won't be cleared up by skimming the posts. Please, read at least this basic primer, or the conversation is like geese talking to ducks:

What's the first thing to know?

Grand Juries meet in secret and are essentially a prosecutorial and investigatory tool. They have a long and controversial history in jurisprudence.

Grand Juries can compel testimony under oath, and lying to or misleading a Grand Jury is a punishable offense. If the prosecution thinks this has occurred, it can seek an indictment for perjury.

What's an indictment?

An indictment is a charge.

Do prosecutors indict?

No. Prosecutors do not indict. They seek indictments.

Who does indict?

Grand Juries indict. They may do so when they are convinced on the weight of the testimony adduced before them that, beyond a reasonable doubt, there exists sufficient evidence as to support the bringing of a formal charge as requested by the prosecution. A Grand Jury indictment gets the prosecution into court.

What has happened in the Bonds case?

Bonds has NOT repeat NOT been indicted by this or any other Grand Jury that has been empaneled to hear the prosecutors' evidence. He has not been charged with a single thing in a court of law.

What has happened is that the prosecutors have now laid a fresh indictment -- that is, a charge -- before a Grand Jury. They are saying to the jurors, "We, the prosecutors, think that evidence exists sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant you, the Grand Jury, upon hearing the evidence that we will present, to bring an indictment against Barry Bonds on the charge perjuring himself before the Grand Jury."

Barry Bonds has NOT been indicted by the Grand Jury. To say so is wrong. Whether the prosecution succeeds in getting an indictment remains to be seen.

Because perjuring oneself before a Grand Jury is a punishable offense, prosecutors can get sometimes get two bites at the apple. This may be the case in the Bonds affair.

Why do prosecutors use Grand Juries?

After laying a charge before a Grand Jury, the prosecution then presents its evidence and calls testimony, all in secret. At no point is there any defense argument presented, nor is testimony cross-examined.

It is essential to know that when prosecutors have evidence in hand that they feel is sufficient to obtain a conviction in court, they rarely bother with a Grand Jury. They go to Grand Juries when they have suspicions but don't have enough evidence -- because the Grand Jury has the power to order witnesses to appear and to compel testimony under oath. They may also use a Grand Jury when they think that they might be able to obtain a single conviction on a crime, but they suspect that more than one person might be involved in criminal activity and they wish to explore this.

This means that prosecutors can seek to obtain evidence through the Grand Jury that they cannot get any other way. It also means that where they fail -- even with help of the Grand Jury's powers -- to get what they want, they can then have at their disposal an additional weapon: They can claim that their failure was not the fault of their own case, but the fault of witnesses who withheld or falsified testimony and thus misled the Grand Jurors.

In short, they can allege that it wasn't us, it was them. Witnesses can then be recalled for fresh rounds of testimony.

Are Grand Juries subject to abuse?

Yes. There are many examples of abuse, and there have been many calls over the years for reform and even abolition of the Grand Jury system.

[Mattingly]

sandlot, if the grand jury had not indicted Barry Bonds, then why were so many news & sports journalists running with the story that he'd been indicted, rather than just having his case sent to a grand jury (in hopes of obtaining an indictment)?

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: I don't have any idea what makes you think that I'd presumed Bonds' guilt.

i took this:
"you'd asked why the degree of certainty, which I can understand. This being that Bonds was indicted for something he's *ACCUSED* of, which is that he's been accused of lying under oath, and that the Federal Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to go forward."
to mean that your certainty of bonds being guilty was because he was indicted.
(my underlining)

[BoweryBoys]

"What has happened is that the prosecutors have now laid a fresh indictment -- that is, a charge -- before a Grand Jury. They are saying to the jurors, "We, the prosecutors, think that evidence exists sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant you, the Grand Jury, upon hearing the evidence that we will present, to bring an indictment against Barry Bonds on the charge perjuring himself before the Grand Jury."

Sorry Sandlot, you are 100 percent wrong and showing that contrary to what you try to imply you do not understand the proceedings and workings of a grand jury.

"Barry Bonds has NOT been indicted by the Grand Jury. To say so is wrong. Whether the prosecution succeeds in getting an indictment remains to be seen."

Again, sorry but you are wrong. Bonds HAS been indicted, on 4 counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. A grand jury indictment IS NOT simply a prosecutor bringing a charge before a grand jury. An idictment is the result of a grand jury passing a true-bill, essentially saying that the prosecution has shown sufficeint cause for a person to be bound over for trial on criminal offenses. Basically what a grand jury does is deliberate such as a trail jury does on all the evidence presented and if they vote a true-bill then the will be a trial unless the accused pleads out before hand.

Sorry Sandlot, you either don't know what you are talking about or are deliberate in your attempts to play down the situation that Bonds is facing. Bonds has been indicted, it is not a fresh charge for the grand jury to consider, that has already been done. A grand jury indictment is not the prosecutor asking the GJ to consider possible charges, it is the end result of the GJ deciding that the evidence in their opinion warrants a trial. The prosecution has already succeeded in obtaining indictments and Bonds is alreadu facing 5 felony criminal charges against a federal government with a 95 percent success rate of those cases that go to trial.

[digglahhh]

But, Bowery Boys, I think you are missing a key point.

I've seen figures stating that as high as 99% of cases brought before a grand jury result in indictment.

The question is not whether Bonds is or isn't indicted, or when it happened. The issue is how poignant a predictor of guilt a grand jury indictment is.

An indictment, to me, is worthless as a predictor of guilt, in and of itself. What some of us are trying to address is whether it the (bad pun coming) conviction one has in the belief that Bonds is guilty should be intensified as the result of finding out he was indicted.

Pardon me, I'm off to fix myself a ham sandwich.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: I don't have any idea what makes you think that I'd presumed Bonds' guilt.

i took this:
"you'd asked why the degree of certainty, which I can understand. This being that Bonds was indicted for something he's *ACCUSED* of, which is that he's been accused of lying under oath, and that the Federal Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to go forward."
to mean that your certainty of bonds being guilty was because he was indicted.
(my underlining)
I'm still unsure as to what you're saying. According to what the various headlines screamed, Barry Bonds was indicted for perjury (lying under oath) to a grand jury. Should I be taken to task for repeating information that had been given to us all?

My only "certainty" when I'd written anything was that Barry Bonds was indicted. You'd mentioned my certainty of his guilt. I don't have any idea how an indictment would relate somehow to someone's guilt, and I don't remember having said that Barry Bonds would be found guilty in this instance we're discussing, in a court of law.

There are quite a few people who feel that Bonds did in fact use PEDs (some would even say "knowingly"), so you'd be accusing quite a few people of this if that is what you're referring to. As to whether or not he will be found guilty in a criminal court, I don't believe I've ever expressed any such opinion.

[west coast orange and black]

digglahhh: Pardon me, I'm off to fix myself a ham sandwich.

funny. but with rains stepping to the side shortly, what will the next easily indicted board menu item be?

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: My only "certainty" when I'd written anything was that Barry Bonds was indicted.

ok, my mistake.
when the topic was whether bonds lied under oath, we had this sequence:

Mattingly: I presume that if he/she said that Bonds had lied under oath, you'd call him/her on this.

wcoab: most likely, i would ask for the reason(s) of the certainty.

Mattingly: …you'd asked why the degree of certainty, which I can understand. This being that Bonds was indicted…

i took that to mean that to you, the indictment certified that bonds lied.
now i got it.

[digglahhh]

Pay attention guys, because here's where you will see a lot people revealing themselves as hypocrites who really don't respect the tenets of the judicial process.

A lot of people who decried the innocent until proven guilty mantra justified such a reckless dismissal of civil rights by claiming that the court of public opinion/HOF/whatever is not subject to the evidential onus that a court of law is. They claimed that an actual trial is a different matter altogether. Here we see Bonds in a court of law. Pay attention and watch these same people cavalierly dismiss the increased burden of evidence that now exists - they will just as impetuously as they did before - the fact that the burden of proof, and the stakes are both raised will make no difference.

[sandlot]

"What has happened is that the prosecutors have now laid a fresh indictment -- that is, a charge -- before a Grand Jury. They are saying to the jurors, "We, the prosecutors, think that evidence exists sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant you, the Grand Jury, upon hearing the evidence that we will present, to bring an indictment against Barry Bonds on the charge perjuring himself before the Grand Jury."


Sorry Sandlot, you are 100 percent wrong and showing that contrary to what you try to imply you do not understand the proceedings and workings of a grand jury.As I wrote further back, if things have proceeded in the Bonds case beyond the point I'm describing, that is to say the process has gone further, then I stand to be corrected by those who are following events more closely. When I had last checked in, the prosecutors were seeking an indictment and that was the status quo. However, if the GJ has in fact handed down an indictment since then, then it's a whole new ball game. But what I wrote about the process itself, I stand by: Prosecutors don't indict, Grand Juries do. That is the essential point. BTW, having worked in the criminal justice system, and specifically on reform of the Grand Jury process (though it was some years ago), I have a pretty decent idea how they work.

"Barry Bonds has NOT been indicted by the Grand Jury. To say so is wrong. Whether the prosecution succeeds in getting an indictment remains to be seen."

Again, sorry but you are wrong. Bonds HAS been indicted, on 4 counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. A grand jury indictment IS NOT simply a prosecutor bringing a charge before a grand jury. An idictment is the result of a grand jury passing a true-bill, essentially saying that the prosecution has shown sufficeint cause for a person to be bound over for trial on criminal offenses. Basically what a grand jury does is deliberate such as a trail jury does on all the evidence presented and if they vote a true-bill then the will be a trial unless the accused pleads out before hand. Please, go back and look at (a) the second sentence in the quote, and (b) what I wrote prior to that. "Whether the prosecution succeeds in getting an indictment remains to be seen." Again, if the jury has in fact handed down an indictment, then that's a new development and indeed Bonds has been indicted. But at the point I wrote this, all I had seen was a story saying prosecutors were seeking an indictment, and at that point he had NOT been indicted.

We actually agree on the process. I said that a Grand Jury indictment is NOT just prosecutors bringing a charge to the Jury. It's the Jury agreeing beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is sufficient and the process goes from there. That's very clear in my post. We are saying exactly the same thing. The problem I was trying to point up, is that many posts have been confused just that point, and each time prosecutors have sought an indictment, some people have been under the impression that someone has actually been indicted. If a GJ has indicted him, then that's the latest state of play, but until this, to the best of my knowledge, no Grand Jury had indicted Bonds, despite previous attempts by prosecutors to secure an indictment.

Sorry Sandlot, you either don't know what you are talking about or are deliberate in your attempts to play down the situation that Bonds is facing. Bonds has been indicted, it is not a fresh charge for the grand jury to consider, that has already been done. If this is in fact where things stand, then -- I repeat -- he's been indicted. Before this, he hadn't been.

A grand jury indictment is not the prosecutor asking the GJ to consider possible charges, it is the end result of the GJ deciding that the evidence in their opinion warrants a trial. We agree completely on the process.

The prosecution has already succeeded in obtaining indictments and Bonds is alreadu facing 5 felony criminal charges against a federal government with a 95 percent success rate of those cases that go to trial.If they've succeeded in obtaining those indictments, then Bonds is indeed in heavy waters. But I'm unsure about those success rate figures, not only because WCOAB has posted different figures, but because I have a good idea what those "success" rates hide and the abuses that lurk within. Unlike many people of lesser resources, Bonds can contest matters a long way.

Finally, I have no interest whatsoever in making Bonds' position look anything other than it is, which would also be clear looking at all that I have written. I do harbor great reservations about the entire system that is at work.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly: My only "certainty" when I'd written anything was that Barry Bonds was indicted.

ok, my mistake.
when the topic was whether bonds lied under oath, we had this sequence:

Mattingly: I presume that if he/she said that Bonds had lied under oath, you'd call him/her on this.

wcoab: most likely, i would ask for the reason(s) of the certainty.

Mattingly: …you'd asked why the degree of certainty, which I can understand. This being that Bonds was indicted…

i took that to mean that to you, the indictment certified that bonds lied.
now i got it.
All I was saying was that if someone said that Bonds *HAD* lied, then I could understand your calling him/her on this (if it was someone you'd met in person socially for lunch, etc).

If that same person said that Bonds had been *ACCUSED* of lying, then you wouldn't.

As to my thoughts, I tend to believe that he knew what he was doing, that he'd known what Greg Anderson was giving him. Otherwise, I think that he'd have cried "foul" that he'd grown so big and gotten so many monster numbers. He just seems too guilty for my use, but I won't go so far as to say that he *DID* take those illegal substances. I just believe that there's a greater reason to feel that he did take them than there is to believe that he did not take them.

[Walt Zink]

Taken from just one of many ESPN.com pages about Bonds.

"Barry Bonds was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, charged with lying when he told a federal grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs."

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3113231

Plask: "As opposed to a month ago?"

Well, a month ago, we were discussing where Bonds could possibly end up. So he obviously lost millions of dollars in that potential one year deal, if not more.

West: "what do you suppose the new evidence is that the first and second grand juries rejected (and chose not to indict)?"

Now, these indictments I believe are for something altogether different. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think these are fresh charges they sought on Bonds.

[sandlot]

Just had a chance to look at this piece by Lance Williams in the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/01/MNOOTLG9H.DTL

So, Bonds has indeed now been indicted, and has made his first appearance before a court. So at last we can all say that he's been indicted by a Grand Jury and it will be an accurate statement. There are four perjury counts and one count of obstruction of justice, and they stem from testimony in previous appearance(s). Without having seen the charges, I assume they relate to testimony he gave in when called as a witness in the Balco investigation. From the article, it appears that the proscution will try to use what other ballplayers have said to undermine his credibility. As the article relates, Conte has said he never gave Bonds anything, and Anderson refused to give evidence against Bonds. It looks like they will try to use other materials pertaining to Bonds that they gathered in searches to show that he was being kept on some kind of schedule, and that this schedule coincided with the schedules for people who've admitted using PEDs, so this is circumstantial evidence of his use. Then they'll have to show that he knowingly used, and the Sheffield and Giambi testimony becomes important. If they can show that he knew that he'd used, then they can make the case that he perjured himself before the Grand Jury. If not, then I don't know where it goes, except perhaps they might argue that he even if he didn't exactly lie, he didn't exactly tell the whole truth and was selective, thus misleading the Grand Jury and obstructing justice.

[BoweryBoys]

"So, Bonds has indeed now been indicted, and has made his first appearance before a court."

Yes, and that has been the case since about 14 or 15 November but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume where you live you didn't know that as of the 28th of November and that you were not being deliberately biased and/or disingenous.

Anyway, I don't really care how Bond's trial turns out. Of course it is fair to debate guilt or innocence. What I can't understand is the debate on the fact of the indictments and such mis-statements being made two weks after the facts of Bonds indictment. Also, the misrepresentation that a GJ indictment is simply a prosecutor making a charge before a GJ doesn't wash as well as the overplayed political type statements with show bias such as the overblown claims of GJ abuse. Let us all just let this matter play out in court under due process of law. The sad thing is no matter how this plays out, it will not change many of the minds of Bonds distractors of supporters.

[west coast orange and black]

wcoab: what do you suppose the new evidence is that the first and second grand juries rejected (and chose not to indict)?

walt zink: Now, these indictments I believe are for something altogether different. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think these are fresh charges they sought on Bonds.

the balco raids were in early september 2003.
bonds testified 3 months later, in early december.
that grand jury did not indict bonds - it twice rejected the requests of the feds.

fast-forward nearly 3 full years.
an indictment was handed down despite no new evidence since the september 2003 raids.
this leads one to think about the very nature of the indictment - politically-minded? personal?
i think that "fresh charges" does not apply here.
i think that the feds are willing to make a go of anything that might possibly stick.

[sandlot]

"So, Bonds has indeed now been indicted, and has made his first appearance before a court."

Yes, and that has been the case since about 14 or 15 November but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume where you live you didn't know that as of the 28th of November and that you were not being deliberately biased and/or disingenous.Thanks for being charitable and forgiving, when it would be much easier to look for a conspiracy or some hidden agenda. Believe me, this is not front-page news in many parts of the world, or even back-page; here, we've been rather more taken up with things like the Kitty Hawk and several thousand American sailors denied a chance to spend Thanksgiving with their families who had flown in, or the two US ships at sea in a storm being denied safe haven, etc., etc. The Bonds saga has simply had a hard time getting the ink it deserves.

Anyway, I don't really care how Bond's trial turns out. Of course it is fair to debate guilt or innocence. What I can't understand is the debate on the fact of the indictments and such mis-statements being made two weks after the facts of Bonds indictment. Also, the misrepresentation that a GJ indictment is simply a prosecutor making a charge before a GJ doesn't wash as well as the overplayed political type statements with show bias such as the overblown claims of GJ abuse.I hate repeating myself but go back, please, and re-read what I wrote, twice. I expressly stated in what should have been unmistakably clear terms that a prosecutor laying a charge does not an indictment make. So I think we can end that non-existent disagreement right there. Also, there is nothing whatsoever biased in saying, accurately, that abuse of the GJ system is a widespread and longstanding phenomenon plaguing the criminal justice system. Examples abound. E.g., please go to the link that I provided and read Lance Williams' article on the indictments against Bonds.. You'll see that he pointedly states that "if" this case ever comes to trial, and goes on to talk about the likelihood of pleading out. This is not unique to Grand Juries, true, but the power of GJ's is so wide that abuse, where is occurs (and it occurs far too often), can be grievous indeed. GJ's are a prosecutor's tool, sometimes a prosecution dream. It is remarkable that Bonds has, according to WCOAB's post, was called before two Grand Juries and until now had been indicted for nothing. It is also interesting, at least to me, that Williams correctly cites the possibility of Bonds negotiating a plea, but does not mention the possibility that Bonds might choose to fight. I am unsure how to interpret that omission, but it's possible to read it as a subtle suggestion -- perhaps even an unconscious one -- that the writer assumes guilt and not innocence. Or maybe it's just an oversight.Let us all just let this matter play out in court under due process of law. The sad thing is no matter how this plays out, it will not change many of the minds of Bonds distractors of supporters.Barry's detractors abound. Letting it play out according to due process is absolutely right. Everyone should bear in mind, however, that due process is a variable concept: The threshold of proof admissible in a court will be different than that which applied in the Grand Jury. The GJ only has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is sufficient to hand down an indictment; once in a proper trial, a jury would be asked to judge whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the charge. A big difference.

[digglahhh]

In theory, the GJ process is more than a prosecutor laying a charge. However, if in practice, 90+% of all cases brought in front of a grand jury result in indictment, then the process defines itself as a rubber-stamping.

[Walt Zink]

wcoab: what do you suppose the new evidence is that the first and second grand juries rejected (and chose not to indict)?

walt zink: Now, these indictments I believe are for something altogether different. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think these are fresh charges they sought on Bonds.

the balco raids were in early september 2003.
bonds testified 3 months later, in early december.
that grand jury did not indict bonds - it twice rejected the requests of the feds.

fast-forward nearly 3 full years.
an indictment was handed down despite no new evidence since the september 2003 raids.
this leads one to think about the very nature of the indictment - politically-minded? personal?
i think that "fresh charges" does not apply here.
i think that the feds are willing to make a go of anything that might possibly stick.

have you actually read the full indictment? if you're privy to all the evidence and whether or not there's new evidence, then that's a pretty hefty thing to claim. it doesn't even matter if there isn't such evidence that's new. all they have to do is convince them that there is enough verifiable proof to bring him to trial, and it all depends on who's listening and how they interpret it, just like we do.

[west coast orange and black]

walt zink: have you actually read the full indictment?
yes. it is public property, so anyone can read it.


it doesn't even matter if there isn't such evidence that's new .... it all depends on who's listening and how they interpret it
agreed.
kinda like a cousin of mine when, in high school, he would ask any/every girl in sight if she wanted to dance...
'til one answered yes.

[Brian McKenna]

In theory, the GJ process is more than a prosecutor laying a charge. However, if in practice, 90+% of all cases brought in front of a grand jury result in indictment, then the process defines itself as a rubber-stamping.

What % of crimes actually make it to the GJ process? What % do DAs take through the GJ process? Do they take the weak cases they don't feel they can win or the stronger ones?

[digglahhh]

kinda like a cousin of mine when, in high school, he would ask any/every girl in sight if she wanted to dance...
'til one answered yes.

Bo Belinsky is your cousin?... Cool!

[digglahhh]

What % of crimes actually make it to the GJ process? What % do DAs take through the GJ process? Do they take the weak cases they don't feel they can win or the stronger ones?

I don't know, per se.

In the weakest cases, I would guess that a plea is heavily sought.

I know many childhood friends who have been indicted on the basis of very weak evidence. The vast majority of those trials didn't result in convictions - and we're talking about young minority males with public defenders here, everything set up for high conviction rate.

We know that the decision to indict is subject to class and racial bias in the first place, that has been widely documented. So, I don't know how we account for that.

But, just for a very rough comparison, conviction rates don't approach the upper-ninety percents. So, indictments are at least disproportionate to convictions, whatever estimate of the strength of a case you can draw from that...

As far as indictments against those with the money to hire a legal team like Bonds's we're talking a whole other, ahem, ballgame.

I also think conviction rates are skewed because, I believe, they include pleas for charges other than the one(s) sought. It is tough to interpret all the numbers because, a)they don't all mean what they seem to - they are calculated in ways that aren't self-evident; and b)they are different for various racial, economic classes of individuals.

[sandlot]

I don't know, per se.

In the weakest cases, I would guess that a plea is heavily sought.It depends on the level we're talking about. When Federal prosecutors seek an indictment, they usually (but not always) try to bring the toughest case they can to the Grand Jury. There are different purposes in doing this. One is to let the defendants know how strong the case against them is, and to then seek pleas on this basis. That is why it is somewhat surprising that they are now seeking to get Bonds on perjury charges.

Now, I'm not surprised that they are dedicated to nailing Bonds; it's been clear for a long time that he's their Big Enchilada. But perjury is a difficult charge to prove. It often turns on the perceived integrity of the witnesses where there is no other hard evidence obtainable. Juries -- and I'm speaking here of juries in court cases -- are not dumb. One of the first questions a juror asks himself or herself is: If they can prove this guy is lying, why don't they just charge him with the crime in the first place? And if they haven't charged him with the crime, does that mean the evidence against him isn't very strong? In the Bonds case, the witnesses called may be dubious themselves (we'll see, if it gets to court). There exists, it's reported, some kind of lab test(s) labeled "Barry B" and indicating evidence of steroid use. If this test was taken by Balco, and can be shown to belong to Barry Bonds (and not to some other athlete named, e.g., Barry Brown), it must then be asked: How reputable is Balco and how definitive is a test taken by them? And on and on. And, of course, Bonds' defense is that he never "knowingly" used.

I know many childhood friends who have been indicted on the basis of very weak evidence. The vast majority of those trials didn't result in convictions - and we're talking about young minority males with public defenders here, everything set up for high conviction rate.Unless your childhood friends were an extraordinarily naughty gang or Cosa Nostra offspring, dgl, I'd guess they were not rung up by Federal Grand Juries. The lower the level one goes, the more the insdequacies and abuses of the Grand Jury system show themselves.

We know that the decision to indict is subject to class and racial bias in the first place, that has been widely documented. So, I don't know how we account for that.

But, just for a very rough comparison, conviction rates don't approach the upper-ninety percents. So, indictments are at least disproportionate to convictions, whatever estimate of the strength of a case you can draw from that...

As far as indictments against those with the money to hire a legal team like Bonds's we're talking a whole other, ahem, ballgame.

I also think conviction rates are skewed because, I believe, they include pleas for charges other than the one(s) sought. It is tough to interpret all the numbers because, a)they don't all mean what they seem to - they are calculated in ways that aren't self-evident; and b)they are different for various racial, economic classes of individuals.Absolutely. Aside from the institutional biases, I'd say your key point is the skewing of the "conviction" rates. These statistics can be massaged so many ways as to render them almost useless.

In the Bonds case, another point arises that is distinct from the Grand Juries. It's the role of money. Someone like Bonds can afford the best legal defense money can buy, but all too often when people achieve that lofty status they become very, very difficult clients indeed. They hire, they fire, they dictate, they assert control. Then, often enough, they lose.

[Mattingly]

walt zink: have you actually read the full indictment?
yes. it is public property, so anyone can read it.
Do you need some Freedom of Information request, or is this available online? If so, can this be retrieved w/o requiring a username and password from a supplier, such as a court system?

[VTSoxFan]

Do you need some Freedom of Information request, or is this available online? If so, can this be retrieved w/o requiring a username and password from a supplier, such as a court system?

Here ya go, Matt:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1115072bonds1.html

[Mattingly]

Here ya go, Matt:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1115072bonds1.html
I was just about to edit my post when I'd searched and found it.

Thanks, Annie! :D

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: Now, I'm not surprised that they are dedicated to nailing Bonds; it's been clear for a long time that he's their Big Enchilada.
true for the feds as it was for fainaru-wada and williams.


...does that mean the evidence against him isn't very strong?
proper line of personal thinking and group-think.


How reputable is Balco and how definitive is a test taken by them? And on and on.
a positive test result leads to many questions asked about the who, what, where, why and how of the result. it's a tough road for the proscecution.

(sandlot, although bonds was tested regularly by balco, the test result(s) that the feds are salivating over was/were farmed out by balco to a company named quest diagnostics.)


They hire, they fire, they dictate, they assert control. Then, often enough, they lose.
true. take a look at phil specter's actions.
though his trial resulted with a hung jury (leaning heavily to convict), he was all over the place.

[Mattingly]

I'm just curious, say for argument's sake that this thing goes to trial. Let's also say that Barry Bonds is convicted by a jury of 12. He serves about 20-24 months in jail. What happens after that to him? Would MLB have any rights to take any action against him, such as banning him from the game?

[rockin500]

I'm just curious, say for argument's sake that this thing goes to trial. Let's also say that Barry Bonds is convicted by a jury of 12. He serves about 20-24 months in jail. What happens after that to him? Would MLB have any rights to take any action against him, such as banning him from the game?
i dont think they want to go down that path. unless they are willing to ban EVERYONE who used, I dont see how they could legitimately do so. He already has a mental asterisk by many people and is a pariah.

i honestly wouldnt be surprised if he actually walks.

[Mattingly]

i dont think they want to go down that path. unless they are willing to ban EVERYONE who used, I dont see how they could legitimately do so. He already has a mental asterisk by many people and is a pariah.

i honestly wouldnt be surprised if he actually walks.
Since the HoF Committee (or whatever they call it) is independent of MLB, I guess that if, for argument's sake, a player were banned, as in the case of Pete Rose, he would also have to forsake any potential entry into Cooperstown by allowing himself to be ineligible?

Anyway, that's just for argument's sake, since I figured that if he were to be even convicted, they'd have to prove somehow that he knew what he was taking, and that he'd have actually taken some kind of steroids and/or other PEDs.

I have an "I'll believe it when I see it" thing about this, since if they'd really wanted to harm him, if any strong evidence were there, short of Greg Anderson testifying, the Feds would've done this last season.

[digglahhh]

i honestly wouldnt be surprised if he actually walks.

This is a contender for unintentional pun of the year!

[Mattingly]

This is a contender for unintentional pun of the year!
Nice catching the joke. Would Barry be able to walk just one more time? I wonder if he could also run away from this whole thing. :D

[sandlot]

sandlot: Now, I'm not surprised that they are dedicated to nailing Bonds; it's been clear for a long time that he's their Big Enchilada.
true for the feds as it was for fainaru-wada and williams.


...does that mean the evidence against him isn't very strong?
proper line of personal thinking and group-think.


How reputable is Balco and how definitive is a test taken by them? And on and on.
a positive test result leads to many questions asked about the who, what, where, why and how of the result. it's a tough road for the proscecution.

(sandlot, although bonds was tested regularly by balco, the test result(s) that the feds are salivating over was/were farmed out by balco to a company named quest diagnostics.)


They hire, they fire, they dictate, they assert control. Then, often enough, they lose.
true. take a look at phil specter's actions.
though his trial resulted with a hung jury (leaning heavily to convict), he was all over the place.Thanks to Annie for posting the link to the indictment.

The transcript helpfully reminds all of us right at the start that Bonds testified under a grant of immunity. He could have admitted using steroids, HGH, or anything else during his testimony and not faced prosecution on that basis. But he was specifically not immune from perjury charges based on his testimony. So right off we know that perjury is the only thing they can try him on. A juror will now ask a question, to which the prosecution in its opening argument will respond: "Why would Bonds, given a grant of immunity, choose to lie?" I think the response the prosecution will offer is this: "It doesn't matter to this case why Bary Bonds lied. You are not being asked to assess his motives. His reasons for doing anything are not your concern here. The one and only thing you must decide, and it is all you must decide and nothing more, is whether your are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Barry Bonds did in fact lie to the Grand Jury in violation of his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

(1) One thing clear (no pun intended) from the passages quoted is that Bonds was entirely consistent in his denial that he ever knowingly took anything that he either knew or had reason to believe was a steroid or HGH.

(2) Bonds admitted accepting something (cream and clear) from Anderson, whom he viewed as a trustworthy friend, who applied it to him during a period when he (Bonds) was depressed and fighting fatigue. Anderson tells him it will help. Bonds says "whatever."

(3) Anderson gives him more whenever the Giants are in town. The fact that Bonds accepts it, and was apparently continuing to use it (though that's not stated in the indictment), suggests that it made Bonds feel better or else there would have been no point in his continuing to use it.

A question arises: If the clear and cream helped, did Bonds at any point ask himself, "Gee, I wonder that's in this stuff that makes me feel better?" Better enough, apparently, that Bonds allegedly then recommended it to Sheffield, according to testimony given by Sheffield (also not in the indictment). This could form an important part of the case.

(4) The prosecutors ask about syringes. This could be taken as asking if Bonds had ever been injected by Anderson or anyone from Balco. Bonds says he never had anyone use a syringe on him except his personal physician, perhaps a team doctor, and doctors involved in his surgeries. This reference to syringes seems from the transcript to be in the context of injections. What is not clear, because it was not directly asked in the quoted testimony, was about any use of syringes for withdrawing samples.

If someone did tests relating to a "BB," and "BB" is in fact Barry Bonds, then that test would assumedly involve blood or urine. There is no mention of urine-taking in the transcript, nor specifically of blood-taking, just to the use of "syringes." So if samples of something taken from Bonds exist, or existed at one time, what form were they in, how was that material obtained, and by whom? It could be argued, and it wouldn't require much persuasion, that if someone other than a physician were to have taken blood from him, that Bonds would remember it -- especially if he and Anderson did not have that kind of relationship, as Bonds maintains in the testimony quoted. Of course, the tests referred to could be tests taken as a result of some other program, or perhaps even have appeared in some hospital report.

(5) There is some inconsistency in the dates when Bonds says Anderson first gave him the cream and clear. The prosecutors go back to this several times, and Bonds' recollection is generally around the end of the 2002 season, or 2003. But in one question the year 2001 arises and in the answer Bonds doesn't contest the date. In itself, this might not mean much, but as the prosecution has other materials that they are trying to link with, and Bonds -- as he mentions -- had not seen the materials in the prosecution's possession (another big difference between a Grand Jury and a trial involving discovery), then the Feds might be holding a card that says Bonds was specifically tested for steroids at some point prior to when he testified that he began accepting he materials from Anderson. This is conjecture, but as they're charging him with perjury, it has to be on the basis of something.

This case could become technical if they start bringing in results of tests taken by third parties. Handling procedures, possible contamination, methodologies, sophistication of testing, secondary testing, all the kinds of stuff that experts have to testify about. The defense will of course challenge everything it can.

In the end, though, it could all come down to credibility. Whom will the jurors believe? It would be no surprise to see the Feds try to have this case shifted to another venue where they can get a jury less disposed toward believing Barry Bonds. Looking at what's in this skeletal indictment, it will also be no surprise if this case ultimately turns on a question that older BBFers will recall from another and even more famous context: What did he know and when did he know it?