Barry Bonds Indicted

[AustinHoya03]

Federal charges, perjury and obstruction of justice.

www.nbc11.com/news/14608788/detail.html

[DanMcQ]

*

[TBird41]

Well...there goes my first choice to be the Twins DH...

[kchoya]

Anyone else out there have any experience with perjury charges (hopefully not personally!)? Reading through the indictment, it seems like a lot of the underlined testimony (the supposed purjury) is "I don't think I did" or "I don't recall." More gray area than I would be comfortable with as a prosecutor. Also, the obstruction of justice charges basically seems to be "he committed perjury, so he obstructed justice."

Not a big bonds fan, but it'll be interesting to see how this case plays out. Seems like the gov't is stretching on this one.

[ExcitableBoy]

Oh my gosh!! Bonds was indicted!!?? Why isn't Sports Center covering this??

[kchoya]

excitableboy said:

Oh my gosh!! Bonds was indicted!!?? Why isn't Sports Center covering this??

F'in sportscenter & ESPN. Not only is it all bonds all the time, thus ruining any meaningful coverage of other sports, including GU, but it's throwing off the schedule so my attempts to TiVo shows with possible GU highlights were foiled.

[Deleted]

danmcq said:

*

I found this interesting:

"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," the indictment said.

And then this:

Bonds has never been identified by Major League Baseball as testing positive for steroids.

So... uh... what are the feds talking about?

Also, the article mentions Greg Anderson was released when the indictment came down. Could he have flipped on Bonds? I can't seem to figure out another way the feds could go into court and say "Bonds DID knowingly take 'roids" unless Anderson will testify "I told Barry these were 'roids right before I injected them into his ass." Without him, I just can't see how they can prove "I never knowingly took steroids" is an out-and-out lie worthy of perjury charges.

And as an aside - is this four year investigation and soon-to-be-circus of a trial really the best allocation of the Justice Department's resources?

[hoyarooter]

Most likely Anderson was released from the hole because the grand jury concluded its work. I don't think he can be any longer held in contempt when he can no longer be compelled to testify. Now that doesn't mean he didn't flip on Bonds, only that I believe the basis for his being kept in prison is gone. If this circus goes to trial, it will be interesting to see what Anderson does, as Bonds' defense may hinge on a claim that Anderson deceived him.

The two statements you quote aren't necessarily contradictory. Just because MLB has never identified Bonds as testing positive doesn't mean there aren't records of his testing positive available.

[hifigator]

In previous cases, sometimes the feds would ask the team or MLB, as the case may be, to not comment on matters because their investigation was still ongoing. It could be that is why we haven't heard MLB comment. I don't know, just a guess.

[Oh My!]

Best indicator of the representation Barry is getting from his attorney, Mike Rains:

During the press conference to respond to the indictment, Rains accuses the federal prosecutors of "unethical misconduct".

Is that the greatest oxymoron ever?

[Deleted]

PEDRO GOMEZ LIVES!!!

[AustinHoya03]

buffalohoya said:

And as an aside - is this four year investigation and soon-to-be-circus of a trial really the best allocation of the Justice Department's resources?

Well, from the DoJ's point of view, the integrity of grand jury proceedings is probably the single most important part of prosecuting individuals for federal crimes.

There's already a public perception that Barry lied to the grand jury thanks to the book Game of Shadows and the coverage it received from ESPN and other big media. The DoJ is probably trying to protect the integrity of the system with this prosecution as much as it is trying to get Barry.

However, I also agree with kc that this looks like a very difficult case to prosecute. In addition to the points he made above, it should be pointed out that this indictment is written to seem as if the government has some big piece of evidence. Which they may well have, but they could also have nothing at all and are just trying to force Barry into a plea of guilty.

If that's the case, then the four-year investigation/trial/circus would be a waste of time. But if there is evidence to back up these charges, I'm sure the DoJ feels it necessary to go forward, even if the charges will be difficult to prove.

[AustinHoya03]

kchoya said:

Also, the obstruction of justice charges basically seems to be "he committed perjury, so he obstructed justice."

That's true, but his perjury fits the bill of what obstruction of justice is. If the government can add a charge, why not do so and put itself in a better position to negotiate a plea offer? Perhaps this is further evidence that the government may just be pressuring Barry to enter a plea of guilty?

[theexorcist]

buffalohoya said:

danmcq said:

*

(snip)

And as an aside - is this four year investigation and soon-to-be-circus of a trial really the best allocation of the Justice Department's resources?

Yes, absolutely. Steroids remains a massive public health issue, and certain states have begun to test for them. With the Beijing Olympics coming up, steroids will get more publicity. Nailing someone who, if guilty, would be representative of both someone who has taken steroids over a prolonged period and who has shown contempt towards the USG is a great way to send a message - it may take a while, but we'll catch you.

The analysis I have seen is that DOJ doesn't go into a case this big unless they expect to win. Losing a case is much worse than not bringing charges at all.

[rosslynhoya]

buffalohoya said:

danmcq said:

*

"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," the indictment said.

And then this:

Bonds has never been identified by Major League Baseball as testing positive for steroids.

So... uh... what are the feds talking about?

The two statements aren't contradictory at all.

According to the wall-to-wall coverage on BB Indictment Day,

1. the feds obtained evidence from BALCO that indicated that Bonds failed drug tests that were administered in-house by BALCO.

2. Bonds has still never failed any officially administered drug tests.

[kchoya]

austinhoya03 said:

kchoya said:

Also, the obstruction of justice charges basically seems to be "he committed perjury, so he obstructed justice."

That's true, but his perjury fits the bill of what obstruction of justice is. If the government can add a charge, why not do so and put itself in a better position to negotiate a plea offer? Perhaps this is further evidence that the government may just be pressuring Barry to enter a plea of guilty?

Oh, I agree, esp. from the prosecution's perspective. That's just the defense lawyer in me getting Editeded whenever a prosecutor charges a client with two different crimes for one act (and the elements being essentially the same).

[AustinHoya03]

Barry says "not guilty" in a courtroom -- expect this to receive 45 minutes of coverage on SportsCenter tonight.

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3145443

[AustinHoya03]

theexorcist said:

The analysis I have seen is that DOJ doesn't go into a case this big unless they expect to win. Losing a case is much worse than not bringing charges at all.

Sorry for the late response -- I just saw this. I'm not sure that is true in this case.

Compare this to the Robert Durst murder case in Galveston (refresher: www.courttv.com/trials/durst/index.html). After prosecutors charged Durst, he was essentially convicted in the media. After he was acquitted, the story was "Slimy defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin wins acquittal for obviously guilty client," not "Government witch hunt ends."

Although it's trite, you can say the same thing about The State vs. The Juice. Over a decade after OJ's acquittal, there remains no doubt in the public's mind he was guilty. If the prosecutors in that case are criticized at all today, it's for doing a subpar job in the courtroom, and not for bringing charges.

In Barry's case, he's also been convicted by the public and the media, and that won't change no matter what happens in this case. In other words, it is almost impossible for confidence in government investigations/prosecutions to be undermined by failure to get a conviction in this case, which is the reason losing a case is usually much worse than not bringing charges at all.

While it's true Barry isn't charged with murder, and I think the perjury charges will be difficult for the government to prove, the first people we're going to hear from on ESPN if Bonds is acquitted are Pedro Gomez and Mark Fainaru-Wada, who will say a guilty man walked.