If I were more of a baseball fan, I’m sure I would have a much more visceral reaction to the news that a jury convicted Barry Bonds on one count of obstruction of justice. As for the three other counts against the slugger, the judge declared a mistrial. Which, if I understand things correctly, means that Bonds could be retried on those counts.
According to another article in the LA Times (hat tip to Jeff for posting the link in a comment to the previous post:
Jurors said they concluded that Bonds had been evasive before the grand jury, but they disagreed on whether he had knowingly lied to the panel about using steroids or human growth hormones.
The case arises from testimony Bonds gave to a grand jury investigating the BALCO case. Bonds, like a number of other athletes, was given immunity from prosecution for testifying before the grand jury — assuming he told the truth about what he was involved in.
And this trial grew out of the government’s assertion that Bonds perjured himself during that testimony. What baffles me about the verdict is this: If the jury couldn’t agree that Bonds had perjured himself, how could his testimony to the grand jury — whether “evasive” or not — rise to the level of obstruction of justice.
No one ever said professional athletes were geniuses, and certainly Barry Bonds helps to illustrate that point. It seems to me that the question before the jury was on the order of, “Is Barry Bonds stupid enough to believe that he was only using ‘flaxseed oil’ or ‘arthritis cream’ supplied by Greg Anderson, his ‘personal trainer’?” (For the record, my answer would have been, “Yes, he really could be that stupid.”)
While many might hail the verdict as striking a blow for honesty in sports, and congratulate the government for finally getting their doper, I find the verdict a riddle. It seems to me that if he didn’t commit perjury, then his answers couldn’t have really obstructed justice. But given the mistrial on the other charges, I suppose a different jury may yet get to answer the question of whether Barry Bonds perjured himself. The jury foreman, quoted in the LA Times, made an interesting point:
“I think the government feeling was they had a really big fish with Bonds and they wanted to finish what they started,” said jury foreman Fred Jacob, 56. “Maybe they tried a little too hard to make him guilty.”
It will be interesting to see if Bonds gets a bigger sentence that Victor Conte did, way back when. (For those who don’t remember, Conte owned BALCO and was the guy who sold and distributed the formerly undetectable drugs that got a whole lot of athletes in hot water.)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Bonds will appeal. But for now, Barry Bonds can add one more title to his name. Convict.
Rant, if you’re looking for an explanation sympathetic to the government’s case and the jury’s decision, I’d look here: http://es.pn/fWPgTo.
It’s likely that Bonds will end up with some form of probation. No jail time is expected.
Next case: U.S. v. Roger Clemens (another baseball player, this one accused of lying to Congress).
Significant to those who lurk here: the jury appeared unwilling to believe any of the government’s witnesses. They appeared to convict Bonds on the basis of the evasive nature of Bonds’ grand jury testimony. But if juries are unwilling to believe the government’s witnesses in these cases, you might wonder whether the government would proceed against a POPULAR athlete … like Lance Armstrong.
From what I read the jury voted
8-4 to acquit for perjury on knowingly taking steroids and hgh.
11-1 to convict for falsely stating that only his doctor injected him with anything
(so hung jury since not unanamious)
12-0 to convict because he was evasive in answering the question about whether anybody but his doctor had ever injected him. This was the obstruction of justice count 4.
So it appears the juror who didn’t think he lied about the injection was willing to say he had been evasive.
You can read the jury instructions about the obstruction count 4 here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/barrybonds/ci_17793798?nclick_check=1
You can see that all he did was ramble on in a non responsive way. He had no attorney with him in the grand jury What gets me is that you get non-responsive witnesses all the time. The prosecutor was quite capable of asking followup questions to pin him down, but didn’t. Seems like a trap to me and one that should not have resulted in an obstruction charge.
However, the trial judge permitted it to go to the jury.
Hmmm. Let me see if I get this straight:
11-1 to covict for falsely stating (lying?) about the injectons.
12-0 to convict for evasive answering about the injections.
Isn’t evasive answering and falsely stating pretty much the same thing? (it’s a yes or no answer, isn’t it? Sir, were you ever injected by anybody except your doctor?) He either answered it or he didn’t….Both charges are for the same event (injections by other than his doctor). Sometimes I honestly just don’t get our legal system. I didn’t really know that ‘evasive answering’ is an indictable offense. IF one is guilty, of COURSE he will be evasive in answering. Nobody wants to say “Yes, I did it”. And any other answer (if you are guilty I mean to a ‘yes or no question’) is evasive or outright lying..which are pretty much the same thing I’d think. Oh well…now we get to wait and see where he goes from here. He already has an ‘*’ by his record as there seems to be no doubt that he was on steroids. I guess this whole thing at this point seems to be about saving face for the $$ spent on prosection over the years…to show that WE got something for our $. Just how far will the case go against LA is the 64$ question.
MattC,
Read page 11 of the jury instructions it outlines the testimony on which the obstruction charge is based. The underlined parts are apparently what the obstruction is based on.
The prosecutor asked Barry if Greg Anderson his trainer ever injected him with anything.
He answered only my doctor touched me (injected him), and then rambled on about his friendship for Greg and how he was a “celebrity child”.
One witness, testified that Greg had injected him.
One juror did not believe that witness, so found that Barry did not lie about the injections.
That juror and the other jurors apparently found that the non-responsive rambling was deceptive and evasive and thus obstruction. Pretty weak.
The defense is going to argue that the rambling was not deceptive or evasive, and even if it was, was not material to the grand jury investigation, since he had otherwise fully answered the original question about whether Greg Anderson had ever injected him.
In order for there to be obstruction or perjury for that matter, the evasion or intentional falsehood must be about a matter that is “material” to the investigation.
Seems to me Bonds would have been better off to have taken the fifth. If he did, no perjury or obstruction charges. He’s already pretty much convicted in the proverbial court of PR, so not much damage would have been done to his public image, such as it is.
Seems to me that sometimes perjury charges are a sort of consolation prize that prosecutors go for when for some reason they are unable to convict, or perhaps even indict, on the main charges. As such, it can seem to be petty and vindictive, especially to someone who has some sympathies for the accused. On the other hand, deliberately lying and/or obstructing are serious matters which should not go unpunished.
My bet is that Bonds was indeed trying to obstruct things by pushing the envelope and may well have crossed the boundary into the realm of perjury. But whether that rated all the attention given by the authorities, I don’t know.
Lying and/or obstructing are serious matters. I might argue they are serious matters more related to one’s own conscience?
For example, the Ollie North-The Iran/Contra Affair charges, were related to “Lying to Congress”. I’m not a fan of North or what he did, but I had to side with him on the whole lying to Congress thing because it just too damned ironic. The man was charged with lying to a consummate liars club.
I am concerned with the money and human resources apparently waisted on the Bonds prosecution. How much did it cost to secure a conviction on one count of Obstruction of Justice and what exactly did we get for our money???
William, FWIW Bonds testified before the Grand Jury with a grant of immunity. So long as he told the truth, he faced no possible liability for anything he said. Once they granted Bonds immunity, Bonds had no Fifth Amendment protection.
Larry,
So here’s a question. Having been granted immunity, if Bonds had tried to invoke the Fifth Amendment, would he have faced a possible contempt citation and/or jail time?
Not that I would advocate doing so, but that seems like it would have been a better strategy if he wanted to avoid answering certain questions, rather than providing evasive answers and putting himself in legal jeopardy for perjury.
Rant, we’re outside my area of expertise, but I believe that if Bonds refused to answer questions after receiving immunity, he could have been jailed for contempt for the duration of the term of the grand jury. They might have given Bonds the cell next to his friend Greg Anderson. I think Bonds was hoping for a better outcome than this.
So if he was granted immunity, he had no reason to lie and/or obfuscate, other than perhaps trying to win in the court of public opinion. Or perhaps to protect others involved?
Jeff: there’s lying and then there’s perjury. If you tell your spouse you had to work late when you had a few drinks with the boys, you’re lying. There’s no legal consequences. But if you lie when under oath, there are legal consequences. And it doesn’t matter a whit what the level of veracity is for the body you are appearing before is.
That being said, I am not sure whether or not it was “worth it” to go after Bonds or indeed any other sports figure. While I think it is quite likely he used steroids, and did so knowingly, I am not sure there is much more criminally involved here than perhaps taking a controlled substance without a proper prescription. What’s next? Are we going after Gaylord Perry? Haul him in front of a Grand Jury, and if he isn’t clearly forthcoming about what he did with baseballs, nail him for perjury and/or obstruction?
William, your lying vs. perjury example is instructive. However, the veracity of the body your are appearing before does matter. The degree to which public opinion counts is a factor in determining how important the issue of the veracity of the body you are appearing before actually does matter. Case in point, Iran-Contra didn’t exactly ruin North’s life. Only a blip on Regan’s radar for that matter. North’s inquisitors didn’t advance their careers as a result of their activities related to the affair.
Back to the subject at hand, Bonds, a somewhat mercurial and aloof, yet talented hitter goes suspiciously bald and gets suspiciously pumped up. He sets HR records. Some scream that he is suspect and others cheer each time he hits the ball out of the park. Some Feds get upset and investigate. That leads to court. The man gets immunity to explain himself before a Grand Jury. He can’t take the 5th because he’s been granted immunity. Time passes and he’s eventually exonerated on multiple (more than one) count of perjury while being found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice.
MLB got a free pass on this one and the tax payers got shafted again. If it’s not bad enough that tax paying non-fans of baseball (and other sports) are coerced into funding a long list of monstrosity monuments to a boring game (i.e. stadiums-baseball), the same taxpayers got to foot the bill for a prosecutor who had a bug up his bum about Bonds enhancing his home run hitting power chemically, when MLB and a good many fans of the pastime did not give a rats rear end. Maybe it is just me, but I don’t believe our judicial system should be tasked with punishing an offense that originated with a violation of baseball rules that MLB appears would rather pretend was never an issue in the first place. So no, it wasn’t worth it at all. And…..MLB owes us same money back on our taxes.
Jeff…nice summation on the Bonds thing (on how WE the taxpayers got the shaft)…I think the LA thing is more of the same. What does Joe Taxpayer care if LA did or did not use chemicals to enhance his cycling performance? Of course, there is that argument that he was employed by the taxpayers (his US Postal term)…however in my mind it STILL comes back to the first question: what does Joe Taxpayer get out of this? Does he even care? I think not. Postal certainly got their sponsorhsip money’s worth during his reign…at least as much as a govt entity advertising can I guess. Much like the MLB/Bonds issue, I honestly don’t care any more about whether the athletes are juiced. I have more important things to worry about. I’ll still watch cycling and sometimes wonder about the superhuman performances. But I still will enjoy those while I’m wondering. Such is the nature of Professional sports.
Happy Easter everybody, and hey…Happy B-day Rant! (I know it was sometime this past week per FB).
Matt,
Thanks, and a Happy Easter to you. I hope the weather is warm ad you’re able to head out for a nice ride today.
In other news, UCI, MQ, HVB just can’t seem to let it end:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-initiates-legal-proceedings-against-floyd-landis
“the UCI is seeking to defend the integrity of the cycling movement as a whole “………….
You just can’t make this s&%t up.
Moronic non-leaders further damaging what is left of the sport. YMMV.
Sheesh. Doesn’t the UCI have more important things to worry about? And, speaking of people who cast the organization in a bad light, shouldn’t they be suing McQuaid and Verbruggen? They’ve done more to damage cycling’s “sterling” reputation than almost anyone else I can think of,