Barry Bonds case oddity

by acr on Nov 16, 2007 1:57 AM EST Comment 33 comments

I'll start this by saying that I do not like Barry Bonds. But the unusual part of this case is that Bonds is probably the most famous prosecution witness ever to be indicted for perjury. The rule of thumb is that the only people who ever are charged with perjury are those that testify for the defense. I have no numbers in front of me but I would guess that throughout the history of this country in state cases that 99% of those charged with perjury were witnesses for the defense. Obviously this is a federal case but I don't know why the numbers would be skewed in any appreciable way.

I only represent people charged with state crimes and have handled about 3,000 cases. There have been numerous times when a state's witness lied under oath. But the prosecution almost always looks the other way when that happens.

I have saw some federal prosecutors giving interviews on the news channels. And may are stating that perjury needs to be prosecuted because it goes to the heart of the judicial system, is a very serious crime, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy any of it. This is just a case that has thrown a wide net and has ended up capturing a lot of people- many of whom we do not yet know about. But the prosecution did not indict Barry Bonds because it is the normal thing to do- i.e. when a prosecution witness lies on the stand. This is a very unusual situation, possibly unprecedented.

I hope it signals a change in the future of prosecutions. Those that lie for the prosecutors need to be charged with perjury. But I really doubt that happens.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Clinton

Wasn't Clinton impeached for perjury? He's a little more famous than Bonds.

As a lawyer-type, what do you make of Anderson being released today?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 16, 2007 1:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Two options

Either he flipped or they no longer think they need him.

Also, as a legal matter, they may no longer be able to hold him for contempt, since the grand jury may have been released.

by Yakker on Nov 16, 2007 3:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, he was

Impeached does not mean removed. The house impreached him. He was not, however convicted by the Senate.

by Tyler on Nov 16, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Incorrect

Clinton was impeached, but he was acquitted and wasn't removed from office. Impeachment is not the same as conviction.

by AucklandGM on Nov 16, 2007 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why am I arguing with you?

I don't know why. But I am 100% sure you are wrong. One can be impeached without being removed from office. Your username is aptly deserved sir, because you do appear to be blind, or you have lived in a cave for the last 10 years, or you are just a troll. Pick your poison.

from the New York Times, December 20, 1998 (I think they have this "news" thing down mostly):

IMPEACHMENT: THE PRESIDENT -- CLINTON IMPEACHED; PRESIDENT DIGS IN
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0DF143CF933A15751C1A96E958260&n=Top/Referenc e/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Hillary%20Rodham

by AucklandGM on Nov 16, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Andrew Johnson was impeached

after Lincoln was assassinated, he was never removed from office either.

by Trenchtown on Nov 16, 2007 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Martha Stewart

Also, Scooter Libby and Frank Quattrone (obstruction), although they're probably not as famous as Barry.

by Yakker on Nov 16, 2007 3:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Missing the point

Those other celebs weren't prosecution witnesses.

by aCone419 on Nov 16, 2007 3:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Neither was Barry

He testified before a grand jury. GJs don't have "prosecution" and "defense" sides.

by Yakker on Nov 16, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then this thread is pointless

Oh well.

by aCone419 on Nov 16, 2007 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

prosecution

Wasn't Barry called to the stand as part of prosecuting Victor Conte of BALCO?

by mckeeno on Nov 16, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He testified in front of the Grand Jury

in that case. So, he was not a "prosecution witness".

However, it seems like he should have taken a Fifth.

Whoops.

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Barry couldn't take the 5th in front of the Grand Jury. He received full immunity for anything he said, as long as he did not lie. As a result, he was not able to assert his privilege that what he said could incriminate him, since it couldn't.

What Barry should have done (like Giambi and others) is just tell the GJ the truth.

by Yakker on Nov 16, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

reality

Do you believe that alleged victims, police officers, detectives and investigators are not "prosecution" witnesses in grand jury proceedings? It may be just semantics, but the prosecution of cases involves a strategy, even in front of grand juries.

by acr on Nov 16, 2007 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The word for prosecution witnesses found lying

Are 'discredited' witnesses.

I think you may a good point about the world not exactly being fair to all sides of the law. I guess you can argue with celebrities that it's a double edge sword, you can get high-priced lawyers and get away with it but you can also be attacked by the law based on name alone.

I hate the sports media, it's like they have nothing else but scandals to discuss and I'd prefer sometimes for them to concentrate on sports. I've basically stopped sports blogging altogether due to the stigma around the recent news.

Go Jays!!!!

Allan's World

Blue bird Banter

by achengy on Nov 16, 2007 5:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Prosecution Witness?

What makes you think that Barry Bonds was a witness for the prosecution?

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 7:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

He wasn't

that's the point of the topic. If he was on the prosecution side (e.g. the "good" side of the law) it wouldn't have been likely that he would be charged.

Go Jays!!!!

Allan's World

Blue bird Banter

by achengy on Nov 16, 2007 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait

nvm... I'm lost it. Ignore this.

Go Jays!!!!

Allan's World

Blue bird Banter

by achengy on Nov 16, 2007 7:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OP Said Quote

"But the unusual part of this case is that Bonds is probably the most famous prosecution witness ever to be indicted for perjury."

Not sure how else to take that...

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 7:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

let's review

Q- Who subpoenaed Bonds to come to the GJ proceedings?
A- the prosecutor

Q- Who questioned him and gave him immunity?
A- the prosecutor

Like I said above, I seriously doubt the prosecutor gave Bonds immunity anticipating he would offer favorable testimony for the other side.

But using your logic, police officers, detectives, alleged victims, informants, etc etc are not prosecution witness either. In reality they are. They are there to try and convince a grand jury to Indict someone. They are subpoenaed there by the prosecutor and asked questions (mostly) by the prosecutor. They have most likely even went over details of their testimony with the prosecutor before coming to court. You may claim that is not a witness for the prosecution but reality says otherwise.

There certainly are other issues involved with grand juries but that is not for this thread.

The point of all this is if Bonds had said unfavorable things for the other side and lied about it there would never have been a perjury Indictment sought by the prosecutor. Bonds just gave info the prosecutor did not like and this is retaliation for that. If he lied he deserves to be prosecuted. But if he would have lied in favor of the prosecutor they would have never sought an Indictment on him.

If you need a refresher course in the role of the prosecutor and his/her witnesses at grand jury proceedings I suggest you read something other than Wikipedia. Maybe the ABA's web site would help?

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

Seriously, many witnesses (co-defendants) have deals in place (in exchange for their testimony) with the prosecutor before they testify in front of a grand jury. Are those witnesses not "prosecution witnesses"? You may be arguing semantics but you are not being realistic.

What is the purpose of a "target letter" to a potential co-defendant which comes from a federal prosecutor? Well I am sure you would answer that it is a letter to a potential witness/co-defendant not yet Indicted in which the federal prosecutor informs them that they should come speak with the prosecutor before an Indictment is sought. At that meeting there is usually an agreed-upon deal reached (sometimes with the involvement of counsel) that the witness will testify against their co-defendant. And as part of the deal the prosecutor will usually seek an Indictment on a lesser charge or not prosecute at all. Testimony is gone over before coming to court.

Now when this witness testifies in front of a grand jury- with deal in hand- subpoenaed there by the prosecutor and being asked questions by the prosecutor, are they not a prosecution witness? Semantics may say one thing but, again, reality says another.

And like I said above- there are other issues involved with testifying in front of a grand jury (like a grand juror asking the witness questions, etc) which are not for this thread.

by acr on Nov 16, 2007 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

no kidding. Cops lie on the stand every single day.

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 7:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds as a witness

Bonds was called by the government as a witness in the BALCO case and offered immunity for his testimony in front of the grand jury. At least that is the story I am reading.

At the link below in paragraph 11.
"When the government called him to the witness stand Dec. 4, 2003, it offered Bonds an Order of Immunity, so long as he didn't perjure himself."

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-bondsindictment111507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

by acr on Nov 16, 2007 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

I get all choked up when I think about it....

NOT!!!!

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Nov 16, 2007 11:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

How so?

Did someone make the already sure-fire HOF'er take PED's? It was conscious decision on his part. It was also a conscious decision on his part to lie his ass off and do everything in his power to cover everything up and impede the justice system.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Nov 16, 2007 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BFF

How do you know this? I consider myself a Bonds fan and think it is crazy that the feds have been going after him for 4 years, but to say

"He would never have taken steroids knowingly."

is absurd, unless you speak with him regularly. What are you basing that evidence on, other than "he didn't need to," which, I hope you can see is an argument with holes the size of Barry's head.

I do find it interesting that it appears that the grand jury service ended yesterday (as evidenced by Anderson's release). Does that mean that Bonds had to be indicted by yesterday or he was off the hook (in terms of that particular grand jury)? If so, it could actually imply that they still don't have their case made but are going forward anyway in lieu of losing him completely. I don't know much about the technicalities of this so am curious.

by Diggity Dino on Nov 16, 2007 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now would be a good time

to take John's advice and just ignore him.

by Guyute on Nov 16, 2007 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Neither was O.J.

What's your point? Are you telling me that you don't think he did it?

If you think Barry is innocent of knowingly taking steroids then you are either a moron or just trying to insite people.

my guess is a little of both.

I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?

by the pinstripes on Nov 16, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't be found guilty

in a civil trial.

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or convicted

for that matter

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ACR

A friend of mine, who is also a defense attorney, said this to me one time. "About 95% of the people I'm defending are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. 85% of the time, the police and prosecution did something unethical or unconstitutional that should get them off." Now I'm sure that the percentages are probably exaggerated for effect I think the point was well taken. In cases like these, I think you'd have a hard time finding prosecutors willing to indict one of their own witnesses for testimony that was designed to help them out. As a defense attorney I know you're the last person I need to mention this to, this is just my two cents for the community at large.

Add on top of that the fact that Bonds was a celebrity and the public already had abundant information that Bonds was, in fact, a user. The state pretty much had no choice but to indict him.

Either way, it would have been a huge media clusterf*. Although I'm not sure the public at large cares nearly as much as the media does, but that's probably a whole different thread.

by Guyute on Nov 16, 2007 12:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe that ACR

is a defense attorney. Since, the original post seems to misunderstand the facts of Bonds case. He was NOT a witness for the prosecution. Accordingly, Bond's case does not signal some sort of new era of transparency in federal government.

Its pretty much just the Martha Stewart trial all over again.

by phantom on Nov 16, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he was offered immunity by someone

I doubt Bonds was offered immunity in anticipation that he would testify favorably for the other side.

by acr on Nov 16, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

question

quote:The state pretty much had no choice but to indict him.

I thought it was feds indicting him?

Also, Sosa & Palmeiro were there. They lied. But no case against them. And their lies were worse. They said they never took it. Bonds was careful to say "knowingly". Much more difficult to prove.

If there was no choice then that logic would apply to the others.

This case is an absolute mockery. If they are interested in justice the others should receive the same treatment. But they are not.

by pedrophile on Nov 16, 2007 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs