Cheater Bonds Indicted!

[bschmaranz]

Dunno much else right now but on cnn.com, there is a big "breaking news" banner that reads, "A federal grand jury indicts Barry Bonds on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, AP and CNN affiliate KTVU report."

[Steve9347]

yup thats about it. good for God.

[witesoxfan]

OHHHHHH NO

[bschmaranz]

link

[BearSox]

oh yes!

[IlliniKrush]

Well the Bonds apologists are now out of material.

[bschmaranz]

I'm glad it happened before some poor team like the A's gave him a bunch of money.

[DBAHO]

OHHHHHH NO

Guess he won't be joining the Sox now.

[witesoxfan]

Guess he won't be joining the Sox now.

 

This is easily the worst part of the news.

[Soxbadger]

This really means nothing, and indictment is no big deal and the fact it took this long to get one shows that the case is pretty weak.

 

You have to remember that an indictment just means that a grand jury found probable cause to charge Bonds. Bonds was not able to present a defense, he was not able to cross examine witnesses, evidence that will not be available at trial can be used there.

 

It took 4 years to get the indictment, if that is any indication of the speed of the process, Bonds will be retired before this ever gets to court.

 

Its not like an indictment means Bonds is in jail, it just means that the Fed can actually charge Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice, and then start the proceedings in a real court, where the rules of evidence will apply, and where Bonds will most likely be found not guilty, or receive some sort of slap on the wrist penalty.

 

So this really proves nothing as they most likely used tons of evidence that will not be able to be used in the real trial.

 

(Edit)

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12289760/

 

Now remember the prosecutor in this case was eventually disbarred and all charges thrown out.

 

But they still were able to get a grand jury indictment.

 

Indictments are just procedural, its almost impossible to screw them up.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

It just gives the Bond's apologists more to apology for. Go away Mr. Bonds.

[jackie hayes]

OHHHHHH NO

An overreaction -- I think it can still be salvaged.

 

 

It's rough, but you get the idea. Feel better?

[Linnwood]

I direct your attention to Lines 2 through 4 of page 3 of Barry Bond's indictment.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

This really means nothing, and indictment is no big deal and the fact it took this long to get one shows that the case is pretty weak.

 

You have to remember that an indictment just means that a grand jury found probable cause to charge Bonds. Bonds was not able to present a defense, he was not able to cross examine witnesses, evidence that will not be available at trial can be used there.

 

It took 4 years to get the indictment, if that is any indication of the speed of the process, Bonds will be retired before this ever gets to court.

 

Its not like an indictment means Bonds is in jail, it just means that the Fed can actually charge Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice, and then start the proceedings in a real court, where the rules of evidence will apply, and where Bonds will most likely be found not guilty, or receive some sort of slap on the wrist penalty.

 

So this really proves nothing as they most likely used tons of evidence that will not be able to be used in the real trial.

 

(Edit)

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12289760/

 

Now remember the prosecutor in this case was eventually disbarred and all charges thrown out.

 

But they still were able to get a grand jury indictment.

 

Indictments are just procedural, its almost impossible to screw them up.

So the fact that the feds' conviction rates on indictments are over 95% doesn't mean anything to you, huh?

 

Indictment is nothing. Ha!

 

[Soxbadger]

Hmm Lester Munson just compared it to the Chris Webber perjury case.

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecoll..._webber_pa.html

 

Bonds really will be hurt by a $100k out of his pocket, should the fed even be able to win.

[NorthSideSox72]

I direct your attention to Lines 2 through 4 of page 3 of Barry Bond's indictment.

Exhibits alpha and omega.

 

*waits for someone to claim this was a plant*

 

[Balta1701]

OHHHHHH NO

[WCSox]

Exhibits alpha and omega.

 

*waits for someone to claim this was a plant*

 

The increasing size of Barry's noggin was proof enough for me. Although, I have to agree with Soxbadger that the government's case against Bonds for perjury might not be that strong. I don't see him doing any time for that or obstruction of justice.

 

And thanks to Balta for posting the classic Family Guy moment.

 

Edited November 15, 2007 by WCSox

[Linnwood]

Although, I have to agree with Soxbadger that the government's case against Bonds for perjury might not be that strong.

 

 

The old maxim is that a good prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That being said, the Feds rarely lose perjury cases.

[Soxbadger]

http://www.ellison-law.com/answers.html

 

You can see what they tout a 95% rate, because that includes plea bargains.

 

Most indictments come out in less than a year, the fact it took 4 years raises suspicion.

 

And Barry Bonds is not anyone, he is like OJ. Which means those stats mean nothing, you are looking at 50/50 odds on a conviction if it goes to trial. No matter what the evidence, he will get up there and say he didnt know they were steriods.

 

His trainer will get up there and say that Bonds knew they were steroids.

 

Bonds lawyers will shred the trainer, and it will be a "who does the jury believe most".

 

Some of those people are going to be Giants fans and feel hes a victim.

 

/shrugs

 

Thats just the reality, Bonds is not a normal defendant, all those convictions are not coming against attorneys like Bonds has.

 

Lets see who is attorneys are, and what type of acquital rates they have. Im sure it wont be 5%

Edited November 15, 2007 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.ellison-law.com/answers.html

 

You can see what they tout a 95% rate, because that includes plea bargains.

 

Most indictments come out in less than a year, the fact it took 4 years raises suspicion.

 

And Barry Bonds is not anyone, he is like OJ. Which means those stats mean nothing, you are looking at 50/50 odds on a conviction if it goes to trial. No matter what the evidence, he will get up there and say he didnt know they were steriods.

 

His trainer will get up there and say that Bonds knew they were steroids.

 

Bonds lawyers will shred the trainer, and it will be a "who does the jury believe most".

 

Some of those people are going to be Giants fans and feel hes a victim.

 

/shrugs

 

Thats just the reality, Bonds is not a normal defendant, all those convictions are not coming against attorneys like Bonds has.

 

Lets see who is attorneys are, and what type of acquital rates they have. Im sure it wont be 5%

OJ was not indicted by a federal grand jury, as I recall. Completely different.

 

Bonds may take a plea deal - wouldn't surprise me at all. But he's still going to be guilty, one way (plead guilty) or the other (trial).

 

[Linnwood]

You can see what they tout a 95% rate, because that includes plea bargains.

Yeah, plea bargains means the person charged pleas guilty. Getting someone to plead guilty is always better than a jury's judgement. It saves time, money, and it leaves no way to appeal. Prosecutor always prefer for a person to plead guilty than go to trial.

 

Most indictments come out in less than a year, the fact it took 4 years raises suspicion.

So the Feds did a careful investigation since they knew it would be high profile. This raises suspicion? What suspicions does it raise?

 

[Texsox]

Funny that some people do not care he's guilty, only if he can be convicted.

[wallyburger]

Greg Anderson, Bond's trainer and supplier, who has been sitting in jail, covering Bonds butt, was just released from federal prison. Too coincidental to be a coincidence?

[Soxbadger]

Did you even read the link:

 

Indictments come at the drop of a hat.

 

I guess the Black Sox were convicted no questions asked because they had an indictment against them.

 

Oh wait no they didnt.

 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1446555

 

 

Ironically enough, an Illinois Grand Jury had already convened to determine the facts behind another proposed fix in a previous Cubs-Phillies game. When some of that evidence reached the "Black Sox" inquiry, subpoenas were on their way. Eventually, indictments were handed down against the Chicago Eight for conspiracy to defraud various individuals and institutions. A trial was held in the summer of 1921 and regardless of seemingly concrete evidence, the "Black Sox" were acquitted. Baseball needed help.

 

A lot of people are going to be sad when Bonds is not guilty, whats funny is none of the legal experts on ESPN seem to think that its such a slam dunk. Most are saying its a hard conviction and very strange it took so long, and that relying entirely on Anderson may be risky.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Soxbadger