Barry Bonds' Perjury Trial

[clyons]

Bonds refused to do it, even when he was in front of the grand jury which is supposedly in secret and therefore you have no 5th amendment rights.

 

That is the catch here, the govt pulled Bonds into a grand jury, where he, unlike most defendants, could not plead the 5th amendment. The reason that the 5th amendment does not apply, is that the information at a grand jury hearing is secret, it is never to be released to the public. Bonds attorneys argued that the govt could not deliver on the secrecy, and that Bonds should not have to testify against himself (like any other defendant in the world.)

 

 

I am not a criminal lawyer and I don't want to hijack another thread with more legal debate with you, but I don't understand how the fact that grand jury proceedings are "secret" has anything to do with one's ability to plead the fifth. I always understood that unless a witness has been immunized (which can happen against his or her will, and I believe happened with Bonds) he or she can plead the fifth in any proceeding if there is reasonable fear of prosecution, especially before a grand jury. See, Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27. Are you saying the fact that Bonds himself was not the grand jury's immediate "target" or subject makes a difference?

 

I thought Bonds couldn't plead the fifth before the grand jury because he had already received immunity for possible steroid related crimes, and therefore had no fear of prosecution. Therefore, even though his testimony (if leaked) could possibly have been personally embarrassing, he did not have to "testify against himself" in a 5th amendment context. As the prosecution has argued in this case, "all he had to do was tell the truth?"

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

You are right, 5th amendment can be plead in potentially any case, the immunity is what could strip the 5th.

 

Im not making a legal argument, Im making a theoretical argument about grand juries and how they are used.

 

The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent facts from being exposed to the public, especially because there are almost no rules of evidence that apply to grand juries.

 

As soon as a grand jury no longer is secretive, it losses its function as a grand jury. As the govt could not deliver a secretive grand jury, they should never have had the right to hold one in the first place, therefore Bonds should not have had to ever testify.

 

Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with the idea the govt can give you immunity and then compel testimony. If I dont want immunity and I dont want to testify, that should be my choice.

 

That is not the law, its more my philosophical point.

 

In the context of the law, the govt can give immunity and force testimony, I just think thats bogus if the person doesnt want it.

 

(edit)

 

To clarify the statement you quoted, the 5th amendment in terms of the exclusionary rule does not apply. Meaning that evidence obtained in violation of the 5th amendment, could still be used in a grand jury, whereas it can not be used at a regular trial. I really wasnt writing very clearly so its all jumbled together, more to be taken as personal position than legal brief.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Soxbadger

[clyons]

You are right, 5th amendment can be plead in potentially any case, the immunity is what could strip the 5th.

 

Im not making a legal argument, Im making a theoretical argument about grand juries and how they are used.

 

The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent facts from being exposed to the public, especially because there are almost no rules of evidence that apply to grand juries.

 

As soon as a grand jury no longer is secretive, it losses its function as a grand jury. As the govt could not deliver a secretive grand jury, they should never have had the right to hold one in the first place, therefore Bonds should not have had to ever testify.

 

Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with the idea the govt can give you immunity and then compel testimony. If I dont want immunity and I dont want to testify, that should be my choice.

 

That is not the law, its more my philosophical point.

 

In the context of the law, the govt can give immunity and force testimony, I just think thats bogus if the person doesnt want it.

 

Got it, thanks.

[Soxbadger]

And 1 more thing to clarify.

 

Im pretty sure that the evidence used against Bonds would not have generally been admissible in trial. Therefore the grand jury was important because they could ask him questions that would have been stricken in a normal trial for lack of foundation.

 

Id actually have to really look at the transcript to see, but my guess is that they were questioning him on BACLO stuff.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Any chance they go after Clemens, Palmeiro and McGwire?

[clyons]

And 1 more thing to clarify.

 

Im pretty sure that the evidence used against Bonds would not have generally been admissible in trial. Therefore the grand jury was important because they could ask him questions that would have been stricken in a normal trial for lack of foundation.

 

Id actually have to really look at the transcript to see, but my guess is that they were questioning him on BACLO stuff.

 

You're saying that Bonds' allegedly perjurious answers were to fishing expedition-type questions that wouldn't even have elicited helpful information against BALCO, correct? That certainly could be true. Unfortunately, that scenario isn't confined to Grand Jury abuses; its what got Clinton in trouble vis-a-vis Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones civil case.

Edited April 12, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Soxbadger]

They are going after Clemens (I believe).

 

Palmeiro wont be prosecuted, his previous employer is named Peter Angelos and he is a pretty influential litigator in the DC area.

 

McGwire didnt technically lie, he just said he didnt want to talk about the past.

 

None of them faced the same type of questions Bonds did.

[Soxbadger]

You're saying that Bonds' allegedly perjurious answers were to fishing expedition-type questions that wouldn't even have elicited helpful information against BALCO, correct? That's certainly could be true. Unfortunately, that scenario isn't confined to Grand Jury abuses; its what got Clinton in trouble vis-a-vis Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones civil case.

 

Not only that but the actual evidence of Bonds usage of steroids would need a foundation. Without the testimony of any BALCO people, there was absolutely no foundation to ask Bonds the question, "Did you use steroids".

 

The question had some materiality to the potential BALCO case: "Did BALCO supply steroids".

 

The problem with foundation would be, what foundation do they have to support that Bonds had any idea BALCO was using steroids. First they would have to provide evidence that Bonds had an idea, from my understanding of the evidence there were no smoking guns like "Barry Bonds Steroid sample A" or "Barry Bonds urine sample A while using steroids", I think they were coded etc, and the only way to provide foundation for the codes would be to bring in some one from BALCO to provide a foundation.

 

As presumably all of the BALCO people took the 5th, the govt really would never have called Bonds in the trial. Which I believe is the reason that in the actual trial, Bonds was not a witness (correct me if im wrong).

Edited April 12, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

They are going after Clemens (I believe).

 

Palmeiro wont be prosecuted, his previous employer is named Peter Angelos and he is a pretty influential litigator in the DC area.

 

McGwire didnt technically lie, he just said he didnt want to talk about the past.

 

None of them faced the same type of questions Bonds did.

Clemens has been charged with lying to Congress when he was asked directly if he'd taken steroids.

 

McGwire took the 5th.

 

Palmeiro was investigated by the DOJ and the DOJ decided not to bring a case. The big problem was that Palmeiro's positive test came after he shook his finger at Congress. There wasn't any proof that he'd taken them before shaking his finger at Congress, only afterwards.

[Balta1701]

The problem with foundation would be, what foundation do they have to support that Bonds had any idea BALCO was using steroids. First they would have to provide evidence that Bonds had an idea, from my understanding of the evidence there were no smoking guns like "Barry Bonds Steroid sample A" or "Barry Bonds urine sample A while using steroids", I think they were coded etc, and the only way to provide foundation for the codes would be to bring in some one from BALCO to provide a foundation.

They had a whole lot of doping charts with his name on them. Even without a positive test, that's plenty of reason to ask the question.

[Soxbadger]

They have no foundation for the charts without some one from BALCO providing the foundation for what the chart is.

 

A govt witness (imo) could not provide a proper foundation for the charts, unless there was some hearsay exception that the charts would fall under.

 

Basically if they found a bunch of information on my computer, without me testifying what that information is, they couldnt start questioning you about the information, because they have no foundation that you have any knowledge of the information or what that information exactly means. And all of the information would be hearsay

 

You can have foundation problems in a case for collecting a debt, if you bring the wrong person from the company and they dont have actual knowledge of the debt. Just because a piece of paper says, XYZ owes $50k, does not mean it can be put into evidence, without proper foundation. The proper foundation would be something like:

 

* Are you familiar with Exhibit "A" (business records) for identification?

* Can you identify these documents?

* Were these documents prepared in the ordinary scope of the business of your company?

* Where are these documents stored after they are prepared?

* Where were these documents retrieved from?

* Is it a regular part of your business to keep and maintain records of this type?

* Are these documents of the type that would be kept under your custody or control?

 

 

The problem with BALCO records, is you cant lay the proper foundation without a BALCO employee. You could lay a foundation for an investigator to put them into evidence, but Im not sure you can lay the proper foundation to tie Bonds to them without going into the above.

 

You have to remember a document is generally hearsay because it is a compilation of hearsay statements, thus it can not be admitted into evidence unless there is an exception, business records being one of them.

 

Without the proper foundation for the exception, it just cant be put into evidence.

 

This is why the Grand Jury is so evil, you need no foundation, no evidence rules apply.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Soxbadger

[clyons]

GUILTY. 1 count of obstruction of justice.

 

Deadlock (mistrial) on remaining counts.

 

http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com...297882/28504158

[Leonard Zelig]

Bonds guilty of obstruction of justice

Mistrial on perjury charges.

[Soxbadger]

Obstruction of justice is so weak.

 

Lets predict the sentence:

 

I predict fine and community service.

 

 

[knightni]

AUTOGRAPHED BASEBALLS FOR THE JURY!

[Wanne]

Glad our government has nothing else better to do or spend taxpayer money on...good Lord.

[T R U]

Glad our government has nothing else better to do or spend taxpayer money on...good Lord.

 

Hey gotta make sure you keep the streets clean of bad guys like Barry Bonds

[Texsox]

Glad our government has nothing else better to do or spend taxpayer money on...good Lord.

 

What happens to our legal system when we stop prosecuting people who lie under oath? A high profile case is the best bang for the buck to show that lying under oath is not something you should try. Convicting some random dude doesn't garner the attention that Bonds gets. So from spending taxpayer money, it seems like a bargain.

[Balta1701]

What happens to our legal system when we stop prosecuting people who lie under oath? A high profile case is the best bang for the buck to show that lying under oath is not something you should try. Convicting some random dude doesn't garner the attention that Bonds gets. So from spending taxpayer money, it seems like a bargain.

You're missing the point tex. Bonds can afford to make it expensive for the government to prosecute him. He's rich. That makes him more important than you or I.

[southsider2k5]

No, no, it is the home run hitting that makes him better than us.

[Wanne]

What happens to our legal system when we stop prosecuting people who lie under oath? A high profile case is the best bang for the buck to show that lying under oath is not something you should try. Convicting some random dude doesn't garner the attention that Bonds gets. So from spending taxpayer money, it seems like a bargain.

 

You mean like 3/4 of our elected politicians do?...

[Soxbadger]

What happens to our legal system when we stop prosecuting people who lie under oath?

 

What happens to our legal system when we allow the govt to strip away the 5th amendment because they can give you "immunity".

 

No where in the 5th do I see any sort of immunity exception.

 

5th Amendment:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

I just dont think that the govt should be able to force anyone to testify who doesnt want to.

[southsider2k5]

You mean like 3/4 of our elected politicians do?...

 

Except they aren't usually under oath...

[Soxbadger]

And when they are under oath, they arent forced to answer the question or be put in jail, or if they are evasive they dont get charged with obstruction of justice.

 

 

[clyons]

What happens to our legal system when we allow the govt to strip away the 5th amendment because they can give you "immunity".

 

No where in the 5th do I see any sort of immunity exception.

 

5th Amendment:

 

 

 

I just dont think that the govt should be able to force anyone to testify who doesnt want to.

 

I understand your larger point about the govt infringing upon people's liberty to choose whether or not to testify, but I disagree that doing so involves any stripping away of 5th amendment rights. Once immunity is granted, the 5th amendment simply doesn't apply; there is no longer any criminal jeapordy related to the subject of the testimony. The constitution only confers the right to be free from forced self-incrimination. It provides no privilege against forced self-embarassment or inconvenience.

 

I also agree with you that the spectre of an "obstruction of justice" charge can unfairly put the screws to folks, and be easily abused. Frankly, I don't understand how a person can be convicted of that crime for merely being "evasive." I should think being outrightly perjurious would be an element of the offense, but apparently its not.

 

Edited April 14, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny