Barry Bonds' Perjury Trial

[Soxbadger]

I agree that my interpretation is currently wrong, if I was actually arguing this legally, Id be attempting to overturn a considerable amount of precedent. This is one of those arguments where Im throwing out all the precedent, and arguing how I feel.

 

It provides no privilege against forced self-embarassment or inconvenience

 

And that is the underlying problem I have. There are cases where testifying could result in the witness being embarrassed or humiliated, and I think that they have the right to say, "I dont want that to happen to me". I dont believe that the govt has the right to tell citizens that they have to reveal secrets. This case its not a big deal, but it can put a witness in actual danger. If they are forced to testify against a mob boss or gang member, there could be serious reprisals. I dont believe that any person should be punished because they dont want to testify, I think that we should all have the right to keep our mouth shut.

 

Im trying to find exactly what section they applied to Bonds, because there are a few different federal laws that could be the right one.

 

In Illinois the statute reads:

 

(720 ILCS 5/31‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑4)

Sec. 31‑4. Obstructing justice.

A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:

(a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or

(B ) Induces a witness having knowledge material to the subject at issue to leave the State or conceal himself; or

(c ) Possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he leaves the State or conceals himself.

 

Based on the Il law, Im not sure Bonds could have been convicted in IL. If they thought he knowingly provided false information, how is that not perjury? (Just to clarify that does not mean you couldnt say something false and not have it perjury, just the facts of this case are that Bonds was under oath when the alleged obstruction based on a false statement occurred, so therefore it would also be perjury. At least thats my conclusion)

Edited April 14, 2011 by Soxbadger

[YASNY]

This thing might not be over. They may spend even more taxpayer money to retry him.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6356053

 

Personally, they got their butts handed to them. Let it go.

[Balta1701]

This thing might not be over. They may spend even more taxpayer money to retry him.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6356053

 

Personally, they got their butts handed to them. Let it go.

They had 11 in favor of conviction and 1 holdout on the lying about injection charge.

[Soxbadger]

And the Defense is going to appeal the conviction the govt got him on.

 

I just dont understand why are willing to support the govt wasting millions of dollars on something that happens every day, and something that govt employees do every day.

 

Plenty of police officers/fbi/dea etc, have perjured to get a conviction.

 

The entire point of a trial is that people lie and its up to the jury to determine who isnt the liar. Ive had a judge flat out call some one a liar and say "You are lying to my face", but all it meant was that they lost the trial.

 

Its a shame, but this is what happens when you dont rat on your friends, the govt punishes you. I dont support vindictiveness in the law, I think that goes beyond justice.

[YASNY]

They had 11 in favor of conviction and 1 holdout on the lying about injection charge.

 

They spent $50M and got an obstruction conviction. That's a fail!

[southsider2k5]

And the Defense is going to appeal the conviction the govt got him on.

 

I just dont understand why are willing to support the govt wasting millions of dollars on something that happens every day, and something that govt employees do every day.

 

Plenty of police officers/fbi/dea etc, have perjured to get a conviction.

The entire point of a trial is that people lie and its up to the jury to determine who isnt the liar. Ive had a judge flat out call some one a liar and say "You are lying to my face", but all it meant was that they lost the trial.

 

Its a shame, but this is what happens when you dont rat on your friends, the govt punishes you. I dont support vindictiveness in the law, I think that goes beyond justice.

 

See now I see that as a major problem, and something that should be fixed too.

[Soxbadger]

Who is going to prosecute the police officer? The prosecutor who just won his case because the police officer perjured?

 

The problem is that perjury and obstruction of justice are weapons that the govt uses to coerce people to do things. They are unfortunately not weapons that every day people like us, can use against the govt.

 

If the govt commits perjury, your best hope is that you are found innocent.

 

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm

 

I believe that no felony is committed more frequently in this country than the genre of perjury and false statements. Perjury during civil depositions and trials is so endemic that a respected appellate judge once observed that "experienced lawyers say that, in large cities, scarcely a trial occurs in which some witness does not lie."

 

Perjury at criminal trials is so common that whenever a defendant testifies and is found guilty, he has presumptively committed perjury.[2] Police perjury in criminal cases - particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues - is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that "hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests" alone.

 

The least culpable genre of false statements are those that deny embarrassing personal conduct of marginal relevance to the matter at issue in the legal proceeding.

 

The tapes proved beyond any doubt that the policeman had committed repeated perjury, and all charges were dropped against my client. But the policeman was never charged with perjury.

 

Many judges who listen to or review police testimony on a regular basis privately agree with Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who publicly stated: "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," and that the reason for it is that "the exclusionary rule . . . sets up a great incentive for . . . police to lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."[14] Or, as Judge Irving Younger explained, "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace.

 

The real issue is not the handful of convicted perjurers appearing before this committee, but the hundreds of thousands of perjurers who are never prosecuted, many for extremely serious and calculated acts of perjury designed to undercut constitutional rights of unpopular defendants.

 

To sum up the Bonds trial, using Dershowitz's words:

 

If Bonds were ever to be prosecuted or impeached for perjury on the basis of the currently available evidence, it would indeed represent an improper double standard: a selectively harsher one for Bonds (and perhaps a handful of other victims of selective prosecution) and the usual laxer one for everyone else.

 

Sorry for the long post, but the reality is that there is a pretty good chance that there were perjured statements used against Bonds, but those people will never be prosecuted.

 

Why?

 

Because the govt gets to choose who they prosecute. They dont prosecute people who play their game and who give them what they want, regardless if it is completely false and leads to the death of an innocent defendant.

 

Conversely, if you dont give the govt what they want, they will try and ruin your life with a perjury conviction.

 

That is why people should be repulsed by what is being done to Bonds, because its a sham.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

defense lawyer spotted

[Soxbadger]

Im not a Defense lawyer or a Prosecutor.

 

I do Civil Litigation so im 50% Plaintiff/ 50% Defendant, if not 75%+ plus Plaintiff.

[southsider2k5]

Who is going to prosecute the police officer? The prosecutor who just won his case because the police officer perjured?

 

The problem is that perjury and obstruction of justice are weapons that the govt uses to coerce people to do things. They are unfortunately not weapons that every day people like us, can use against the govt.

 

If the govt commits perjury, your best hope is that you are found innocent.

 

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm

 

To sum up the Bonds trial, using Dershowitz's words:

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post, but the reality is that there is a pretty good chance that there were perjured statements used against Bonds, but those people will never be prosecuted.

 

Why?

 

Because the govt gets to choose who they prosecute. They dont prosecute people who play their game and who give them what they want, regardless if it is completely false and leads to the death of an innocent defendant.

 

Conversely, if you dont give the govt what they want, they will try and ruin your life with a perjury conviction.

 

That is why people should be repulsed by what is being done to Bonds, because its a sham.

 

This is type of argument that never will change my mind. Pointing out other faults is never going to change my mind about something unrelated. Just because our system is corrupt, doesn't mean Barry Bonds shouldn't be prosecuted. It means Barry Bonds AND anyone who purjuors themselves should be prosecuted. Just because one person gets away with cheating, doesn't mean everyone is now allowed to cheat. If there is no penalty for lying in court, there might as well not be a court system.

[Texsox]

So people are cool with people lying under oath because other government people do or should we start prosecuting them as well? I just can't see how our system would work if people are allowed to lie without penalty. It makes trials seem like a game of balderdash or fact or crap.

 

And I thought the 5th amendment says in a criminal trial, I thought, and I could be wrong, that Bonds did not face a criminal charge, therefore how would the 5th apply? As a society we seem really good at defending wrong. Everyone was doing it. It wasn't as bad as X. Etc.

[Soxbadger]

No the entire point of a trial is that everyone is going to lie and its up to the judge or jury to determine who is telling the truth.

 

Im not sure how the legal system falls apart if people are lying under oath. The legal system presumes that everyone is lying, and therefore it is up to the attorney to show why the other person is lying and why his client is telling the truth.

 

One of the first things you are taught in trial advocacy is how to catch someone in a lie to discredit their testimony.

 

Im not cool with people lying under oath, I think that it should be fair for everyone. If the govt is going to lie under oath, then the person they are trying to convict, should also be able to lie under oath. But right now we have a system where the govt can lie under oath, without penalty, where as if a Defendant lies under oath, the govt will try and prosecute.

 

Thats unjust.

 

As for Bonds, you have a right to not self incriminate. A grand jury is part of a criminal proceeding. While he was not the focus of the proceeding (he was given immunity which is why he couldnt use the 5th), it was still a criminal procedure.

 

And Im not sure how this is arguing that because everyone is doing it.

 

Its arguing that, if the govt is allowed to perjure to convict people, than defendants should be allowed to perjure to try and beat the govt, its called fairness.

 

Or if you are going to convict defendants for perjury, convict every officer who perjures.

[clyons]

Sorry for the long post, but the reality is that there is a pretty good chance that there were perjured statements used against Bonds, but those people will never be prosecuted.

 

Why?

 

Because the govt gets to choose who they prosecute. They dont prosecute people who play their game and who give them what they want, regardless if it is completely false and leads to the death of an innocent defendant.

 

Conversely, if you dont give the govt what they want, they will try and ruin your life with a perjury conviction.

 

That is why people should be repulsed by what is being done to Bonds, because its a sham.

 

Well, John Burge just got 4 1/2 years for perjury and obstruction, but I realize that example kind of cuts both ways.

 

I think the reason perjury prosecutions are relatively rare has a lot to do with the fact that there rarely is extrinsic evidence to support them. In the Bond's case, the government had all of Anderson's doping calendars (which ultimately were excluded) as well as witnesses who claimed to have observed shots he denied ever getting before the grand jury. With Bill Clinton (not a criminal prosecution, I know, but the point is similar) you had his DNA on Monica's dress.

 

You can't expect to lie with impunity if there's hard evidence out there that you are liar.

 

I think the fact that Bonds was convicted of anything even without the Anderson evidence (and apparently, but for one reported holdout, would have been convicted of more) shows the government's case was not a sham.

Edited April 15, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny

[clyons]

No the entire point of a trial is that everyone is going to lie and its up to the judge or jury to determine who is telling the truth.

 

Im not sure how the legal system falls apart if people are lying under oath. The legal system presumes that everyone is lying, and therefore it is up to the attorney to show why the other person is lying and why his client is telling the truth.

 

Man, I totally disagree with this. We administer oaths before God, and have laws against perjury for a reason.

Edited April 15, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny

[southsider2k5]

No the entire point of a trial is that everyone is going to lie and its up to the judge or jury to determine who is telling the truth.

 

Im not sure how the legal system falls apart if people are lying under oath. The legal system presumes that everyone is lying, and therefore it is up to the attorney to show why the other person is lying and why his client is telling the truth.

 

One of the first things you are taught in trial advocacy is how to catch someone in a lie to discredit their testimony.

 

Im not cool with people lying under oath, I think that it should be fair for everyone. If the govt is going to lie under oath, then the person they are trying to convict, should also be able to lie under oath. But right now we have a system where the govt can lie under oath, without penalty, where as if a Defendant lies under oath, the govt will try and prosecute.

 

Thats unjust.

 

As for Bonds, you have a right to not self incriminate. A grand jury is part of a criminal proceeding. While he was not the focus of the proceeding (he was given immunity which is why he couldnt use the 5th), it was still a criminal procedure.

 

And Im not sure how this is arguing that because everyone is doing it.

 

Its arguing that, if the govt is allowed to perjure to convict people, than defendants should be allowed to perjure to try and beat the govt, its called fairness.

 

Or if you are going to convict defendants for perjury, convict every officer who perjures.

 

there is a big difference between a persons version of the truth, and lying under oath. I don't care who commits perjury, they should be tried and convicted.

[Soxbadger]

I think the fact that Bonds was convicted of anything even without the Anderson evidence (and apparently, but for one reported holdout, would have been convicted of more) shows the government's case was not a sham.

 

Eh results dont mean that it was a good case, I can name plenty of results (convictions or acquittals) where the end result was most likely wrong. Murderers have been convicted and exonerated.

 

There are plenty of cases where the govt has substantially more evidence about perjury (the article I linked shows where the govt had a tape of the person saying one thing, and then saying something else under oath), and they dont prosecute. The evidence in this case was murky at best, no matter how much they found at BALCO, they never found a smoking gun. They never had an email from Bonds that said "Im going to do steroids tomorrow", they never had any real evidence about what did Bonds "know" and that is the key to perjury. You have to knowingly lie.

 

The reason Bonds was convicted is because most people believe Bonds knew. Most people believe it without seeing a shred of evidence. That doesnt mean the govt had a good case, if anything it shows how bad it was. The govt couldnt get a conviction on something most people believe.

 

We administer oaths before God, and have laws against perurjy for a reason.

 

Ill split my response.

 

Oath before god, many people dont believe in god and even if they do, there is nothing different about a regular lie and a lie under oath. Moist people are willing to lie, I dont believe for a second that swearing on a bible makes them second guess it.

 

The reason we have laws against perjury (imo) is so that the govt can try and convict more people. If a person lies under oath, I dont really care, it doesnt change my day. In fact I generally hope that they lie, because it destroys their credibility. Most cases are based on physical evidence, only very few cases ever turn on a statement, and even then you generally have a he said/she said situation.

 

I have a very jaded perspective, because I have seen Police Officers perjure pretty badly and never suffer any consequences. The reason they dont suffer is that the Prosecutor and the Police Officer are aligned, and therefore in some cases the Prosecutor kind of encourages perjury...

[clyons]

Oath before god, many people dont believe in god and even if they do, there is nothing different about a regular lie and a lie under oath. Moist people are willing to lie, I dont believe for a second that swearing on a bible makes them second guess it.

 

The reason we have laws against perjury (imo) is so that the govt can try and convict more people. If a person lies under oath, I dont really care, it doesnt change my day. In fact I generally hope that they lie, because it destroys their credibility. Most cases are based on physical evidence, only very few cases ever turn on a statement, and even then you generally have a he said/she said situation.

 

I have a very jaded perspective, because I have seen Police Officers perjure pretty badly and never suffer any consequences. The reason they dont suffer is that the Prosecutor and the Police Officer are aligned, and therefore in some cases the Prosecutor kind of encourages perjury...

 

The concept of "oaths" and of "swearing to tell the truth" is ancient, and goes back to the roots of Judeo-Christian tradition. The concept of imposing sanctions for the violations of oaths go back similarly as long, apart from any legal framework. Neither was concoted by governments looking simply to "convict more people."

 

As to government officials not suffering the consequences of perjury, tell that to Burge, Mark Fuhrman, and Scooter Libby. I am sure it happens more often than it gets prosecuted, but before Bonds, the only perjury defendants I could name were all government officials.

 

[Soxbadger]

Eh I dont really go to far back in time (pre British) when it comes to legal jurisprudence because back when "oaths" were created, not everyone could even testify. Merely because it came from an antiquated time, does not mean that it is necessary.

 

I dont think I ever said Govt officials, I said Police Officers, and inherently meant people who investigate crimes. Burge was only prosecuted years later, and his case is completely distinguishable. Burge was torturing people, they could not try and convict him because the SOL ran out, thus they had to go for perjury because they couldnt get him on the real crimes.

 

Furhman is also a rare example, but once again that was an extremely high profile case where the Defendant had lawyers who could actually combat the govt.

 

The reality is that perjury barely ever gets prosecuted. I think there are definitely times where perjury should be prosecuted (case of Burge), I just dont think this is a case where it is worth the time or effort of the govt.

 

I personally think perjury and obstruction of justice are generally tools used by the govt to coerce witnesses to work with them. Sure there are examples of police being convicted for perjury, but those are generally the worst offenses where there was actual damage done because of the lie.

 

In this case what was the real damage? That the govt didnt have 1 more witness against BALCO? Its just a different situation, Burge lied in a civil trial, when he could have said nothing.

 

Its my personal opinion, Ive seen some really bad things, and Im almost always against the govt.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

And Im not sure how this is arguing that because everyone is doing it.

 

Its arguing that, if the govt is allowed to perjure to convict people, than defendants should be allowed to perjure to try and beat the govt, its called fairness.

 

Or if you are going to convict defendants for perjury, convict every officer who perjures.

 

That was my question. It's either everyone can lie without penalty, or prosecute everyone for lying. Of the two, I'll take prosecuting everyone.

[Soxbadger]

The problem is, that doesnt happen.

 

The only way to fairly prosecute perjury, would be to set up a different office that prosecutes only perjury. That way there would be no conflict of interest between the Prosecutor and the Police Officer.

 

Kind of hard to prosecute a guy for perjury when he is about to be the star witness in your most important criminal trial.

 

I have no problem with prosecuting perjury, I just have a problem with the prosecution of perjury being in the same hands as the people who prosecute the crime.

 

[Balta1701]

Judge upholds Bonds's perjury conviction, denies appeal for new trial.