12/21/24
December 16, 2011
Justice is served!:
After spending over $50million (and 8 years) for the investigation, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Barry Bonds for one count of "evasive testimony", the judge has handed down her sentence to him.
The location for Barry Bonds' incarceration if the appeal fails.
posted by grum@work at 04:18 PM on December 16, 2011
That's hysterical, grum. Quite the hardship.
posted by bperk at 04:22 PM on December 16, 2011
Where are you getting the $50 million figure?
posted by rcade at 04:43 PM on December 16, 2011
house arrest always makes me laugh. "Stay-cations' are pretty cool, and given his pad, what's not to like?
While I have no idea where grum got his $50mil tag from, cases like this always seem to include some inflated cost numbers. Much comes from salaries that would have been paid in any case, so it's really more about whether , or not, that money could have been spent better on some other case. Most likely, the answer is yes.
posted by dviking at 04:57 PM on December 16, 2011
Where are you getting the $50 million figure?
An article by Buzz Bissinger references a $55million cost for the BALCO and Bonds investigations.
The individual prosecution of Barry Bonds was spawned from the BALCO investigation, but the lead investigator (Jeff Novitsky) spearheaded the BALCO one due to an extreme personal dislike for Barry Bonds.
posted by grum@work at 05:49 PM on December 16, 2011
The prosecutors should never show their face in a courtroom again.
posted by bperk
Question: The investigation and the prosecution went on for eight years. Why would the U.S. government spend eight years on a case that results in only 30 days of home confinement?
Answer The investigation prompted action in the Congress and ignited major changes in Major League Baseball's approach to these issues.
Home confinement for Bonds is not an accurate measure of the impact of the investigation. The real measure of the government's prodigious effort is its enormous impact on the sports industry and on the use of these drugs.
Question: Isn't a sentence of 30 days of home confinement a sign that the agents and the prosecutors failed in their pursuit of Bonds?
Answer: No. His sentence is not the result of any failures by federal agents and prosecutors.
There is no doubt that Bonds used steroids, and there is no doubt that he lied to the grand jury about his use. The problem that led to the conviction on only one count and a deadlocked jury on three counts of perjury was not the quality of the work of the agents and prosecutors. The problem was the refusal of Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, to testify against him.
For reasons that are not yet known, Anderson went to jail twice instead of offering evidence against Bonds. Anderson's refusal to testify prevented the prosecutors from connecting Bonds to positive drug tests and other compelling evidence of Bonds' use of steroids. If Anderson had testified, Bonds would have been convicted quickly on all four charges.
In the face of Anderson's conduct, the prosecutors -- who occasionally stumbled -- rallied brilliantly at the conclusion of the Bonds trial and obtained the conviction for obstruction of justice and were one vote shy of a conviction for perjury. This outcome, even with the light sentence, is a triumph for investigative agent Jeff Novitzky and prosecutors Jeff Nedrow and Matt Parrella. The government will not be asking a higher court to change this outcome. It is Bonds who will be filing the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The article goes on to discuss the judge's role in the decision also.
posted by justgary at 06:39 PM on December 16, 2011
There is no doubt that Bonds used steroids, and there is no doubt that he lied to the grand jury about his use. The problem that led to the conviction on only one count and a deadlocked jury on three counts of perjury was not the quality of the work of the agents and prosecutors.
That's such bullshit. Who gets to decide that there is no doubt that Bonds used steroids and lied to the grand jury about it? Munson? The jury obviously thought there was reasonable doubt. And, it absolutely speaks to the prosecutors judgment that they continued to pursue this case relentlessly without the one witness, Anderson, that they really needed. Munson is delusional if he doesn't think prosecutors are supposed to be assessing the strength of their case before pursuing and continuing a costly investigation and trial. Plus, it is pure speculation that Bonds would have been convicted with Anderson's testimony since we have never even heard that testimony. Of course, the light sentence is a result of the really crappy conviction they did get on Bonds rambling and nonsensical answer to one question, and it was recommended by the probation department. Laying it at the judge's feet is ridiculous. Munson is pretty much full of shit and factually challenged (he says Thomas was convicted of "a charge similar to Bonds" without mentioning that she was convicted of multiple counts).
The congressional hearings and the initial BALCO convictions of the people actually creating and distributing steroids were what changed things. Going after Bonds did absolutely nothing to further that.
posted by bperk at 07:39 PM on December 16, 2011
Who gets to decide that there is no doubt that Bonds used steroids and lied to the grand jury about it?
He's giving his opinion. And I agree with him. I don't see how a sane person believes Bonds didn't use steroids. Whether he should have been taken to trial? Yeah, debatable. Did he use steroids? I don't see that.
Plus, it is pure speculation that Bonds would have been convicted with Anderson's testimony since we have never even heard that testimony.
Right. That's why Anderson would rather be in jail, because his testimony is so mundane. The only logical reason Anderson went to jail instead of testifying is that his testimony was so damning.
Munson is pretty much full of shit
I think he's pretty much spot on. Both in the big picture aspect, and also the role of Anderson in the verdict. Munson's been very critical of attorneys in the past, so it's not like he's shy when attorneys fuck up.
posted by justgary at 08:06 PM on December 16, 2011
That's why Anderson would rather be in jail, because his testimony is so mundane. The only logical reason Anderson went to jail instead of testifying is that his testimony was so damning.
Actually, the reason that Anderson went to jail instead of testifying for the prosecution is because that same prosecution lied to him about the deal he had made with them earlier. They went after his mother-in-law for information after telling Anderson that they wouldn't do that. So, in retaliation, he didn't give the prosecution any option to use anything he would possibly say (incriminating or not) for their case.
If the prosecution hadn't reneged on their deal with Anderson, they might have been able to use him.
In the face of Anderson's conduct, the prosecutors -- who occasionally stumbled -- rallied brilliantly at the conclusion of the Bonds trial and obtained the conviction for obstruction of justice and were one vote shy of a conviction for perjury. This outcome, even with the light sentence, is a triumph for investigative agent Jeff Novitzky and prosecutors Jeff Nedrow and Matt Parrella.
That. Is. Hilarious.
Oh, wait. That's not supposed to be funny? He actually thinks what the prosecutors did was a "triumph"?
They threw every charge they could at Bonds. Half of them were tossed out before the trial began. All but one of the remaining one they couldn't get a conviction for. The one they did get a conviction for is the following:
Bonds took too long to answer a question. Instead of giving a direct answer, he rambled on about something else, and then gave the answer they wanted.
For all the money, time, and effort that went into this trial, that's the best they could do.
And I'd say there is an decent chance that Bonds appeal will actually overturn the one flimsy conviction they got.
The prosecutors failed. Anything more is ridiculous spin.
posted by grum@work at 09:42 PM on December 16, 2011
He's giving his opinion. And I agree with him. I don't see how a sane person believes Bonds didn't use steroids.
When you say there is no doubt that such and such, how is that just giving your opinion? To say there is no doubt when a jury already said there is a reasonable doubt is ridiculous.
Right. That's why Anderson would rather be in jail, because his testimony is so mundane. The only logical reason Anderson went to jail instead of testifying is that his testimony was so damning.
That's just speculation. Anderson has said that he doesn't trust them. And, why should he since they have even targeted his family? No one knows if Anderson's testimony would be damning and/or how damning it would be. No one knows what Bonds' attorneys could use to impeach Anderson's testimony. For all Munson knows, that is what Anderson was worried about. It is a guessing game. That's why it is so remarkable that Munson can see into this alternate universe to know how the trial would have worked out if Anderson agreed to testify.
Anyone who tries to spin this Bonds trial as anything but a huge loss and an embarrassment to the U.S. attorney's office is fooling themselves. Maybe Munson has been critical of attorneys in the past, but his arguments here are a joke. This whole case was backward. Usually, the prosecutors have evidence of perjury before they pursue a case. They don't go around indicting people then searching for the evidence and pressuring witnesses to testify. I think some people have blinders (perhaps Munson) because they are convinced that Bonds lied and did steroids. Well, that's great for them, but it isn't the way our criminal justice system is supposed to operate.
posted by bperk at 10:03 PM on December 16, 2011
Well, since the prosecutors now have some free time, maybe they'll go after Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kimberly Bell for committing perjury during this trial (or the grand jury testimony, whichever one was the lie).
posted by grum@work at 10:07 PM on December 16, 2011
Someone should write a tell-all book about the Bonds prosecution. It could be a debacle for the ages.
posted by rcade at 11:02 AM on December 17, 2011
It's a shame after all that, and the appeal, he'll probably go unconvicted of anything. A shame, because Major League Baseball colluded to run Barry Bonds out of the game when he probably still had 2+ good years left in the tank. Maybe if anyone passes his home run record, they should have an asterisk next to their name: only possible because MLB prevented the previous record holder from finishing his career.
It's doubly funny since some of the golden boys- including putative future Home Run King Alex Rodriguez- have been since shown to be similarly guilty of at least what Bonds is alleged to be guilty of, in terms of PED. So MLB derailed his career for... no good reason, at the end of the day.
posted by hincandenza at 01:39 AM on December 18, 2011
Then the judge stayed the sentence because he is going to appeal. That conviction is so weak. The prosecutors should never show their face in a courtroom again.