For Barry Bonds, Time To Play Defense
Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.
You've just broken the all-time home-run record*, Barry Lamar Bonds, where are you going to go next? What, not Disneyland? Where? To the federal courthouse in the northern district of California? As a defendant in Case No. 07 CR 0732WHA?
I'm sure that Bonds is disappointed that the feds delivered him an early Thanksgiving turkey in the form of a five-count perjury and obstruction of justice indictment. Disappointed but surely not surprised. Bonds and his attorneys almost certainly knew that prosecutors were poised to go public with this. In fact, I'd be shocked if government lawyers and Team Bonds hadn't discussed some sort of a deal prior to what amounts to the first day of the rest of Bonds' life.
The indictment is simple and straightforward and suitably detailed. And stripped of all the hooey, the case and trial would be a fairly routine affair as well. Prosecutors will bring witnesses to the stand who will say that they saw Bonds do or say what he now claims he did not. Defense attorneys will attack the reliability and credulity of those witnesses and show jurors their own version of events. The case comes down to this: what did Bonds know about steroids and Balco and when did he know it.
At first brush, and until we know more about the allegations and their origins, it seems like a zero-sum game for the defense. Bonds' attorneys have to go -- and please forgive me for this -- 5-for-5 on the counts to avoid a conviction. For prosecutors, carrying the burden of proof, they have to go (again, please) 1-for-5 to argue that Bonds deserved to be punish for his crime.
And what a case it could be. There aren't any victims - really -- so it won't be weighed down by tragedy. And no national security is at stake -- sorry but the National Baseball Hall of Fame doesn't count -- so the case won't be weighed down by classified material and government experts. The only bad thing is that it won't be televised because it's in federal court. And that means we will be deprived of the opportunity to have a "collective national experience" watching a guy like Jose Canseco testify in front of a jury.
If Bonds is convicted, he could go to prison. Martha Stewart went to prison when she was convicted in similar circumstances. And I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby would be in prison still if he hadn't been commuted by President George W. Bush earlier this year. It's apparently very chic these days to prosecute well-known people for obstruction of justice. And it's even more fashionable for judges to use the opportunity to try to remind the rest of us that lying to the feds is never a good idea.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. You've just broken the all-time home-run record*, Barry Lamar Bonds, where are you going to go next? What, not Disneyland? Where? To the federal courthouse in the northern district of California? As a defendant in Case No. 07 CR 0732WHA?
I'm sure that Bonds is disappointed that the feds delivered him an early Thanksgiving turkey in the form of a five-count perjury and obstruction of justice indictment. Disappointed but surely not surprised. Bonds and his attorneys almost certainly knew that prosecutors were poised to go public with this. In fact, I'd be shocked if government lawyers and Team Bonds hadn't discussed some sort of a deal prior to what amounts to the first day of the rest of Bonds' life.
The indictment is simple and straightforward and suitably detailed. And stripped of all the hooey, the case and trial would be a fairly routine affair as well. Prosecutors will bring witnesses to the stand who will say that they saw Bonds do or say what he now claims he did not. Defense attorneys will attack the reliability and credulity of those witnesses and show jurors their own version of events. The case comes down to this: what did Bonds know about steroids and Balco and when did he know it.
At first brush, and until we know more about the allegations and their origins, it seems like a zero-sum game for the defense. Bonds' attorneys have to go -- and please forgive me for this -- 5-for-5 on the counts to avoid a conviction. For prosecutors, carrying the burden of proof, they have to go (again, please) 1-for-5 to argue that Bonds deserved to be punish for his crime.
And what a case it could be. There aren't any victims - really -- so it won't be weighed down by tragedy. And no national security is at stake -- sorry but the National Baseball Hall of Fame doesn't count -- so the case won't be weighed down by classified material and government experts. The only bad thing is that it won't be televised because it's in federal court. And that means we will be deprived of the opportunity to have a "collective national experience" watching a guy like Jose Canseco testify in front of a jury.
If Bonds is convicted, he could go to prison. Martha Stewart went to prison when she was convicted in similar circumstances. And I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby would be in prison still if he hadn't been commuted by President George W. Bush earlier this year. It's apparently very chic these days to prosecute well-known people for obstruction of justice. And it's even more fashionable for judges to use the opportunity to try to remind the rest of us that lying to the feds is never a good idea.
Re his 9:55, an article about Bonds in the LA Times today suggests that the JD held off on charging Bonds for over a year because of his celebrity. The Asst. AG was demanding an aquittal-proof case requiring substantially more evidence than would have otherwise been necessary to bring charges. Another example of preferential treatment for a "hero".
Agreed, with the great majority of us on SOME kind of chemical, prescribed and otherwise (including myself), Bond''s alleged steriod use wasn''t a big deal.
But as someone earlier pointed out, lying to the feds is just stupid. If he''s convicted, maybe Bush can "pull a Libby" and get him off the hook!
It just looks suspicious to me that it is the most often attacked person being attacked at such of high level.
It was clear for many years from anyone who has followed his career that he used steroids. He also broke a record that is steeped in tradition by cheating. It certainly allowed him to hit many more than he could have without them. He was also a very obnoxious person with a huge ego leading people to not like him.
Also the obvious reason is because he was arguably the best player in baseball so he gets the greater attention whether playing cleanly or cheating.
Note his problem now is not his use of steroids it is perjury. If proven he will go to jail. If he had told the truth to the grand jury he would have had no actions taken against him
Posted by Quatrops at 07:07 AM : Nov 17, 2007
I agree with you but I think that this is an international problem not just the US. See the professional bicycling tour. Many of the best have been proven to use steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. Even the american who won 4 straight tour de france has been accused and the most recent winner had his medal stripped when they proved he used steroids.
Bonds is just the latest example. Look at the recent examples from the "entertainment" field; young women willing to abuse themselves and others for just one more touch of fame; or talented figures in the sports world, blesed with unusual talent but cursed with FAR too much money.
The saddest part of it all is that these people are practically "worshiped" in our society, aided and abetted by a media unwilling to accept that it has a responsibility in shaping our culture that goes beyond its obsession with numbers of readers/viewers/listeners.