The feds indicted Bonds again. A copy of it is here.
To review the bidding, he was first indicted in November.
What hasn't changed is the key paragraph 9:
During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other professional athletes.
Each count of the indictment points to testimony by Bonds in front of the grand jury that he didn't take steroids.
Legal sidenote: a grand jury is like a jury, except it does investigations, not trials. It's made up of ordinary people, and it sits in private, not in public. This grand jury was investigating BALCO, so it questioned all sorts of people related to that case, includikng athletes (Bonds, Tim Montgomery, Giambi, etc.)
A grand jury can give you immunity, which means that you won't be prosecuted for anything you say there, as long as you tell the truth. So if Bonds told the truth to the grand jury, even if he admitted taking steroids, he couldn't be prosecuted for it.
However, if you lie to a grand jury, they're going to come after you. Giambi's hitting prowess is vanishing, but at least he's not under criminal indictment.
Showing posts with label Jail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jail. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bonds
Barry Bonds was indicted yesterday in federal court for lying.
It's worth noting that when he gave his grand jury testimony, he was granted immunity (paragraph 8). So if he'd told the truth, he was immune from prosecution for buying any illegal drugs/steroids/whatever. Of course, if he'd told the truth, he would be in trouble with baseball, the Giants, and perhaps to the two people he really cares about: his dad and Willie Mays.
As for the evidence, paragraph 9 is the unobtrusive hammer:
During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds.
So they must have found positive test results for him.
What does it mean?
I don't know. One could certainly argue that he deserves to be sentenced to community service. This isn't exactly the biggest problem facing this country right now.
On the other hand, the feds may try to make an example of him. Martha Stewart served six months in the Big House for lying about a sale of stock worth $50,000. The feds don't like it when you lie to them. If they do insist on prison, it will have to be a short term. Six months at most.
Why did he lie?
I don't know. Somehow Bonds, who grew up in wealth and privilege the rest of us can barely imagine, has managed to create a worldview where he is the persecuted one. This has been very effective for him--I think it has actually fueled much of his success on the field. But it's not so effective when one is under oath to a grand jury.
It's worth noting that when he gave his grand jury testimony, he was granted immunity (paragraph 8). So if he'd told the truth, he was immune from prosecution for buying any illegal drugs/steroids/whatever. Of course, if he'd told the truth, he would be in trouble with baseball, the Giants, and perhaps to the two people he really cares about: his dad and Willie Mays.
As for the evidence, paragraph 9 is the unobtrusive hammer:
During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds.
So they must have found positive test results for him.
What does it mean?
I don't know. One could certainly argue that he deserves to be sentenced to community service. This isn't exactly the biggest problem facing this country right now.
On the other hand, the feds may try to make an example of him. Martha Stewart served six months in the Big House for lying about a sale of stock worth $50,000. The feds don't like it when you lie to them. If they do insist on prison, it will have to be a short term. Six months at most.
Why did he lie?
I don't know. Somehow Bonds, who grew up in wealth and privilege the rest of us can barely imagine, has managed to create a worldview where he is the persecuted one. This has been very effective for him--I think it has actually fueled much of his success on the field. But it's not so effective when one is under oath to a grand jury.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Well maybe Martha Stewart is heading for the pokey after all. Generally, I don't think that sending people to prison does much to prevent other crimes. Jailtime should be predicated on punishment, not deterrence.
BUT, I think that white collar crime is an exception. Rich executives really really don't want to go to jail and they're probably knowledgeable about both the law they'd be breaking and celebrity cases like Stewart's. So I think it's good for society to throw the occasional Martha Stewart (and Sam Waksal--who was far stupider and has a good six more years left to think about it) in jail, even if it's unpleasant for her. That being said, I don't think there's any reason to put her away for long. Waksal's crime was far worse. Seems to me that six months-one year is about right. Just enough to send a loud message.
BUT, I think that white collar crime is an exception. Rich executives really really don't want to go to jail and they're probably knowledgeable about both the law they'd be breaking and celebrity cases like Stewart's. So I think it's good for society to throw the occasional Martha Stewart (and Sam Waksal--who was far stupider and has a good six more years left to think about it) in jail, even if it's unpleasant for her. That being said, I don't think there's any reason to put her away for long. Waksal's crime was far worse. Seems to me that six months-one year is about right. Just enough to send a loud message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
