Jump to content


Barry Bonds found guilty of obstruction of justice


Hammerhead
 Share

Recommended Posts

After three-and-a-half days of deliberating, the jury for the Barry Bonds perjury trial has reached a verdict, but only on one out of four counts: the all-time leader in home runs has been found guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

The jury has said they are split on the other counts that Bonds was charged with and are therefore deadlocked. Three of the four counts charged Bonds with lying in front of a federal grand jury: once when he said he never knowingly got steroids from his trainer Greg Anderson, once when he denied getting HGH from Anderson, and once when he claimed that nobody but his doctors injected him.

 

The fourth count, however, was for the more benign-sounding obstruction of justice. On this, the jury agreed with the government's case that Bonds was slippery and evasive in his answers. Strange, then, that they could not agree on whether he lied to the grand jury but that they all figured he was probably being vague and stonewalling for some reason.

 

Bonds faces up to 10 years in prison on the one count but is likely to receive a far softer sentence, even as cushy as a few months of home confinement. Considering his brusque, antisocial manner and general disdain for humanity, that might be the best thing that happened to Barry in a long time.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Barry-Bounds-found-guilty-on-obstruction-of-just?urn=mlb-wp2828

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't get it. Why is this all legally relevant to anything?

 

 

You don't get why he's guilty of a crime?

 

Obstruction of justice is a pretty serious issue. You can't deliberately fudge evidence of a crime, or do similar things which make the job of the justice system more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Why is this all legally relevant to anything?

 

 

You don't get why he's guilty of a crime?

 

Obstruction of justice is a pretty serious issue. You can't deliberately fudge evidence of a crime, or do similar things which make the job of the justice system more difficult.

 

No, I mean. What was the crime to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Why is this all legally relevant to anything?

 

 

You don't get why he's guilty of a crime?

 

Obstruction of justice is a pretty serious issue. You can't deliberately fudge evidence of a crime, or do similar things which make the job of the justice system more difficult.

 

No, I mean. What was the crime to begin with?

 

I misspoke. It doesn't have to be an investigation of a "crime" that you obstruct; it can be a civil case, as well. Bonds's charges, I believe, were tied to his conduct with BALCO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Why is this all legally relevant to anything?

 

 

You don't get why he's guilty of a crime?

 

Obstruction of justice is a pretty serious issue. You can't deliberately fudge evidence of a crime, or do similar things which make the job of the justice system more difficult.

 

No, I mean. What was the crime to begin with?

 

I misspoke. It doesn't have to be an investigation of a "crime" that you obstruct; it can be a civil case, as well. Bonds's charges, I believe, were tied to his conduct with BALCO.

 

I was under the impression that there was some sort of a crime committed in all of this. I mean, Congress even stepped in and started giving their opinion and sh*t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Why is this all legally relevant to anything?

 

 

You don't get why he's guilty of a crime?

 

Obstruction of justice is a pretty serious issue. You can't deliberately fudge evidence of a crime, or do similar things which make the job of the justice system more difficult.

 

No, I mean. What was the crime to begin with?

 

I misspoke. It doesn't have to be an investigation of a "crime" that you obstruct; it can be a civil case, as well. Bonds's charges, I believe, were tied to his conduct with BALCO.

 

I was under the impression that there was some sort of a crime committed in all of this. I mean, Congress even stepped in and started giving their opinion and sh*t.

 

Obstruction of justice and perjury were the charges. He allegedly lied to a grand jury during a federal investigation regarding the BALCO training facility's connection to illegal steroids.

 

Obstruction of justice likely has a lesser burden of proof than perjury, which is why he was only convicted on that charge. The judge likely dismissed the other charges on account of the jury being unable to come to a verdict.

 

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how he can be convicted of obstruction of justice in this own trial when he is under no obligation to answer

 

 

Pretty sure he was convicted of obstruction of justice in the BALCO investigation.

 

Which, if he had no immunity and it pertained to illegal substances, Bonds was not under any obligation to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, he was convicted of obstruction of justice for his reponses to the grand jury investigating his use of PEDs. He was found guilty of supposedly giving evasive answers in an effort to impede the investigation. I guess he should have taken the 5th. But if he responds, he should respond truthfully. The jury was deadlocked in the three other charges which all were that he perjured himself in the grand jury testimony. In one of the charges (perjuring himself regarding whether he received shots from anyone other than his doctor) the jury was deadlocked 11-1 in favor of guilty and in the two other charges (perjuring himself by saying he never knowingly used PEDs) the jury was deadlocked in favor of not guilty 8-4 and 9-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how he can be convicted of obstruction of justice in this own trial when he is under no obligation to answer

 

 

Pretty sure he was convicted of obstruction of justice in the BALCO investigation.

 

Which, if he had no immunity and it pertained to illegal substances, Bonds was not under any obligation to answer.

 

And as Out of the Park noted, if he did answer the questions, he is obligated to answer them truthfully. He did not have to answer them, but he did. That's the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...