Author Topic: Bonds on Trial (Read 10112 times)

Great parody. It's the Onion, for crissakes. I was talking about the trial. They're covering the trial wall-to-wall out here, with frequent break-ins for updates. When you consider where the case that the Feds started with to where they are today, it is a waste of time and money, especially since his buddy has already refused to testify again. When you've got a friend who'll go to the hoosegow for you, you've really got something. I don't see the feds as having any case more than a "he said-he said" pitting federal agents against Bonds, who may well have to testify himself. It will be interesting. I think that the defense is planning on aggressively pursuing a motion to dismiss after the government rests.

geezerdonk · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2011, 11:52:48 am »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on March 25, 2011, 11:42:24 am

When you've got a friend who'll go to the hoosegow for you, you've really got something.

$

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:15:35 pm »

I'm trying to figure out why the Feds are putting on a "he used" approach, with lots of boring, hypertechnical evidence that probably bores the shit out of the jury. He's being charged with lying to a federal agent.

MusicMan · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:18:22 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on March 25, 2011, 01:15:35 pm

I'm trying to figure out why the Feds are putting on a "he used" approach, with lots of boring, hypertechnical evidence that probably bores the shit out of the jury. He's being charged with lying to a federal agent.

Because he's charged with lying about his use?

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:20:10 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on March 25, 2011, 01:18:22 pm

Because he's charged with lying about his use?

I see your point. However, there's a fine line between trying to prove a use via circumstantial evidence and proving a particular lie to federal agents.

Bench · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:54:49 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on March 25, 2011, 01:20:10 pm

I see your point. However, there's a fine line between trying to prove a use via circumstantial evidence and proving a particular lie to federal agents.

How can you prove a lie without proving it was a lie?

Ron Brand · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:00:16 pm »

Quote from: Bench on March 25, 2011, 01:54:49 pm

How can you prove a lie without proving it was a lie?

You get a bunch of other people to swear that it was and hope for the best.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:38:39 pm »

Quote from: Bench on March 25, 2011, 01:54:49 pm

How can you prove a lie without proving it was a lie?

One of the witnesses is Bonds's former business partner, who is going to testify that Bonds's capsize grew while they worked together. His former girlfriend also is going to testify against him. As I see it, the problem with all of this is the fact that each is a former who may well have an axe to grind, and I expect that the defense will highlight this fly in the ointment.

I just don't see how the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds lied to a federal agent by proving a circumstantial case that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids. The circumstantial evidence just doesn't seem to be enough. But that's just me.

The most compelling evidence that the government can offer, in my opinion, is the testimony of the federal agent to whom Bonds allegedly lied. But then you simply put Bonds on the stand to say that's not true. Then the government's case is a "he said he said" and I don't think that they can win that. However, Bench, as a lawyer, who do you think? I'm real curious.

Bench · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:43:02 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on March 25, 2011, 02:38:39 pm

One of the witnesses is Bonds's former business partner, who is going to testify that Bonds's capsize grew while they worked together. His former girlfriend also is going to testify against him. As I see it, the problem with all of this is the fact that each is a former who may well have an axe to grind, and I expect that the defense will highlight this fly in the ointment.

I just don't see how the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds lied to a federal agent by proving a circumstantial case that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids. The circumstantial evidence just doesn't seem to be enough. But that's just me.

The most compelling evidence that the government can offer, in my opinion, is the testimony of the federal agent to whom Bonds allegedly lied. But then you simply put Bonds on the stand to say that's not true. Then the government's case is a "he said he said" and I don't think that they can win that. However, Bench, as a lawyer, who do you think? I'm real curious.

I absolutely agree that it's a lousy case and a waste of resources. I don't see how the government can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence I've heard about. But if they are going forward with it, I can't see any other way to prove it up than what they're offering.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:46:32 pm »

Quote from: Bench on March 25, 2011, 02:43:02 pm

I absolutely agree that it's a lousy case and a waste of resources. I don't see how the government can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence I've heard about. But if they are going forward with it, I can't see any other way to prove it up than what they're offering.

I agree. It may be the only way that they can.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:56:21 pm »

Idiotic waste of resources. They can talk about Bonds lying all they want to, but the real travesty here was Novitzky unabashedly trampling on privacy rights while knowing full well he had no justification for doing so [/ConservativewithNoUseforACLUPrivacyTypesandSupporterofPartiotActetc]. (Oldie but goodie on Novitzky)

geezerdonk · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:37:13 pm »

I don't know enough about it to tell whether or not it's a lousy case; but certainly there couldn't be a worse venire for the prosecution. But lousy case and horrible venire notwithstanding, sometimes somebody just needs a trial. Somebody just needs to sit they little ass down at they little table and have a trial - and Barry is one of those somebodies.

Limey · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:45:39 pm »

Quote from: geezerdonk on March 25, 2011, 04:37:13 pm

I don't know enough about it to tell whether or not it's a lousy case; but certainly there couldn't be a worse venire for the prosecution. But lousy case and horrible venire notwithstanding, sometimes somebody just needs a trial. Somebody just needs to sit they little ass down at they little table and have a trial - and Barry is one of those somebodies.

Your keyboard appears to have a venirial disease.

Bench · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:51:48 pm »

Quote from: Limey on March 25, 2011, 04:45:39 pm

Your keyboard appears to have a venirial disease.

So you saw past the veneer?

MusicMan · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2011, 04:53:54 pm »

Quote from: Bench on March 25, 2011, 04:51:48 pm

So you saw past the veneer?

This certainly veered off course.

Waldo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:00:01 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on March 25, 2011, 04:53:54 pm

This certainly ~~veered~~ viired off course.

FIFY

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:00:42 pm »

Viry well done.

austro · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:07:20 pm »

This got veird in a hurry.

Limey · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2011, 09:59:57 pm »

So veneer yet so far.

Señor Stan · « **Reply #24 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:26:23 am »

Quote from: Limey on March 25, 2011, 09:59:57 pm

So veneer yet so far.

So veneer? I'll take a Hunter Pence bobblehead. thanks.

Ebby Calvin · « **Reply #25 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:31:52 am »

Quote from: Señor Stan on March 29, 2011, 08:26:23 am

So veneer? I'll take a Hunter Pence bobblehead. thanks.

Don't know if it's new or not, but I love the avatar Stan.

Bench · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2011, 05:43:04 pm »

I can't believe the government is calling 25 witnesses. What a waste of time.

And now they suddenly "found" a tape of a secretly recorded conversation of Bonds' doctor that's been subject to subpoena in 2005 but never produced? What a crock.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:53:47 am »

Quote from: Bench on April 04, 2011, 05:43:04 pm

I can't believe the government is calling 25 witnesses. What a waste of time.

And for their first witness, the defense called... no one. Defense rests.

geezerdonk · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:01:36 pm »

Too bad. Barry would have made a great witness.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:03:35 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 06, 2011, 11:53:47 am

And for their first witness, the defense called... no one. Defense rests.

That's what I would have done too, FWIW (I know, not too much). I don't think that the government proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt except that Bonds is a reprehensible, narcissistic dick.

geezerdonk · « **Reply #30 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:30:53 pm »

Just like Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom his verdict should be:
Incredibly Guilty

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #31 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:14:02 pm »

Just in: jury may or may not have reached a verdict, it may or may not be a partial verdict, it may or may not only be on 1 of 4 counts; and it will be announced at 1:45 Pacific (30 minutes ago). Whatever the news is, it appears that something is coming down shortly...

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #32 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:23:07 pm »

Decision reached on 1 of 4 counts, Judge Ilston will declare a mistrial on the other 3 counts. Congress said to be mulling reworking the budget to add another $1.235 trillion for continued prosecution costs on remaining 3 counts if Bonds is found not guilty on the other...

Limey · « **Reply #33 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:24:33 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 13, 2011, 04:23:07 pm

Decision reached on 1 of 4 counts, Judge Ilston will declare a mistrial on the other 3 counts. Congress said to be mulling reworking the budget to add another $1.235 trillion for continued prosecution costs on remaining 3 counts if Bonds is found not guilty on the other...

Maybe they should just steal some of his memorabilia, and hide it in a Vegas hotel room...

Bench · « **Reply #34 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:25:08 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 13, 2011, 04:23:07 pm

Decision reached on 1 of 4 counts, Judge Ilston will declare a mistrial on the other 3 counts. Congress said to be mulling reworking the budget to add another $1.235 trillion for continued prosecution costs on remaining 3 counts if Bonds is found not guilty on the other...

Not a good sign for the Feds.

Bench · « **Reply #35 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:32:41 pm »

Verdict: On count 5 -- obstruction of justice, GUILTY

Woah.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #36 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:34:04 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 04:32:41 pm

Verdict: On count 5 -- obstruction of justice, GUILTY

Woah.

Guilty as to 'Statement C,' whatever that was...

Limey · « **Reply #37 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:37:06 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 04:32:41 pm

Verdict: On count 5 -- obstruction of justice, GUILTY

Woah.

Isn't that the big one? Same as Martha?

Bench · « **Reply #38 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:37:28 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 13, 2011, 04:34:04 pm

Guilty as to 'Statement C,' whatever that was...

Obstruction is such a chicken shit charge. What's your news source? I've just been refreshing the Polynesian named ESPN dude's twitter feed.

Bench · « **Reply #39 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:38:10 pm »

Quote from: Limey on April 13, 2011, 04:37:06 pm

Isn't that the big one? Same as Martha?

Perjury is the big one(s), but they can still theoretically put him in a camp on this.

From NYT blog:

Bonds has been charged with lying to a grand jury in 2003 about whether he had ever knowingly taken steroids, and whether he had ever been injected with a needle by anyone other than his personal physician. He was also facing a charge of obstruction of justice.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #40 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:39:40 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 04:37:28 pm

Obstruction is such a chicken shit charge. What's your news source? I've just been refreshing the Polynesian named ESPN dude's twitter feed.

http://twitter.com/#!/sbnbayarea is tweeting from the courtroom.

Bench · « **Reply #41 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:45:10 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 13, 2011, 04:34:04 pm

Guilty as to 'Statement C,' whatever that was...

The instruction:

The government alleges that the underlined portion of the following statements constitute material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count 5, you must all agree that one or more of the following statements was material and intentionally evasive, false or misleading, with all of you unanimously agreeing as to which statement or statements so qualify:

Statement C, from the jury instructions. The underlined portion is the "offending conduct":

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?
A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #42 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:51:55 pm »

Thanks! My WAG would have been that one...

Limey · « **Reply #43 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:53:06 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 04:45:10 pm

The instruction:

The government alleges that the underlined portion of the following statements constitute material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Count 5, you must all agree that one or more of the following statements was material and intentionally evasive, false or misleading, with all of you unanimously agreeing as to which statement or statements so qualify:

Statement C, from the jury instructions. The underlined portion is the "offending conduct":

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?
A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

I would need a week just to figure out what the fuck he was talking about. Was he high?

Bench · « **Reply #44 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:54:45 pm »

Quote from: Limey on April 13, 2011, 04:53:06 pm

I would need a week just to figure out what the fuck he was talking about. Was he high?

It's ridiculous. The jury didn't believe that he and Greg talked about to each other about their personal lives, which is apparently a federal offense.

MusicMan · « **Reply #45 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:55:57 pm »

So are you saying that this particular charge is chickenshit, or that Obstruction of Justice is chickenshit?

Limey · « **Reply #46 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:56:58 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:55:57 pm

So are you saying that this particular charge is chickenshit, or that Obstruction of Justice is chickenshit?

Bonds is chickenshit, but this is all they could ping him for.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #47 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:57:17 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:55:57 pm

So are you saying that this particular charge is chickenshit, or that Obstruction of Justice is chickenshit or the entire trial was chickenshit.?

FIFY.

Answer, the FIFY...

Limey · « **Reply #48 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:58:03 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 04:54:45 pm

It's ridiculous. The jury didn't believe that he and Greg talked about to each other about their personal lives, which is apparently a federal offense.

* It is if your personal lives involve criminal activity.

MusicMan · « **Reply #49 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:59:35 pm »

Quote from: OregonStrosFan on April 13, 2011, 04:57:17 pm

FIFY.

Answer, the FIFY...

Sorry, but I naively believe that the government has a vested interest in making sure that witnesses aren't lying to them.

subnuclear · « **Reply #50 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:00:40 pm »

Wasn't it a 'yes' or 'no' question? Could he plea the fifth?

Limey · « **Reply #51 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:01:30 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:59:35 pm

Sorry, but I naively believe that the government has a vested interest in making sure that witnesses aren't lying to them.

This...

...is why the Feds put you in jail for perjury and obstruction of justice. If justice is worthwhile, it's worthwhile punishing those who fuck with it.

Lurch · « **Reply #52 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:02:26 pm »

Quote from: Limey on April 13, 2011, 05:01:30 pm

This...

...is why the Feds put you in jail for perjury and obstruction of justice. If justice is worthwhile, it's worthwhile punishing those who fuck with it.

MusicMan · « **Reply #53 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:04:30 pm »

Quote from: subnuclear on April 13, 2011, 05:00:40 pm

Wasn't it a 'yes' or 'no' question? Could he plea the fifth?

He was offered immunity in exchange for his testimony. He chose to lie instead.

OregonStrosFan · « **Reply #54 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:05:33 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:59:35 pm

Sorry, but I naively believe that the government has a vested interest in making sure that witnesses aren't lying to them.

I don't disagree with your underlying premise. Just think this whole thing was predicated on (among other things) the work of a self-righteous egotistical prick with a chip on his shoulder...

And to clarify, I'm referring to Novitzky (though the statement equally fits Barry Bonds)...

Bench · « **Reply #55 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:08:14 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:59:35 pm

Sorry, but I naively believe that the government has a vested interest in making sure that witnesses aren't lying to them.

I agree with that principle, but I think somebody should be given an amount of wiggle room when the government is directly accusing them of a crime, and I don't think immunity cuts it.

The way the law is being used in this case is not too far from charging somebody for perjury when he pleads "not guilty" to a crime he did in fact commit.

Bench · « **Reply #56 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:09:03 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 04:55:57 pm

So are you saying that this particular charge is chickenshit, or that Obstruction of Justice is chickenshit?

This particular application of the law.

Limey · « **Reply #57 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:10:01 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on April 13, 2011, 05:02:26 pm

<ahem>bj</ahem>

<ahem> Scooter Libby <ahem>

MusicMan · « **Reply #58 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:15:24 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 05:08:14 pm

I agree with that principle, but I think somebody should be given an amount of wiggle room when the government is directly accusing them of a crime, and I don't think immunity cuts it.

The Fifth Amendment is to protect people from incriminating themselves in criminal matters. That's it. Even this non-lawyer understands that it doesn't extend to civil matters, or matters of reputation.

Blanket immunity for the crimes in question "cuts it" further than any government conduct can.

Quote

The way the law is being used in this case is not too far from charging somebody for perjury when he pleads "not guilty" to a crime he did in fact commit.

That's like saying that Pam Gardner is not too far from being attractive.

Bench · « **Reply #59 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:43:30 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on April 13, 2011, 05:15:24 pm

The Fifth Amendment is to protect people from incriminating themselves in criminal matters. That's it. Even this non-lawyer understands that it doesn't extend to civil matters, or matters of reputation.

Blanket immunity for the crimes in question "cuts it" further than any government conduct can.

Bonds was being questioned with regard to his knowledge and participation in an activity that was the subject of a criminal investigation. That's accusing him of criminal activity, which he has a right to deny.

I understand the logic of immunity stripping him of that right, but I don't agree with it.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #60 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:09:48 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 05:43:30 pm

Bonds was being questioned with regard to his knowledge and participation in an activity that was the subject of a criminal investigation. That's accusing him of criminal activity, which he has a right to deny.

I understand the logic of immunity stripping him of that right, but I don't agree with it.

It's been a long time since I went to law school. Can one plead the Fifth Amendment during grand jury testimony?

Bench · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:24:17 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on April 13, 2011, 06:09:48 pm

It's been a long time since I went to law school. Can one plead the Fifth Amendment during grand jury testimony?

Yes, but not when given blanket immunity. It was either testify about his own accused criminal conduct or be held in contempt, which is why I find it unfair.

That's why Anderson has been in jail for contempt. He refused to testify regardless of immunity in both the grand jury and the trial. In that case, he's held in contempt for the duration of the proceeding that he refused to participate in (he was released between the close of the grand jury investigation and the beginning of the trial).

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:34:04 pm »

Quote from: Bench on April 13, 2011, 06:24:17 pm

Yes, but not when given blanket immunity. It was either testify about his own accused criminal conduct or be held in contempt, which is why I find it unfair.

That's why Anderson has been in jail for contempt. He refused to testify regardless of immunity in both the grand jury and the trial. In that case, he's held in contempt for the duration of the proceeding that he refused to participate in (he was released between the close of the grand jury investigation and the beginning of the trial).

Now I remember that. Thanks for the reminder. I also couldn't agree with you more about it being unfair.

geezerdonk · « **Reply #63 on:** April 14, 2011, 09:24:06 am »

An oppressive, racist, reactionary judicial system claims another victim.

FREE BARRY BONDS!

Bench · « **Reply #64 on:** April 14, 2011, 10:02:56 am »

Buzz Bissinger has a surprisingly (for him) well-writtentake on the Bonds case.

The parts that stood out for me:

It is true that the case of Barry Bonds does hit a new low, a new low in the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, a new low in the witch hunt of a player who, because he was considered surly and arrogant and unlikable, is now having intimate details of his life revealed (such as testicle shrinkage), a new low in outrageous abuse of government power.

and...

The villain in all of this is not Barry Bonds, but a former IRS agent named Jeff Novitzky, since transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. He is a zealot in the worst form of zealotry, getting his rocks off by trying to nail professional athletes who God forbid took something to make them better in an era of rampant abuse. It is a malicious pursuit and a silly one.

Rebel Jew · « **Reply #65 on:** April 14, 2011, 10:28:28 am »

Quote from: Bench on April 14, 2011, 10:02:56 am

Buzz Bissinger has a surprisingly (for him) well-writtentake on the Bonds case.

The parts that stood out for me:

It is true that the case of Barry Bonds does hit a new low, a new low in the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, a new low in the witch hunt of a player who, because he was considered surly and arrogant and unlikable, is now having intimate details of his life revealed (such as testicle shrinkage), a new low in outrageous abuse of government power.

and...

The villain in all of this is not Barry Bonds, but a former IRS agent named Jeff Novitzky, since transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. He is a zealot in the worst form of zealotry, getting his rocks off by trying to nail professional athletes who God forbid took something to make them better in an era of rampant abuse. It is a malicious pursuit and a silly one.

I agree with this as it applies to the court of public opinion and, in particular, media types who were happy to blindly kiss bonds, mcgwire, and sosa's feet just as they are happy to now blindly vilify them. however, bonds and his legal team thought they could screw around with the department of justice and have no repercussions. that's why this is still going on. not saying i agree with the wasteful elements of continually pursuing this, but it was pretty apparent during the whole anderson refusing to testify thing that the prosecutors were pissed and wouldn't let it go.

Lurch · « **Reply #66 on:** April 14, 2011, 10:55:33 am »

Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome):
Barry Bonds has been convicted of obstruction of justice. I believe his head got in the way.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #67 on:** April 14, 2011, 12:49:54 pm »

Could it be that Bonds testified the way that he did to protect his friend, who reciprocated by going to jail for him? Maybe Bonds will do some time for him now.

MusicMan · « **Reply #68 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:42:04 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on April 14, 2011, 12:49:54 pm

Could it be that Bonds testified the way that he did to protect his friend, who reciprocated by going to jail for him? Maybe Bonds will do some time for him now.

Then so be it. I'm quite sure the Fifth wasn't inteded to protect your friends.

Duke · « **Reply #69 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:55:25 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on April 14, 2011, 12:49:54 pm

Could it be that Bonds testified the way that he did to protect his friend, who reciprocated by going to jail for him? Maybe Bonds will do some time for him now.

I'm pretty sure that if he gets any time it is of the house arrest variety ala Jose Canseco. Bring to party to Barry's crib girls.

Bench · « **Reply #70 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:26:13 pm »

Quote from: Mr. Happy on April 14, 2011, 12:49:54 pm

Could it be that Bonds testified the way that he did to protect his friend, who reciprocated by going to jail for him? Maybe Bonds will do some time for him now.

Jail time would be pretty excessive. Most of the pundits expect house arrest.

Bench · « **Reply #71 on:** December 16, 2011, 01:37:59 pm »

The sentencing hearing is going on now. The BOP recommended 30 days of location monitoring and 2 years probation. Bonds lawyers apparently have no problem with that, the DOJ is asking for jail time. Judge appears to accept the BOP recommendation.

And it's official: 2 years probation, 30 days location monitoring/home confinement; 250 hrs community service

Ron Brand · « **Reply #72 on:** December 16, 2011, 01:50:48 pm »

Wow, that was totally worth it.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #73 on:** December 16, 2011, 02:31:52 pm »

Quote from: Ron Brand on December 16, 2011, 01:50:48 pm

Wow, that was totally worth it.

Yup, good thing we can't arrest prosecutors that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money.