Not so with Bonds. Indeed, he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. After all, anyone could view life sized "before" and "after" billboard photos of Bonds next to one another and realize he used steroids during his heyday unless the viewers were willing to buy an alternative hypothesis -- that Bonds had been on a strict potato and cannoli diet.
The question is whether a jury trial was necessary to rubber-stamp that "conviction," along with some of the most humiliating testimony heard in a courtroom, litigated by a Justice Department that has been accused recently of numerous violations of the rights of defendants.
Federal prosecutors called Bonds into the grand jury knowing that, as a practical matter they could not convict him of any substantive crime involving steroids, such as possession or use, without the existence of the actual physical evidence.
But it is perfectly obvious that the government's covert purpose all along was to use the "back door" approach to try to get Barry Bonds for perjury, even though the government knew the identities of dozens of other elite athletes who used performance enhancing drugs.
It is absolutely clear from the evidence that Bonds was the target all along -- he was the highest profile athlete and steroid user in the modern sports era. One is almost tempted to compare the government's drive to get Bonds on anything criminal with the government's desperate effort nearly a century ago to get Al Capone on anything, which they managed to do -- income tax violations.
The prosecutors planned to trap Bonds into committing perjury. They summoned him into the grand jury knowing full well that he would lie -- as he would almost have to do -- when asked directly whether he ever used steroids. The interrogators knew he would lie in the same way that the interrogators knew that Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby would lie, and lest we forget, that President Bill Clinton would lie about having sex with a White House intern.
Bonds couldn't avoid testifying before the grand jury. He was legally compelled to testify. He didn't testify voluntarily to clear his name, as Roger Clemens did by essentially demanding to testify before a Congressional committee. Bonds had no choice. The prosecutors obtained from the federal court a witness compulsion order "directing" that Bonds testify or be held in contempt of court and jailed if he refused. By that court order, Bonds was stripped of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify, and placed in "trap-like" predicament -- either he testify truthfully, lie and be prosecuted for perjury, or be held in contempt if he refused to testify, as did his trainer Greg Anderson, who remains in prison today -- precisely for refusing to testify against Bonds.
We've all moved on. We understand the record books are tainted, and we all have our opinion as to where Bonds' accomplishments truly place him in the history of the game compared to those he surpassed to reach his career totals.
What punishment will be placed on Bonds with a guilty verdict? It can't exceed the four-month sentence that was handed to Victor Conte, the kingpin of the whole BALCO steroid distribution operation.
Bonds will likely walk away with a slap on the wrist and probation. A light punishment, though, only brings the question, what was this all for? If Bonds somehow receives a sentence that exceeds that given to Conte, there will be outcry that the punishment does not fit the crime at least in the minds of rational sports fans that don't have an axe to grind with Bonds.
In a way, Bonds may become a sympathetic figure—victim of government bullying. There isn't an outcome possible that justifies the time and money spent leading up to this trial or seeing it through to completion. So why bother? The real punishment Barry will face comes in in his first year of eligibility for the Hall of Fame.
The baseball writers have the privilege of determining his fate in that trial. If the eligibility of Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire are any indication of how the voters feel about steroid users, then Bonds stands little chance of induction. The likelihood though is that the Feds won't be able to find Bonds guilty. Don't believe me? Ask the most notorious steroid user of them all:.
They're not going to find him guilty," Jose Canseco said Thursday. Meanwhile, they're creating this million-dollar trial on perjury charges? Not the fact that he used steroids, that's more important. But the fact that he perjured himself under oath? I mean, hundreds of thousands of people do that daily and get away with that. Finally, if your conditions of bond are problematic, you must object! Once you sign them, there is no way to fight a subsequent order of arrest, even if the condition is unreasonable or violates your due process rights.
Make sure raise any issues you have with the conditions of bond with your attorney and inquire whether an objection can be made. Horror stories abound — some defendants have been arrested for testing positive for a controlled substance for which they had a valid prescription. Other defendants have posted a bond but could not be released from jail because the pretrial conditions of bond were so restrictive on where they could live that they had no place to stay without immediately being in violation this can happen to a person accused of a child sex crime.
These stints in jail can last a week or months, depending on the alleged violation and the crime your accused of. How can the judges do this, you many wonder, especially since we operate in a legal system where every defendant is presumed innocent. The answer is that Article But I have faith in the defense bar.
0コメント