A few reflections on the Barry Bonds verdictâŚ
1. After the jury came back with a verdict of guilty on the obstruction of justice charge, Bondsâ lawyers made a motion for judgment ânot withstanding the verdict,â in effect, asking the presiding judge to overturn the verdict of the jury. Rarely do judges grant such a motion, preferring instead to respect the juryâs decision. But if there was ever a case that cried out for such action, this is it.
The jury decided that Bondsâ response to the grand jury question, âDid Greg Anderson ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?â was intentionally âevasive, false or misleading,â and Bonds âknowingly made the statement to keep the grand jury from accomplishing its task.â Bonds offered a rambling and unresponsive reply to the question, describing his relationship with Anderson and suggesting that he (Bonds) was a âcelebrity childâ because his father was also a Major League player. While the response may have been evasive, there was no evidence that it was âfalse and misleading.â
Furthermore, itâs impossible to see how Bondsâ response inhibited the governmentâs investigation of BALCO, the bay area laboratory that was a key manufacturing and distribution center for PEDs, which was the purpose of convening the grand jury.
2. The government may have obtained the verdict against Bonds due to its own incompetence. As someone who has presented cases before a grand jury, I know from experience that it isnât unusual for witnesses to be unresponsive and evasive. Itâs the responsibility of the questioner to keep the witness on track. In this case, the attorney should have instructed Bonds to respond to the question with a yes or no answer, but he failed to do so.
If you want to read examples of âevasive, false and misleadingâ responses âknowingly made to keep the grand jury from accomplishing its task,â check out President Bill Clintonâs responses before the grand jury to repeated questions about whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Clintonâs testimony makes Bondsâ responses seem clear and concise by comparison.
3. If the government wants to get you, in all probability they will. Despite the fact that Bonds had a star-studded legal team â sometimes numbering as many as 13 âsuitsâ in the courtroom at the same time - for which he undoubtedly paid a small fortune, to this point at least, he arguably âlostâ the case. If the jury verdict stands â between motions and appeals, it will be months, perhaps years, before the case is final â Bonds will be a convicted felon for the remainder of his life, a status which will impose certain restrictions on his life and lifestyle.
4. Despite the jury verdict, the government âlost.â âWeâ spent millions of dollars, not to mention the time and effort that could have best been spent prosecuting real criminals, to pursue Bonds for what will end up being in excess of eight years, with the result being a conviction on only one count of the indictment. That spells loser in any language.
5. Because the government knows it lost, it will publicly suggest a retrial of the three counts of perjury on which the judge declared a mistrial. The feds may even threaten to charge Anderson with obstruction of justice for his repeated refusal to testify against Bonds. But the prediction here is that if the verdict is not overturned by the presiding judge or on appeal, the government will declare victory and slink away, shades of how we handled the end of the war in Viet Nam.
6. You can never predict with any degree of certainty how a jury will decide a case. The defense focused their efforts on the three counts of perjury and virtually ignored the obstruction of justice charge until they objected to the judgeâs instructions to the jury on what constituted obstruction. Their rationale was that if the jury couldnât convict Bonds of lying, they couldnât convict him of obstruction. And it was that confidence â or carelessness - that ultimately tripped up their client.
7. In the end, Bonds was not convicted of perjury, nor was he convicted of using steroids, although there was little doubt he was guilty of both even before the trial began. The jury convicted Bonds of obstruction of justice. However, it seems more likely they came to the conclusion that Bonds is a jerk, something most people who have dealt with the homerun king can agree on. And although Bonds has plenty of company in that regard, being a jerk is not a crime. But most jerks donât thumb their noses at the government and challenge the feds to come after them, as Bonds once famously did. Seven and a half years later, they got him, even if it wasnât exactly how they thought it would work out.
Click to donate
to Autism Speaks
SPECIAL BUSINESS OF SPORTS NETWORK REPORTS:
The Labor Battle in the NFL. See BizOfFootball.com for details
Welcome to the 2011 Business of Sports Network Autism Challenge
Jordan Kobritz is a staff member of the Business of Sports Network. He is a former attorney, CPA, and Minor League Baseball team owner. He is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Eastern New Mexico University and teaches the Business of Sports at the University of Wyoming. He looks forward to your comments and can be contracted, here.
Follow The Biz of Baseball on Twitter
Follow the Business of Sports Network on Facebook