Breaking: Barry Bonds indicted

by MN exile on Nov 15, 2007 4:29 PM CST Comment 61 comments

I just heard on CNN, he's been indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury.

Link: http://www.ktvu.com/news/14606146/detail.html

The five-count indictment -- four counts of perjury and one of obstruciton of justice -- capped one of the longest federal grand jury investigations in Northern California history -- a proceeding that introduced the sports world to the acronym BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative) and led to the downfall of American track and field world and Olympic champions Marion Jones, Kelli White and Tim Montgomery.

We kind of knew this was coming, though. I wonder what surprises the Mitchell report holds, given this.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Um....

It's about time!

Bulls 402 ta zip... but Micheal Jordan will be held to under 200 points. - Todd O'Connor

by Lou In Blue on Nov 15, 2007 4:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

sorry for the repost

wasnt on here when i started mine

WhErE's My CuBs?!?!

by tbizzle83 on Nov 15, 2007 4:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

He'll walk

They had to extend the grand jury multiple times just to get the indictment. Bonds will beat this.

However, Selig will likely use this as an excuse to suspend him, which the union may not be able to successfully challenge in time for Bonds to play in 2008.

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What makes you say this?

Extending a grand jury doesn't always mean they were scrambling to find something. It often means they kept getting deeper into the issues.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't always mean it

But in my experience, it usually does. Particularly in a case that is relatively simple like this one.

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you a defense attorney?

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NO he is God!

I propose a toast to the great 100th anniversy gift known to mankind - A CUBS WORLD SERIES VICTORY!

by BigZ 4 Cy on Nov 15, 2007 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

God?

what does god no about grand juries? I thought he just gave the old thumbs up/thumbs down at the pearly gates.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 15, 2007 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So what does St. Peter do, coat check? nt

by davidalanu on Nov 15, 2007 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well Bud what are you going to do now?

This and the Mitchell report should make for some good off-season action. Who's going to sign Bonds now?

by rlpete on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

a year too late..

...what difference does it make now?? the b###rd has the home run title..

Live is boring until March 31st strolls by..

by Chanman25 on Nov 15, 2007 4:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i doubt he will walk

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3112487
thats the espn article it actually said evidence obtained includes positive tests.

WhErE's My CuBs?!?!

by tbizzle83 on Nov 15, 2007 4:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That link....

...details quite a few guilty pleas that were spawned by this investigation. Anyone who thinks they have "nothing" on Bonds or that he'll walk is kidding themselves.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

What do you know about any of those pleas that include and evidence about Bonds?

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Read what I wrote a little closer

I commented that this investigation has resulted in many guilty pleas, hence this is obviously a fruitful investigation derived from good information. So, if form holds here, chances are good they have something goos on Bonds as well.

I'll ask again- are you a lawyer?

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't question God!

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Nov 15, 2007 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The investigation was obviously thorough

But the only common bond between most of them is BALCO. They've had the BALCO records on Bonds for years, but they have been unable to obtain an indictment until now. There are very real questions that need to be answered about what new evidence has been uncovered. If there wasn't, and the only difference is a more pliable grand jury, then a conviction is a lot less likely.

To answer your question, not that it matters to an understanding how these things work, yes.

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I asked if you were a lawyer....

...because you said in another post "based on your experience" with grand juries. So I'd offer that yes, it does matter if you were an attorney, unless you've been indicted before as well.

And in the interests of full disclosure, so am I.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 16, 2007 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can I re-do

my FA destinations picks, Al :)

If so mine would now read: Barry Bonds (jail-15)

But seriously, I think all he gets is a suspension out of this.

I propose a toast to the great 100th anniversy gift known to mankind - A CUBS WORLD SERIES VICTORY!

by BigZ 4 Cy on Nov 15, 2007 4:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

he will go to jail

The likelihood of him going to jail if he gets indicted is high. If he gets convicted of perjury, it's certain. If he gets convicted of perjury, he will go to jail for at least as long as the guys who cooperated, but most likely longer. This means he's likely to do more than three months. If he gets convicted on tax charges, he could do additional time

WhErE's My CuBs?!?!

by tbizzle83 on Nov 15, 2007 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On what do you base

this in-depth legal analysis? You do know that the standard for getting an indictment is far, far lower than a conviction right?

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i just

bet there is alot of evidence against him. they were just waiting for the right time to do it

WhErE's My CuBs?!?!

by tbizzle83 on Nov 15, 2007 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm, there were

actually multiple grand juries who convened over time and declined to indict him, feeling that there wasn't enough evidence. I can recall at least two grand juries.

So, no, it wasn't the "right time" to do it, it was that the prosecutors finally got a group who would actually indict.

by jjmarie30 on Nov 15, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My understanding....

...is that the juries' terms expired, not that they refused to indict.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As I understood it,

they refused to indict and then their terms expired, but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.

by jjmarie30 on Nov 15, 2007 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt this was the case...

...but if indeed they were sitting on a pile of evidence all along and were just waiting for the right time to issue the indictment, then I wish they would have done it either

when Bonds was sitting on homer #754, or
during Game 4 of the World Series. ;-)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Nov 15, 2007 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You really think...

... that this indictment would have been issued if those involved didn't know damn well that they had Bonds nailed? This is one of the most high profile indictments in the last twenty years. If Bonds isn't convicted everyone involved in this case, investigators, prosecutors, et al will look like the biggest bunch of bozos. Sorry but an indictment isn't a victory and I'd put money on the fact that those involved were extra careful about ensuring the breadth of evidence was substantial enough because of the high profile nature of this case.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 15, 2007 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Feds conviction rate exceeds 95%.

Why would you say that the the odds are "far, far, lower" for conviction?

The US Government almost never loses criminal cases.

by ClosingTime on Nov 15, 2007 11:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This sure came out of nowhere

Ultimately Bonds strikes me as the kind of guy who will say to himself "If I'm goin down, you're all goin down".

I just don't think they care about "getting" anyone else.

Wonder who the 1st person to come out and defend him will be... ?

You're killin me smalls -'Ham' Porter

by TheRamZamDLEE on Nov 15, 2007 4:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

His high-paid

and very accomplished attorneys.

by Porfi on Nov 15, 2007 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually....

...his attorney John Burris is somewhat of a doofus.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a link.....

...to his California State Bar web page.

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=69888

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doofus?

I didn't see any official mention of his doofus status on that link.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 15, 2007 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's a legal term :)

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what got Burris in trouble

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/96oct/art6.htm

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My hunch about Barry "Free on" - Bonds

I bet in the end he will not go to jail. Perjury is a pretty tough thing to convict on (no I am not a Lawyer). Especially since I would be willing to bet that much of this is actually pre-orchestrated by the likes of BALCO in that Bonds would never have had his name on anything that could be i.d. as a steroid leaving no paper trail. As long as Anderson and the other BALCO lackeys won't talk it could be tough to convict him.

That said, I do think that such a mountain of evidence will come out in this process that he will receive a pretty tough suspension from Bud.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 15, 2007 5:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

WOW

Imagine, Pete Rose, all time hits leader, banned from the HOF, now bonds, the all time home run leader could be banned as well, and even face several months of jail time!

If dogs took over the world and chose a king, I hope they don't just go by size, because there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas.

by deepthoughtsbyjackhandey on Nov 15, 2007 5:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The difference

The difference of course is that none of the things that Rose is penalized for impacted the number of hits he accumulated, so he should (and is) still lauded as the all time hits leader.

Bonds on the other hand does not deserve the distinction of all time home run leader, and I hope that it is subsequently removed from his name.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 15, 2007 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's Go A-Rod

and it will.

by initram on Nov 15, 2007 9:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what makes me mad about this is...

the fact this is where our tax dollars are going. years and years of investigating millionaires who did nothing but hurt themselves. whats bad is theres just as good of chance of him being found not guilty as their is him being found guilty.

GO CUBS GO!!!!!

by cubsluver22 on Nov 15, 2007 5:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ya

We'd never want our tax dollars going to pursue a case that tells young children everywhere that using steroids, lying to a grand jury and evading taxes is wrong.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 15, 2007 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not really where..

i was going with that. bonds imo is definitely an idiot and the last thing i would want is my children growing up like him. i just think my tax dollars are better suited elsewhere like the lack of teachers in classrooms etc. and if its children you wanna prove to that doing what barry bonds did is wrong why not indict all the idiots for cheaing on their wives with multiple partners, drinking and driving, using tabacco, or spitting expletives in interviews all the time. if i had a educated guess on the outcome of this whole thing it would bonds will be embarassed, get tons of probation, some classes, and pay several millions in fines. i'm sure he wipes his butt w/ more money than it will cost him to get what he wants in court.

GO CUBS GO!!!!!

by cubsluver22 on Nov 15, 2007 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So as to...

... avoid political offshoots, I'll just say that there are lots of places are tax dollars are going that could be better used educating our children.

That aside, obstruction of justice is a big deal. It undermines the underpinnings of our justice system. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 15, 2007 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's The Indictiment

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/11/15/bonds.indictment.pdf

Basically, Bonds was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony on Balco. None of his testimony would be used against him unless he lied. Well, the four perjury charges are because they're saying here he lied four times when asked if Greg Anderson ever gave him steroids, clear, HGH or needles. The obstruction charge is really a culmination of the four counts of perjury,in that he purposely lied to mislead or obstruct the investigation.

They essentially tell him during his testimony they've got samples in which he tested positive, yet he denied it. I'd be very surprised if they're bringing this because they're "pretty sure" the initials "B.B." mean Bonds. They have to have more, or as others say, this would be reckless.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 15, 2007 5:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

About time.

There are multiple counts in this indictment. He's bound to be convicted on at least one of them, and serve time, just as Pete Rose did.

And there's no doubt that Bud Selig will use this indictment to invoke the "best interests of baseball" clause and suspend him -- and I don't think the MLBPA will have a leg to stand on to challenge any such suspension.

This also probably tells me that Bonds is on the Mitchell list.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 15, 2007 5:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It is interesting that Greg Anderson just got

released from prison. Could he have agreed to testify against Bonds?

by LT on Nov 15, 2007 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

He had to have flipped. Those Feds love those flip-floppers.

GEAUX THERIOT!

by Littlerock Rynofan on Nov 15, 2007 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course ...

I live in Susan McDougall land. The woman who wouldn't talk ...

GEAUX THERIOT!

by Littlerock Rynofan on Nov 15, 2007 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Could we now here from the

"he's never been charged with anything" crowd?

by Peoria Matt on Nov 15, 2007 5:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

They are now known as the

"He's never been convicted of anything" crowd...

by LT on Nov 15, 2007 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and isn't it about time that

that silly bastage Greg Anderson gets out of jail. I can't imagine what Bonds must have promised him to keep him quiet this long.

by davidalanu on Nov 15, 2007 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Kaplan

on WGN reported that Anderson was released immediatly.

by HectorVillanueva on Nov 15, 2007 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's OK...

...they think everyone's a racist.

by 60613 on Nov 15, 2007 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a link to...

the indictment.

by Fraggin Judge on Nov 15, 2007 7:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Aside from all the legal discussion

because i am not a lawyer, I can only say that I am so very glad that he is getting indicted.

Character aside, this man has it coming and I am very excited to see how it plays out. I do agree that our tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere but one can only hope for speedy legal process. Ha!

MMMMM...Stuffed sausage from The Art of Pizza

by Kinky Reggae on Nov 16, 2007 7:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting timing on this indictment

after years of investigation and they put the hammer down weeks before the Mitchell report will hit the streets.

I would guess the government did not want to be upstaged by Mitchell's report and cranked this thing up a bit. I would also expect a rigorous defense on Bonds part, as it appears without his trainer testifying, they will need to rely on the significance of the supposed positive test they recovered from Balco. If Conte is right in his remarks the records don't clearly call out any player on the test results, the government could have a hard time proving this thing and a jury in Frisco is likely to be the equivalent of trying to convict OJ in downtown LA.

I hope the government has their stuff together and can prove what they indicted him on, and from there, I would look to Selig to go out on a limb with a suspension and possibly wiping out his records.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 16, 2007 9:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The difference...

... between the OJ trial and this one is: OJ was tried in a local district court. Bonds will be tried in federal court. The standards there are far different, the jury selection will be different, the prosecutors will be far better prepared and qualified and you can bet whoever the judge is will NOT allow it to become the circus that the OJ trial was.

They may have a tough time on the perjury charges (as has been discussed here in last night's diary) but I'm guessing they can get him on the obstruction charge.

IANAL, etc etc.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 16, 2007 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The jury pool

will still come from Frisco and I think that gives Bonds a distinct advantage on criminal charges like this. It only takes one person to hang this thing up, and I would think the amount of doubt the defense would have to provide is not high to get 2-3 people to not convict.

I do agree on the judge and prosecution. They will be much better prepared than the local folks were with OJ. Reading the indictment, it does seem like much of the proof will hinge on the positive test they got their hands on (unless his trainer talks) and a good defense attorney could poke a lot of holes in the evidence if the chain of custody/proof of identification aren't rock solid.

I just hope the prosecution is well prepared and they have their ducks in a row, or it could really turn into a circus.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 16, 2007 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

rhino

finnally he gets what he deserves.

by rhinorus on Nov 16, 2007 3:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It makes me wonder...

...why the Congressional Committee that heard testimony from Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro did not slap Rafael Palmeiro with perjury and Contempt of Congress charges. I understand that his positive steroid test came after he testified, but if the Gov't is out to make an example of somebody, that seemed like an easy oppurtunity.
BTW, what the hell ever happened to Palmeiro? He must be hiding under a rock somewhere.

I always tell the truth....Even when I lie

by calicubfan on Nov 16, 2007 5:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs