Barry Bonds Convicted Of One Count Of Obstruction Of Justice

Exploring the sheer absurdity of the Bonds verdict

8 Comments

Having slept on it, here’s one more thought about the Bonds verdict that simply blows my mind.

Yesterday when I reacted to the verdict, I noted the absurdity of Bonds being convicted on his rambling answer in “Statement C” as listed in Count 5 of the indictment. That “Statement C” was Bonds saying, in response to a question about receiving injections, that Greg Anderson was a friend of his and that Bonds was a child of a celebrity. It was four brief beside-the-point statements. And, importantly, Bonds did eventually say unequivocally that, no, he didn’t receive injections. Take that for what it’s worth, but it was a clear answer to a clear question.

I thought it was crazy that such a statement — which had nothing to do with Bonds’ steroids use and in no way actually prevented the prosecution from getting an answer to its question — could form the basis of an obstruction of justice charge. I had missed it the first time around, but apparently Bonds’ lawyers identified the absurdity of this during jury instructions too.  From the San Jose Mercury News’ play-by-play (go to the 9:31 AM update):

9:31 a.m.: Bonds lawyer strenuously objects to one jury instruction

Before the judge began instructing the jury, Dennis Riordan, one of Bonds’ lawyers, objected strenuously to the instruction on the obstruction of justice count against Bonds, which enables the jury to find him guilty based on four separate statements. Some of those statements appear loosely tethered to the allegations that Bonds lied to a federal grand jury in December 2003 about using steroids.

For example, one of the statements covers the following response to a question about whether Bonds had ever been given anything from trainer Greg Anderson that required a syringe.

“That’s what keeps our friendship,” Bonds replied in rambling fashion. “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….”

Riordan argued that the jury could clear Bonds of allegations connected to steroids and injections and, under the instruction, convict him of a felony through that statement, at least in theory. Quoting Karl Marx and his famous statement that history repeats itself twice, first as tragedy and then as farce, Riordan said such a conviction would be “utterly a farce.”

The judge didn’t agree, of course. Nor did she agree with this over the past few years when she had the opportunity to strike that part of the charge and did not, despite striking many others from the indictment.  You’d have to ask her why she allowed this to remain, but it makes no sense that such a statement, on its own, could constitute obstruction of justice.

There is not a single case in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence in which a witness, at some point, didn’t go off on a tangent that was at least momentarily non-responsive to a question.  As a lawyer, you’re trained to reel the witness back in and focus him or her on the question. In court, if it gets bad, you get the judge to order the witness to answer the question that was asked. In a deposition you rephrase or say “that’s nice, but that’s not what I asked, what I asked was …”  Indeed, getting a witness to answer the question asked when he doesn’t want to or simply is unable to is a basic skill every trial lawyer learns.

But apparently not in the Northern District of California. There, when a witness goes off on a tangent, the precedent is now set: you bring felony charges against him. And it doesn’t matter if he later did answer the question, like Bonds did, or if he cannot be found to have lied or have obstructed justice in any way apart from his brief tangent.

Man, I wish I knew back when I was practicing law that I could have difficult witnesses charged with felony obstruction. It would have made my life so much easier if I didn’t have to prepare good questions and work to elicit the information I sought through the application of trial advocacy skills.  Oh well. You live and learn.

(thanks to Moshe for the Merc’s play-by-play re: the jury instruction)

Your 2016 Winter Meetings Wrapup

national-harbor
Gaylord National Resort
1 Comment

OXON HILL, MD — The 2016 Winter Meetings are over.  As usual, there was still no shortage of excitement this year. More trades than we’ve seen in the past even if there are still a lot of free agents on the market. Whatever the case, it should make the rest of December a bit less sleepy than it normally is.

Let’s look back at what went down here at National Harbor this week:

Well, that certainly was a lot! I hope our coverage was useful for you as baseball buzzed through its most frantic week of the offseason. And I hope you continue coming back here to keep abreast of everything happening in Major League Baseball.

Now, get me to an airport and back home.

Eighteen players selected in the Rule 5 Draft

rule-5
MLB
8 Comments

OXON HILL, MD — The Rule 5 Draft just went down here at National Harbor. As always, it was the last event of the Winter Meetings. As usual, you likely don’t know most of the players selected in the Draft, even if a couple may make a splash one day in the future.

In all, 18 players were taken in the Major League phase of the Rule 5. Here they are, with the name of the team which selected them:

Round 1
1. Twins:  Miguel Diaz, RHP, Brewers
2. Reds: Luis Torrens, C, Yankees
3. Padres: Allen Cordoba, SS, Cardinals
4. Rays: Kevin Gadea, Mariners
5. Braves: Armando Rivero, RHP, Cubs
6. D-backs: Tyler Jones, RHP, Yankees
7. Brewers: Caleb Smith, LHP, Yankees
8. Angels  Justin Haley,RHP, Red Sox
9. White Sox:  Dylan Covey, RHP, A’s
10. Pirates: Tyler Webb, LHP, Yankees
11. Tigers: Daniel Stumpf, LHP, Royals
12. Orioles: Aneury Tavarez, 2B, Red Sox
13. Blue Jays: Glenn Sparkman, RHP, Royals
14. Red Sox: Josh Rutledge, INF, Rockies
15. Indians: Holby Miller, LHP, Phillies
16. Rangers: Michael Hauschild, RHP, Astros

Round 2
17. Reds:  Stuart Turner, C, Twins
18. Orioles:  Anthony Santander, OF, Indians

For a breakdown of most of these guys and their big league prospects, check this story out at Baseball America. Like I said, you don’t know most of these guys. And, while there have been some notable exceptions in Rule 5 Draft history, most won’t make a splash in the big leagues.

Each player cost their selecting team $100,000. Each player must remain on the 25-man roster of his new club for the entire season or, at the very least, on the disabled list. If he is removed from the 25-man, the team which selected him has to offer him back to his old team for a nominal fee. Sort of like a stocking fee when you return a mattress or something. Many of these guys, of course, will not be returned and, instead, will be stashed on the DL with phantom injuries.

Aren’t transactions grand?