Closing Arguments Delivered In Barry Bonds Trial

Legal experts weigh in on Barry Bonds’ post-trial strategy

8 Comments

A lot of people have been asking in the comments recently about whether the somewhat inexplicable jury verdict against Barry Bonds will be overturned, vacated, appealed, whatever. I’m not a criminal procedure expert so the specific mechanics relating to a trial judge’s ability to set aside a jury verdict are a little amorphous to me, and NBC doesn’t pay me enough to go hit the law library to figure it out. Not that I’d really want to anyway.

My sense, though, is that it’s a really tall order to have a verdict set aside — it’s certainly the case in civil trials, and I would guess that it’s harder in the criminal sphere — but that Bonds’ appeallate avenues are wide open and pretty, um, appealing given the bad jury instructions that were given on obstruction of justice and the unusual and, in my view, incoherent he-didn’t-perjure-himself-but-he-did-obstruct-justice outcome of the trial.

Today the New York Times tracks down people who know more about this stuff than I do and tries to hash it all out.  Worth noting — though they’re obviously biased — is that Bonds’ own attorneys considered the verdict the other day to be pretty good news all things considered. They they think that Judge Illston will vacate the conviction on May 20th and that Bonds will go free (you know what I mean).  Other legal experts believe that such optimism is “reasonable” but that appeal may be a more sure route to success:

Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor who specializes in white-collar criminal defense, said the defense might say that Bonds’s evasive statements to the grand jury did not rise to the level of obstruction of justice. He said that it was one of the arguments that make a strong case and that the issue might set off an appeal that would last for years.

“I think there’s a reasonable chance the judge will agree with the defense, but even if she doesn’t dismiss it, they have a really good appellate question,” Simon said. “No matter how you look at it, this is a great result for the defense because they have an issue that calls the conviction into question.”

I don’t think he means “great result” in terms of the conviction being great. I think he means things are set up well for appeal purposes, even if an acquittal would be preferable.  But hey, what do I know?

But even if I don’t know anything, my gut tells me that contrary to what one of the other experts says in the article, this case doesn’t seem likely to settle with a plea.  I am highly skeptical that the prosecution will go through a retrial of the other counts, and barring that as a legitimate threat, they have nothing to offer Bonds (i.e. they’re not going to come off of him admitting to one count). Bonds, in contrast, has to believe that he’s got a great shot on appeal.  As such, my guess is that this either ends with the judge setting this aside in May or after a lengthy appeal.

2016 postseason playoff shares announced

Money
Getty Images
Leave a comment

OXON HILL, Md — There used to be a time when postseason money was bigger than most players’ actual salaries. Winning a pennant in baseball’s Golden Age was great for its own sake, but if you were one of the guys who hung around with, say, the Yankees for a long time like Frank Crosetti, the money was basically life-changing.

That’s not the case any longer, but the money is still pretty good, as evidenced by the postseason shares handed out for this past postseason, which were just announced and are set forth below.

Shares come from the “players’ pool,” which calculated by taking 50 percent of the gate receipts from the Wild Card Games; 60 percent of the gate receipts from the first three games of the Division Series; 60 percent of the gate receipts from the first four games of the League Championship Series; and 60 percent of the gate receipts from the first four games of the World Series.  The players’ pool is divided among the 10 Postseason Clubs. The 2016 players’ pool was a record total of $76,627,827.09. Last year it was $69,882,149.26.

The clubs themselves decide how many shares to allocate, with the players making decisions regarding which part timers, cup-of-coffee callups, staffers, etc. get. They also have the ability to hand out straight cash awards in whatever amount they want as opposed to a percentage cut of the postseason money.

The breakdown:

  • Chicago Cubs (Share of Players’ Pool: $27,586,017.75; value of each of full share: $368,871.59) – The Cubs issued 66 full shares, a total of 8.7 partial shares and four cash awards;
  • Cleveland Indians (Share of Players’ Pool: $18,390,678.50; value of each of full share: $261,804.65) – The Indians issued 60 full shares, a total of 8.75 partial shares and 16 cash awards.
  • Los Angeles Dodgers (Share of Players’ Pool: $9,195,339.25; value of each of full share: $123,741.24) – The Dodgers issued 65 full shares, a total of 8.285 partial shares and 20 cash awards.
  • Toronto Blue Jays (Share of Players’ Pool: $9,195,339.25; value of each of full share: $123,045.09) – The Blue Jays issued 66 full shares, a total of 7.75 partial shares and 15 cash awards.
  • Boston Red Sox (Share of Players’ Pool: $2,490,404.38; value of each of full share: $33,761.22) – The Red Sox issued 61 full shares, a total of 10.686 partial shares and 14 cash awards.
  • San Francisco Giants (Share of Players’ Pool: $2,490,404.38; value of each of full share: $36,443.03) – The Giants issued 57 full shares, a total of 10.5 partial shares and nine cash awards.
  • Texas Rangers (Share of Players’ Pool: $2,490,404.38; value of each of full share: $38,422.69) – The Rangers issued 54 full shares, a total of 10.19 partial shares and seven cash awards.
  • Washington Nationals (Share of Players’ Pool: $2,490,404.38; value of each of full share: $35,442.68) – The Nationals issued 60 full shares, a total of 10.209 partial shares and one cash award.
  • Baltimore Orioles (Share of Players’ Pool: $1,149,417.41; value of each of full share: $18,351.02) – The Orioles issued 52 full shares, a total of 8.36 partial shares and 30 cash awards.
  • New York Mets (Share of Players’ Pool: $1,149,417.41; value of each of full share: $17,951.65) – The Mets issued 51 full shares, a total of 12.75 partial shares and five cash awards.

 

Cubs-Royals reportedly agree to the Wade Davis-Jorge Soler deal

KANSAS CITY, MO - APRIL 3:  Wade Davis #17 of the Kansas City Royals throws against the New York Mets at Kauffman Stadium on April 3, 2016 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Ed Zurga/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

It was rumored to be close last night but now Bob Nightengale of USA Today is reporting that the Cubs and Royals have agreed to the Wade Davis for Jorge Soler deal. Jeff Passan of Yahoo first reported that the deal was close last night. It’s not a completely done deal as the official announcement is pending physicals, but an announcement could come this morning.

Davis has been one of the most dominant relievers in baseball over the past three seasons, posting a 1.18 ERA with 47 saves and a 234/59 K/BB ratio in 182.2 innings. He did, however, miss a lot of time in 2016 — basically the month of August — due to arm trouble and expecting him to be the circa 2014 Wade Davis is probably unrealistic. He’s owed $10 million for 2017 and can become a free agent after the 2017 season. He’ll fill the void left by the departing Aroldis Chapman as Joe Maddon and the World Series champs’ closer.

Soler, who will be 25 when the 2017 season begins, hit .238/.333/.436 with 12 homers and 36 RBI in 86 games last season. He strikes out a lot but takes walks t00 and has shown some good power in short bursts. He’s the sort of player who one could easilsy see putting things together to become a solid regular, which makes him a decent return for giving up a closer in his walk year.