Comments on: Bonds trial update: Agent Novitzky takes center stage

By: rapmusicmademedoit

rapmusicmademedoit — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:22:11 +0000

I don’t want the Gov’t wasting tens of millions of dollars to just puff out their chest and say I win…
If they are trying to recover money, ok.
This is bulllshit already.

By: fatelvis77

fatelvis77 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:01:26 +0000

Juries are always engaged on the first day of trial, but since the prosecution can’t quickly and succinctly prove its case they will get bored. I see this case as a loser for the government.

By: garlicfriesandbaseball

garlicfriesandbaseball — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:58:46 +0000

Barry Bonds. Our token Martha Stewart. Makes you feel safe doesn’t it?

By: baboushka

baboushka — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:04:37 +0000

I posted this comment on an earlier Bonds thread. And it works on this one too. You all do realize that if this case is ever appealed to the US Supreme Court, It will be judged by 3 justices who lied under oath to get on the court (perjury). The most infamous was Clarence Thomas, who lied about his entire sordid conduct with Anita Hill. The Senate refused to hear 8 unimpeachable eye witnesses who actually witnessed some of Thomase’s abusinve conduct toward Professor Hill. Several of them alledgedly were also sexually harrassed by Judge creepy. They all corraborated Hill’s testimony in depossition but were not allowed to testify by the Senate (which was divided after the Bork hearings). Talking about sweeping junk under a rug! Bond’s issue pales in comparison to that. The other two known perjurers were none other than John Roberts and Samuel Alito regarding cases they judged. My point is this. If we’re not going to impeach on the record liars and perjurors on the bench and in the political process. Why are we wasting the public’s money & time on this meaningless ceremonial trial of someone who only hurt himself? And he did it in a game that is meaningless to many. If the nation is really “broke”, it needs to flush every single meaningless exercise like a Baseball trial and focus resources on creating JOBS! This entire episode is vindictive and stupid. And I’m not even a Barry Bonds fan. In fact, I’m far from it. This is just about vendetta, by our government.

By: cur68

cur68 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:07:12 +0000

guileless22; “Do people want the federal government to not prosecute rich people for perjury because it will be expensive and take a long time?”
Actually the trial and conviction of billionaire Conrad Black shows the exact opposite. He’s just as polarizing as Bonds and the charges against him were just as weak but complicated. But the legal system had the means to freeze the ill gotten assets of the allegedly rich criminal. When this happened to Black it really cut him down to size and prevented him hiring a team of sharpie lawyers from running the show. What he got were two legendary but washed up greedy old farts who bungled their way through the whole thing and let their client go to jail. Hence, a relatively quick conviction in a weak, but complicated case. With Bonds they should NOT have bungled the first questioning in the grand jury. As such the Bonds case now revolves around if he lied under oath or if he just didn’t answer all of the rambling question posed to him. Its simple in that respect. The fact that he’s rich really doesn’t come into it; the cost and time is because the case is weak, the prosecution is committed (why committed? You’ll have to ask them; seems like glory hounding to me, though), and all Bonds has to do is show up and let his lawyers cream them for bringing a weak case. Any decent lawyer could do it.

ps. interestingly the prosecution don’t have to prove that the wealth is a direct result of criminal activity. They can just allege it is so, make a reasonably good argument to the judge and BOOM no moolah to pay for decent representation.
sorry about the wall of text. I’m feeling garrulous today I guess..

By: guileless22

guileless22 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:30:36 +0000

I’ll defer to you on the details Craig since you have followed it much more closely than I have. I’m sure the government has exacerbated the costliness and length of the litigation too. But whether or not it is justified, it will always be expensive to prosecute people with unlimited resources to defend themselves. I think Martha Stewart’s trial took a month didn’t it?

By: schlom

schlom — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:21:23 +0000

I think we don’t want the government to waste time on stupid cases that no one really cares about, except for Novitzky and the prosecutor who are trying to make a name for themselves.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:03:47 +0000

It wasn’t Bonds’ legal team that made the government spend two years on fruitless and quixotic appeals of evidentiary rulings that a first year law student could tell you had no chance.

By: guileless22

guileless22 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:57:02 +0000

I don’t get the time/expense argument. The main reason it has taken so long to prosecute Bonds is that he hired the best lawyers he could to make it hard for the government to prosecute him right? 99 times out of 100 the federal government has greater resources than the defendant but this is one of the rare cases where the opposite is true. Do people want the federal government to not prosecute rich people for perjury because it will be expensive and take a long time?

By: uberfatty

uberfatty — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:48:44 +0000

Why is this story acompanied by a picture of Joel McHale, and who shaved his head?

By: schlom

schlom — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:36:12 +0000

It’s best not to think about it.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:39:53 +0000

Estimated 10 – 50 million dollars for this case against Bonds. And if found guilty he’ll probably get house arrest and probation.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2011-03-20-barry-bonds-trial_N.htm

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:18:59 +0000

Where Matlock when we need him?