Comments on: Bonds jurors are second-guessing their votes

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 18 May 2011 13:29:38 +0000

Except the jury foreman I criticized did not say that he was constrained by the jury instructions to vote the way he did. He asserted quite plainly that Bonds did not answer a question that he clearly answered. Which is a misstatement of fact. A misstatement he made to a reporter in an effort to make his verdict appear just, when it clearly was not based on the law of obstruction of justice.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Wed, 18 May 2011 13:24:01 +0000

“But then we reread the instructions from the judge a hundred times and it said to focus on one underlined statement from Bonds, from his grand jury testimony,” said Wolfram, who voted for Bonds’s conviction on two of the four charges. “In that part, he avoided answering the question by talking about his dad and his childhood and clearly was parading around the question. So all four of us ended up changing our minds.”

It’s clear the jury did its job. As I said previously, it was unfair and stupid for Craig to blame the jury foreman for what might seem like an illogical verdict. Saying the jury foreman didn’t do his job without knowing what went into their decision was just lazy, irresponsible and flat out wrong. As I said previously, blame the law, blame the judge but don’t blame the jury.

By: hawkinsob

hawkinsob — Tue, 17 May 2011 15:21:33 +0000

Nobody really cares anymore. The main witness against Bonds has clammed up, so they’ll never really be able to try him properly. Everybody knows this. Its old news. This author, however, will be writing about this case 10 years from now.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Tue, 17 May 2011 15:10:02 +0000

To expound a little, in one instance, I arrived on a scene where a fight had taken place before I got there. A girl asked for my assistance, cops were going to enter her room with the excuse they were retrieving a hat and she didn’t want them to. I repeatedly asked them if they didn’t need a search warrant to enter, and was subsequently arrested and charged with being involved in an affray and obstruction of justice.

The other incident was similar, I walked into a bar and saw that an altercation had just ensued, decided it was not a place where I wanted to be and as I was leaving cops entered. As I was walking out of the bar one cop ordered me to stop and I continued walking out the door. I was apprehended just outside by other cops, charged with being involved in the altercation and obstructing.

In both instances I was guilty merely of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not co-operating with the authorities. Since I had nothing to do with the original altercations why was my noncompliance criminal? Incidentally, in both happenstances, I was the only person arrested.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 17 May 2011 14:48:23 +0000

The fact that justice may have been done despite your interference is irrelevant to the factual basis of obstruction.
.
Also, being guilty and being found not guilty are not the same. One is a fact, the other is a legal finding.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Tue, 17 May 2011 14:42:39 +0000

No, not when they know (or think they know) you were guilty even if it was not beyond reasonable doubt. I know a person who was found guilty because of a Judge having bias, which they mentioned the details of off the record after the case was heard and judgement was handed down. A person who never drove was found guilty of driving while Intoxicated,even though they never drove (all lawyers stated it would be a slam dunk with the proper witnesses, which they had) After found guilty the Judge mentioned later how her sister’s best friend was killed by a drunk driver while walking down the road holding hands with her sister. Biased? Hell yes. And as god is my witness, the man never drove, he responsibly was sleeping in his truck while waiting for his friends to wake him up and drive him home.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Tue, 17 May 2011 13:49:52 +0000

Having not once but twice been convicted of obstruction of justice, both times after having been found not guilty of the original crime I have often believed and unsuccessfully argued that what justice are you obstructing if you were not involved in a criminal action. Is there any chance the judge tosses the OOJ following the aforementioned reasoning?

By: heynerdlinger

heynerdlinger — Tue, 17 May 2011 13:40:00 +0000

Seems like interviewing the jurors to determine if they found the instructions confusing might actually have some bearing on whether those instructions were proper.