Feb 13, 2013, 9:06 AM EDT
Barry Bonds lawyers will head into court today to argue his appeal of his obstruction of justice conviction today. There will be no decision today because that’s not how appellate courts roll, but when you read the Bonds headlines later, that’s what it’s about.
To review: Bonds was acquitted on all counts of perjury, but convicted for obstruction of justice. The basis for that conviction: a rambling answer to a question about whether anyone besides team doctors ever injected him with anything. His initial answer was something incoherent about being a “celebrity child.” Prosecutors and the jury say that that answer was “intentionally false, misleading and evasive.”
What no one ever seems to mention, though, is that Bonds actually answered the question:
As I’ve said before: maybe that “no” is lie. Probably is in fact. But the jury didn’t agree, acquitting him on that very question with respect to the perjury count. No, the prosecution claimed, and the jury agreed, that the question was not answered. That Bonds “misled and evaded” the grand jury.
The prosecution can say that all it wants — and maybe the appeals court will uphold the conviction because courts hate overturning jury verdicts as a general rule — but the fact is, Bonds was asked a yes or no question and he answered “no.” He rambled for a minute, just as every single witness in every single deposition or grand jury hearing in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence has done. But he answered the question. Even the jurors, interviewed after the trial, agreed that he did and questioned their conviction of him. “Wolfram” was one of the jurors:
Wolfram, 25, who works with developmentally disabled adults in Concord, Calif., said four of the jurors were unsure of the wording of that charge in the first place. She said she and those other jurors noticed that Bonds in his grand jury testimony eventually answered whether Anderson had ever injected him. But he did so a few pages later in his testimony, Wolfram said, not in the section mentioned in the charge. She said she and the other three jurors thought Bonds should not be convicted if he ultimately answered the question.
Wolfram said later, however, that they felt they had no choice because the jury instructions — authored by the prosecution — forbade them from looking at his “no, no” answer a page or two after the question was initially asked. To repeat: The prosecution, via the judge’s approval of their jury instruction, specifically told the jury TO NOT LOOK AT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. That is the legal basis of the appeal, by the way: bad jury instruction that all but required a guilty verdict, regardless of the actual facts.
Whatever the case, how all this constitutes obstruction of justice is utterly baffling to me still, a decade after he answered the question. Courts and common sense agree: It is not the job of the criminal justice system to punish an evasive or non-responsive witness. It is the job of the person asking the question to pin an evasive witness down. Here the lawyer in question didn’t do that, but either way, the question was ultimately answered.
Anyway, it’s now up to the Court of Appeals to explain how that constituted obstruction. I’m quite eager to hear how it does. And if it does, I’m quite eager to see if prosecutors start adding obstruction of justice counts to every single case on every single docket in the American judicial system. Because on this rationale, they most certainly could.
Mar 31, 2015, 5:15 PM EDT
Lefties never die. But Mijares is going to have a harder time now.
Mar 31, 2015, 4:42 PM EDT
Why is this man smiling when his team appears to be destined for last place?
Mar 31, 2015, 4:17 PM EDT
“Sheer panic … things got very bad, very quickly.”
Mar 31, 2015, 3:40 PM EDT
Nice little loophole.
Mar 31, 2015, 3:02 PM EDT
WIll this man be smiling in October?
Mar 31, 2015, 2:14 PM EDT
Chavez appeared in 80 games for the Mariners last season.
Mar 31, 2015, 2:00 PM EDT
It’s supposedly just an arm cramp, but Brad Ausmus isn’t ruling out the DL.
Mar 31, 2015, 1:00 PM EDT
A long-overdue measure will, apparently, soon be in place.
Mar 31, 2015, 12:46 PM EDT
Wright had a rough spring, allowing 11 runs in eight appearances.
Mar 31, 2015, 12:30 PM EDT
With this team, they’ll need it.
Mar 31, 2015, 12:16 PM EDT
Petricka saved 14 games with a 2.96 ERA and 55/33 K/BB ratio in 73 innings last season.
Mar 31, 2015, 11:50 AM EDT
“I’m encouraged by it, and we’ll see how it carries over into the season.”
Mar 31, 2015, 11:33 AM EDT
But most people can afford tickets or are paid to play the games are decidedly not blue collar.
Mar 31, 2015, 11:19 AM EDT
He got the nod over Mark Buehrle.
Mar 31, 2015, 11:02 AM EDT
Jenna and I talk about the Mariners’ dynamite pitching staff, Mike Trout’s need of some support and when the Astros will finally break into the picture.
Mar 31, 2015, 10:47 AM EDT
Probably destined for a part-time gig.
Mar 31, 2015, 10:30 AM EDT
The Phillies outfield is gonna be a train wreck.
Mar 31, 2015, 10:15 AM EDT
Street is without an agent, representing himself, and has said he won’t negotiate after Opening Day.
Mar 31, 2015, 9:50 AM EDT
There is still a lot of time before anything can happen, but it’s looking less and less likely that the Rays will stay in Tampa Bay.
- 2015 Preview: Tampa Bay Rays 3
- The Cubs assign Kris Bryant and Addison Russell to the minors, option Javier Baez as well 70
- 2015 Preview: Arizona Diamondbacks 8
- 2015 Preview: Toronto Blue Jays 69
- Mariners prospect Victor Sanchez has died 26
- 2015 Preview: Chicago White Sox 15
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? 88
- 2015 Preview: Atlanta Braves 16
- Ex-Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford was assaulted in St. Louis and told to “go back to Ferguson” (122)
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” (118)
- Rob Manfred says it would be hard to reinstate Pete Rose in a limited way (89)
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? (88)
- The MLBPA releases a statement on Kris Bryant, mentions possible litigation (87)