Friday, November 16, 2007

The Indictment of Barry Bonds

Homerun record holder and erstwhile San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds was indicted on four counts of perjury -- technically false declarations under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 -- and one count of obstruction of justice arising from his testimony before a federal grand jury on December 4, 2003.  The testimony was part of the investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (Balco) for the manufacture and distribution of designer steroids, including "the clear."  The four perjury counts relate to Bonds' denial that he received steroids from his long-time personal trainer, Greg Anderson, who was involved in Balco and entered a guilty plea to narcotics charges back in 2005.  Bonds received immunity before he testified, but a grant of use/fruits immunity does not protect against a perjury indictment if the testimony is false.  In looking through the indictment (available below) and thinking about various aspects of an investigation that has dragged on for over two years now, the following occurred to me:

  1. Is there a "literal truth" defense available?  In order to successfully prosecute a person for perjury, the government must establish that the witness statements were lies, and not just misleading or non-responsive.  The famous case of United States v. Bronston, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), requires that the testimony be false because "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." (Italics added).  The Bonds testimony identified as perjurious in the indictment seems fairly straightforward, with him responding "No" to questions about receiving steroids from Anderson or having Anderson inject him.  Of course, ambiguity in the questions can preclude a conviction if a defendant can assert he did not understand it, or was confused in how to respond.  Some of the questions seem fairly straightforward, such as "in the weeks and months leading up to November 2000, were you taking steroids -- No."  Other responses seem a bit more ambiguous, such as "Not that I know of" or "I don't recall having anything like this . . . ."  Bonds' lawyers are sure to argue that his statements were not misleading, and perhaps challenge the materiality of the testimony.  And even without a "literal truth" issue, the government still has to prove Bonds knew his statements were false, which is no easy task.
  2. What took so long?  Prosecutors have been investigating Bonds for perjury at least since March 2005, and perhaps earlier.  Part of the delay is attributable to dealing with contempt issues related to the leaking of Bonds' testimony to two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, who were spared jail when the government determined it was the lawyer for another Balco defendant who leaked the transcripts of a number of baseball players who testified.  There was also the contempt citations of Anderson, the former trainer, who has been sent to jail twice for not testifying before the grand jury.  Perhaps more importantly, the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco has been involved in quite a bit of turnover, including the removal of former U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan in 2006 when he was one of the seven U.S. Attorney's fired in what became a major scandal in Washington, D.C.  There is still no permanent appointee in the position, and any time there is turnover in the leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office a case as sensitive as Bonds' will be delayed.
  3. What happened to the tax evasion investigation?  There were media reports about an investigation of whether Bonds declared income from sports memorabilia sales, including claims that an alleged former girlfriend would testify to cash transactions.  The credibility of the witnesses in this area, at least as described in the media, was open to serious question, and tax counts would likely have distracted from the core perjury/obstruction case.  The tax issue could potentially be used to cross-examine Bonds if he chooses to testify and claim he is a truthful person, so the issue isn't dead, but it was probably a good idea to go with a single issue prosecution.
  4. Where's Greg Anderson?  As noted above, prosecutors subpoenaed Anderson twice to testify before the grand jury, and each time he refused and landed in jail for contempt.  The first stint ended when the grand jury's term expired in July 2006, but a new grand jury was empaneled a short time later and Anderson headed back to jail, where he has been for over a year.  Anderson was released the same day the indictment issued, and I think it is likely he did not testify before the grand jury.  After waiting over a year for him to crack, the federal prosecutors probably decided to move forward without him.  Once the indictment issued, there was no further need to hold him in contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury.  Whether the government will try to get him to testify at trial remains to be seen, but I rather doubt it because he would be such a risk, i.e. testifying favorably for Bonds, without grand jury testimony to hold over him. 
  5. Why the obstruction charge?  The obstruction of justice charge is broader than the perjury charges because it does not require proof that Bonds made literally false statements, only that he sought to impede the grand jury investigation.  The charge looks like a backstop -- note the use of baseball terminology -- in case there are problems with one or more of the substantive perjury counts that leads to a "not guilty" verdict.  The obstruction count includes both the alleged false statements by Bonds and that his testimony before the grand jury was "evasive and misleading."  This claim would be insufficient for perjury, but can be enough for obstruction.  If Bonds were convicted of obstruction, then any "not guilty" verdicts on perjury counts would not affect the likely sentence.
  6. Why Didn't Word About the Indictment Leak Out in Advance?  In a case riddled with leaks, the indictment, or at least its timing, seems to have been a complete surprise.  This has been a closely watched case, and there was some speculation that an indictment would be returned after the baseball season ended in late September, but nothing happened and it seemed to drop off the radar screen.  For once, grand jury secrecy seems to have worked.
  7. When will the trial take place? While there is a very slight chance a trial could be completed before baseball's regular season starts in April, I don't see any realistice possibility of that happening.  Indeed, the trial is likely to take place after the next baseball season, and it may well start in 2009 rather than 2008.  In looking at other prosecutions of a high-profile defendant on similar charges, Martha Stewart was indicted in June 2003 and convicted in May 2004, while I. Lewis Libby was indicted in October 2005 and convicted in March 2007.  The Bonds case is sure to include the usual array of pre-trial motions, from discovery to dismissal, and getting the lawyers and judge to clear time for the case will likely result in a trial date no earlier than nine months from now, and perhaps even next November.  The initial statement from Bonds' attorney indicated a likely charge of prosecutorial misconduct related to leaks in the case, and that will require time to sort out.  Claims from either side that they want a quick trial date does not necessarily mean that's in their interest.  Delay beyond the start of the 2008 season may mean that Bonds remains permanently at 762 as his homerun total.  Bonds has been cut loose by the Giants, and at this point no team has signed him during the free agency period.  There is a chance that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig will suspend Bond pending resolution of the case, but that remains to be seen.  It may be that no team will sign him, and Selig then won't have to take any action one way or other until the case is resolved, probably after the 2008 season.  If Bonds does not play in 2008, will any team take a chance on a 44-year old player who has sat out a year and had serious steroid use allegations aired, even if he's found not guilty?
  8. What are the odds of a plea bargain?  The morning line in Vegas won't be less than 100-1, roughly the same odds as the Tampa Bay Rays winning the World Series.  This may be Bonds' last chance to salvage his legacy, so I think a trial is a foregone conclusion, unless somehow a court dismisses the charges, which is equally unlikely.

Let the games begin. (ph)

Download us_v_bonds_indictment_nov_15_2007.pdf

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2007/11/the-indictment.html

Obstruction, Perjury | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54f97e4828834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Indictment of Barry Bonds:

Comments

So just how important is it to tell the truth?

As a motivational speaker, I was recently speaking to a group of high school students about the importance of telling the truth and making the right choices. What qualified me to make this presentation - personal experience…perhaps one of the best teachers in life. Having spent time in Federal prison for making unethical decisions, I know first hand the impact that choices have in our life. I am not proud of those decisions, but, likewise, refuse to hide the fact that I made them and that the impact they had on my life were - well - life changing.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal law blog, MLB’s home run hitter Barry Bonds has been indicted for - well simply put - “lying!” http://blogs.wsj.com/law/

The post in the WSJ Blog states: “Bonds joins a line of individuals stretching from Alger Hiss to Martha Stewart to Scooter Libby to who were indicted not for commiting an underlying crime, but for lying to investigators. Each time this happens, critics argue that a perjury prosecution is nothing more than an excuse for overzealous prosecutors to bring a headline-grabbing case against a boldfaced name. On the other hand, in pursuing such well-known figures, the feds hope to send a message to the meek and mighty alike: Don’t lie.”

I couldn’t agree more. Whether Bonds is convicted like Martha Stewart or not…the fact remains that the consequences of lying can have dramatic, life-changing effects. Take it from one who knows, “Club Fed” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s prison and no one I know wants to be there.

I routinely speak to business groups and associations on ethics, choices, consequences and their total effect. Every choice has a consequence - and the sooner we recognize that telling the truth is a choice the quicker we control the type of consequences we face. I personally prefer ”positive results” from the choices I make.

Posted by: Chuck Gallagher | Nov 16, 2007 7:47:11 PM

Post a comment