home

Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week?

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 09:45:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

In a story posted on Sports Illustrated's website (SI.com) this evening, San Francisco Giants "slugger" Barry Bonds will be indicted next week for perjury and tax evasion charges. But no steroids charges. See Indictment on deck? Lawyer: Bonds may face tax evasion, perjury charges. The grand jury's eighteen month term ends next week, so there is reason to believe it is coming then.

Barry Bonds' legal team is preparing for the San Francisco slugger to be indicted as soon as next week and has begun plotting his defense.

Attorney Laura Enos told The Associated Press on Friday that Bonds, second on the career home run list, could be charged with tax evasion and perjury.

Enos, Bonds' personal attorney, also said the lawyers believe the grand jury investigating the star player will expire next Thursday.

"We are very prepared," Enos said. "We have excellent tax records and we are very comfortable that he has not shortchanged the government at all."

The SI story also talks about the steroid investigation, but there is nothing about Bonds being charged with steroid abuse. Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, was jailed for contempt this week for refusing to testify about Bonds' steroid use.

So, sports fans, that could cause the next grand jury to keep looking into Bonds' alleged steroid abuse. Perjury and tax evasion? Curious. What is the perjury charge going to be on? Lying about not using steroids? We'll just have to see.

Bonds' former best friend was quoted in the NY Times that Bonds would fly into "roid rage."

The former best friend and business partner of Barry Bonds has told federal investigators that Bonds was a heavy steroids user and flew into "roid rages," his lawyer, Michael Cardoza, said Wednesday.

The man, Steve K. Hoskins, 44, of Redwood City, Calif., also says Bonds gave him thousands of dollars to pass on to two of Bonds' girlfriends, Cardoza said in telephone interviews.

Two lawyers for Bonds responded Wednesday that Hoskins was lying to get back at Bonds for accusing him of financial misconduct in their memorabilia business. The lawyers acknowledged that Bonds and Hoskins had been best friends before a falling out in mid-2003, when Bonds reported Hoskins to the FBI.

One of the side effects of steroid abuse is shrunken or atrophied testicles.

And, if Bonds still had his, he would just admit that he has sullied the grand game of baseball and that his past and future home run records were bought and paid for by and through a drug dealer. Hank Aaron is still king. Barry Bonds is a wannabe who couldn't do it alone. I see CNN carry video of another Bonds home run, and I want to barf.

Saturday Update: In today's LA Times: Bonds' Attorneys Set to Defend Any Charges:

Amid widespread belief that the term for the San Francisco grand jury investigating Bonds ends within days, [Bonds'] attorney Laura Enos said in a telephone interview, "There is no assurance there's going to be an indictment. No, none." But if an indictment were to be returned, she said, "It's not that big a deal," explaining that position with a turn to a famous legal maxim: "If a prosecutor is motivated enough and has made a significant investment of government resources, you can indict a ham sandwich."

I don't know about the Northern District of California, but in my district, the number of indictments is down but the quality of the cases filed is up. A federal indictment is a big deal. The sphincter factor is undeniable.

I don't ever want to be the ham sandwich. Ham sandwiches are made to be eaten.

In somewhat related development, Gatorade was banned for a boxing match tonight in Las Vegas.

< College Town Police Sgt. Charged with Four Rapes | Ex-Bush Aide Kills Son, Self >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? | 20 comments (20 topical)
    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 12:20:14 AM EST
    I have to say, while the content is fine, I don't like anything on this site that pre-judges anything having to do with the justice system. I'm not asking for ideological purity, I'm just saying...you are pre-judging Bonds. You might be right. You are probably right. Still, why this tone? The court of law and the court of public opinion are different, and I kind of expect this site to be on the former side, not the latter. This is the same reason that I really think that Steve Gilliard is out of line with his Duke commentary. He essentially says, they are guilty. On the other hand, this site, while questioning the prosecution, never says "they are innocent." So....biases, opinions, ideas, etc. are fin, but I think this post crosses the line. Bonds isn't guilty of anything...yet. Your final paragraph is unjustified as it alleges facts that are not proven. You know this drill. A simple "I think" or "I believe" or "evidence points to" is needed here. Otherwise, it isn't justified, and it doesn't belon on this otherwise excellent legal site. That of course, is my opinion. I share your feelings about Bonds, I am just unwilling to say that he is guilty of anything at this point, and I'm unwilling to say anyone is guily who has not been proven guilty. I may think they are guilty, but I guard my opinions accordingly, and I think you should too.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 12:22:37 AM EST
    Sorry for the typos. The "fin" is suppsed to say "fine" just in case anyone thought it was "fun." I'll be more careful next time. Promise.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:28:03 AM EST
    Assuming he is indicted, an interesting question will be what lie[s] establish the basis for a perjury charge. Perjury requires a deliberate falsehood about a "material matter." As the mere act of using steroids is not, standing alone, illegal, it seems likely that the lie[s] chosen will have to in some way implicate some other person[s]-- unless they relate only to tax issues and not the drugs. It may be only ones who have already pleaded to crimes or are otherwise not in jeopardy but it seems to me that to be material, it would need be shown that the lie was at least related to illegal distribution, DEA registration infractions or something beyond it being false when he denied knowingly using steroids.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#4)
    by teacherken on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:03:39 AM EST
    to deconstructionist forget the question of prosecution. His standing in the sports world, the credibility of his 'recorfds', the question of whethe he would be barred from the Hall of Fame, the possible loss of income from his sports memorabilia business -- all of these would represent a material interest for which his lies would be serving as protection -- oh, and while IANAL, making a false statement to a federal law enforcement official, even about a non-material matter, is in itself a felony.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    PBR: The indictment alleges Libby's testimony was material as it related to: "During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation: i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA; ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA; iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    Ken: you write: "forget the question of prosecution. His standing in the sports world, the credibility of his 'recorfds', the question of whethe he would be barred from the Hall of Fame, the possible loss of income from his sports memorabilia business -- all of these would represent a material interest for which his lies would be serving as protection -- " You are confusing the issue of "motive" (which is not an element of the offense, but is obviously, helpful persuasive evidence to convince a jusry one did lie) witht the issue of whether a lie pertained to a material matter. *** you also write: "oh, and while IANAL, making a false statement to a federal law enforcement official, even about a non-material matter, is in itself a felony." Really? Which statute creates that offense?

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    18 U.S.C. 1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a MATERIAL fact; (2) makes any MATERIALLY false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any MATERIALLY false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (emphasis added)

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:15:54 AM EST
    I agree with Abject. If he's being indicted, let's see what the indictments are about. Let's weigh how strong the charges are. The rumors of tax evasion arise from him allegedly supporting his ex-girlfriend with unreported sales of memorabilia. The perjury may have to do with steroids, or the alleged tax evasion. There's a lot of anger about Bonds because he passed Babe Ruth (season and career). I'm old enough to remember the crap Roger Maris went through when he passed Ruth for the season record, and the death threats that Aaron got when passing Ruth's career numbers. In Aaron's case, and now in Bond's case, a lot of that anger is informed by good ol' American racism. Bonds is an unpleasant person, and he most probably took steroids like half the major leaguers did prior to testing. He's probably guilty of something, but I bet the reason the feds paid any attention to him is because of the color of his skin and the color of his money. I'm willing for the courts to do their work, and I'll celebrate the last few homers that the 42 year-old Bonds can squeeze out of his bat at the end of his career. And I won't worry about his testicles.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    Oh come off it. The color of Bond's skin is similar to the color of the skin of countless other athletes who used steroids. Against many of whom whom there is evidence they knowingly facilitated or conspired to facilitate the illegal distribution of the controlled substance. How many of them have faced any criminal prosecution? If you want to argue Bonds has been subject to more scrutiny than ALL other athletes black, brown, white, striped or whatever, you may have a valid point but you simply sacrifice any credibility when you ignore the obvious and try to say he was singled out because he's black.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont remember all that much talk about 'roids when "Conan" McGuire was on his record breaking tear.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    There wasn't much talk that year about Sammy Sosa and Palmeiro or others back then. Was it collective denial because it was good theater and real good money for a lot of people)? Sure, but simplistic reductionism simply doesn't fit the facts. Later, McGwire sure seemed to take huge hit after his abysmal display before Congress and he's as white as ever (and that's pretty darn white). That he is not caught up in this particular GJ investigation and thus is not even possibly suspected of lying under oath about it would seem a matter explained a lot more by temporal and geographical considerations than racial ones.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    Decon - I'll stick with simplistic reductionism, thank you very much. lol. Seriously, good points to mull over.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Ted Williams, who looked like you could break him in half, once hit on ball onto the roof of Tiger Stadium. But someone's convinced these guys that they need drugs that seriously jeopardize they're health and wreck their credibility. I dont get it. Alright, I'll shut up now and yield the floor to the silver tongued devils.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    I don't think there can be much questiion that "performance enhancing drugs" (at least many of them) work as advertised. Would Bonds, McGwire, et al, still be extraordinary athletes without them? No doubt, but every little bit helps and that extra strength, endurance and reduced recuperation time (and some claim even improved eyesight-- Williams was famous for having extrordinary vision in addition to other atttributes) all help athletic performance. If we want to talk about race in regard to this issue, my question would be why does almost everyone in this country all but ignore the rather large volume of circumstantial evidence and some direct evidence concerning Lance Armstrong? He dominated just about the dirtiest sport going, suffered a disease which some studies have correlated with steroid use, has had more than a few people accuse him of use, has had positive tests that were not considered because of highly technical authentication concerns, etc, but in this country he is a "hero" while in Europe he is considered a blatant cheater.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    Abject Funk -- since I don't don't know a thing about Barry Bonds baseball career, and wouldn't even know he plays baseball except for his involvement in the steroids flap, I'll be looking at the case free from sports bias. It's very easy to do when you know close to nothing about sports. I didn't know who Pete Rose was either when he sought reinstatement. But I think I was fair to him and his son.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    Jondee, When $20 million a year started to get tossed around in salaries, the temptation became far too great. Decon, I disagree about McGwire. He was Dave Kingman without the roids, Babe Ruth Squared on them. Reminds me of the skit on an old 80's SNL, about the ALL-DRUG OLYMPICS. A bulging weightlifter prepares to clean and jerk the barbell, while the announcer (I think Kevin Nealon) says, and I paraphrase, "He's taken steroids, testosterone, Percodan, Secanol, amphetemines, pot, some kind of fish paralyzer, and I believe he's also had several cocktails in the last hour." Then the lifter just yanks his arms off at the shoulders in the attempt. Very Monty Python.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    I didn't mean to imply that McGwire was the all-around player Bonds was (although he was a lot better than Dave Kingman). I just used him in the context of extrordinary athlete because his nmae had been injected, but ALL the players who make the bigs let alone become long-term all-stars are extraordinary athletes by my reckoning.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:54:50 PM EST
    All I see coming out of this is that Barry Bonds ends up in Cooperstown.... ...That is with a succession of his hats, set up on end in an arrangment similar to the nineteenth century 'Accent of Man' illustration, year by year, size by size. Yeah, he is innocent until proven guilty but nobody's head grows that much in thier thirties. Metaphorically maybe but literally? Nah.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:13:21 PM EST
    I think race is an issue with Bonds because I listen to sports talk shows. Some of them are biting their tongues not to say what they want to say. Having stated that, Bonds is an unpleasant person and has made a lot of enemies with his arrogance over the years. So did Jack Johnson. My guess is that Bonds, like a lot of people in the late nineties and first couple of years of this century, have used steroids. Avoided taxes? Dunno, but it happens all the time, and if it's big enough it's a reason to indict. Did he lie to the grand jury? I'm willing to hear the evidence before I cast my vote. He hit another dinger this afternoon, though. #721. He's been the best player of my lifetime, with the possible exception of Willie Mays, and I caught him at the end of his career.

    Re: Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    I have no doubt that Barry has been singled out here, but I would say that it's a matter of his high profile more than anything else. I'd put race well down on that list. One thing that interests me about the case is that the charges settled so far have yielded such short sentences. Is there any legal basis for an argument based on disproportionality? I hope TalkLeft continues to cover this case.

    Barry Bonds to be Indicted Next Week? | 20 comments (20 topical)