An Indictment is Not a Conviction: A Rebuttal to AC's Featured Sports Article
But I'm disappointed that the lead story in the section contains a factual error that should have been caught by anyone reading the piece.
The author began the piece with this statement:
"After a 4-year federal investigation, Barry Bonds today was finally indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. This means it was found that he lied about his prior steroid use, and also his knowledge surrounding other players' usage."
It doesn't mean that at all.
An indictment is a formal charge by the government presented by the grand jury. An indictment is a serious thing. However, there is a huge difference between an indictment and a conviction. Players on the Duke Lacrosse team were indicted. And we all know how that one turned out.
While an indictment is a major step towards convicting felons, the process of getting an indictment is not all that difficult. There's a famous saying that goes, "any competent prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. It's getting a conviction that's the challenge."
This case brings strong feelings on all sides. While the unofficial count is that 90 percent of the country wants to see old Barry jailed for his alleged infractions, there is a vocal minority (based mainly in the Bay Area) who claim his innocence.
I would like you to try and set aside any preconceived notions in this case and look at the facts from a non-biased point of view.
This case, one that's seemingly open-and-shut, has been in front of a grand jury for nearly four years. Why has it taken the government so long to get an indictment? Why has it extended the term of the grand jury and why has it twice jailed a key witness for refusing to testify only to now go ahead and prosecute with information that was available in 2004?
From my biased point of view, I believed the government felt that it needed Greg Anderson, Barry's personal trainer, to testify to make its case. Anderson has refused to testify and has been jailed for not providing his testimony to the grand jury.
Did it take four years for the government to become convinced that Anderson wasn't going to testify? Really, after three years they thought they still had a shot? Or did they just enjoy putting the screws to this individual in order to get Barry B, the man they REALLY want to get?
Too many people have a vested interest in getting Barry B and information damaging to his reputation has been leaked on a regular basis. Books have been written and journalists have made reputations reporting illegally obtained grand jury testimony. Has the government wised up and effectively banned key people from disclosing incriminating information about Barry? Sure, that's possible.
Or has the government gotten a corroborating witness with more credibility than Kimberly Bell, Barry's former mistress? That seems more likely. One theory I've heard is that former Olympic gold medal winner Marion Jones, who has admitted using steroids from the BALCO labs, is going to be a witness for the government.
Or has the government reached the point where it believes no new evidence is coming in and they are hoping that public opinion will help turn the tide in an otherwise weak case? Because, let's be honest, if the case was strong enough without Anderson's testimony, this indictment would have happened years ago.
Whatever you think about Barry, can we at least give him his day in court before convicting him of these crimes? I don't mean that juries are the only one capable of reaching a verdict. Juries have acquitted the Black Sox and O.J. Simpson (to name two famous cases in the sports world) but the public was given the chance to hear all the evidence and one would be hard pressed to find someone who thought they were innocent.
I want to hear the evidence and see the witnesses under cross-examination before I give my final answer on this case.
And I would love to know how much money the government has spent prosecuting this case.
There's an excellent article about the origins of this case, posted in the May 2004 issue of Playboy. Now, I know there's some of you out there who want me to link to the piece. Sorry, can't do that. But I will include this excerpt from The Guardian which quotes from the Playboy article.
"The article said that the inquiry began when Jeff Novitzky, an agent with the Internal Revenue Service's San Jose office, started talking about Bonds' size and strength with a colleague, Iran White, in 2000.
"You think he's on steroids?" Novitzky asked his colleague, White recounted in the article. "I think they're all on steroids," White responded. "All our top major leaguers."
White said Novitzky, a former San Jose State basketball player, commented: "I'd sure like to prove it."
The origins of this case are less than pure, coming from an IRS agent who wanted to get Barry. The government has followed this up at great taxpayer expense and has gone to great lengths to punish Greg Anderson for using his constitutional rights to remain silent.
It just stinks.
I'm glad that the government finally indicted Barry. Now all of the evidence can come out and we will have a better idea what went on. But despite what Associated Content would have you believe with its featured sports story, an indictment is not equal to a conviction.
Published by Brian Joura
Freelance writer for hire. References available upon request. View profile
Barry Bonds: Little Known Facts and StatsThis article presents the career of Barry Bonds, as well as his 2006 season results. His awards and accomplishments are discussed.
Barry Bonds: Worthy of the HallBarry Bonds had a career worthy of the hall of fame well before the steroid accusations. Before the 1999 season, he had already surpassed the careers of many current hall of fa...- Barry Bonds and the Challenge of RacismIs the home-run record reached by Barry Bonds tainted? Some say he used steroids. Others respond that there is racist sentiment against Bonds' record.
- The Continuing Non-story of Barry Bonds Still Topping Albert Pujols in the HeadlinesAn analysis of the (possibly) historic 2006 season of Albert Pujols, the never ending saga of Barry Bonds and the media's coverage of both.
- Barry Bonds is the Home Run KingBarry Bonds is the new home run king. He surpassed the record, held by Hank Aaron, on Tuesday when he hit career home run number 756.
- Barry Bonds: Indicted on the Way to the Hall of Fame
- Grand Jury Indictment Proceedings: An Overview
- Breaking News: Barry Bonds Indicted for Perjury, Obstruction, but Not for Being Black
- Grand Jury F.A.Q.'s
- What Does Barry Bonds' Indictment Mean for Baseball?
- Does Barry Bonds Deserve Your Support?
- Should There Be an Asterisk Next to Barry Bonds Once He Breaks the Home Run Record?
13 Comments
Post a CommentGreat article. Let him have his day in court. In case you are not convinced he was on 'roids, go to www.baseball-reference.com and look at the step function change in his stats. Besides, nobody's head grows that much at that age.
Whoa, you stirred up some interesting discussion.
I live in Piedmont Triad area of North Carolina and I can tell you that the way the Duke Lacrosse story played here was a lot different than what you portrayed. It was a nightly story here with much more reporting than happened at the national level. The facts came out eventually but at the time of the indictment, CW said the boys were guilty and the trial was going to be a formality. Anyway, I don't mean to say that the Bonds case is analagous to the Duke Lacrosse case in every sense. I used it as a way to point out that an indictment does not equal a conviction.
While you're right that an indictment is far from a conviction, I think your comparison of the Barry Bonds case with the Duke rape case is severely off. Laywers and lay people alike can analyze much of the evidence made available to the public in both cases. It was fairly clear from the start that Nifong didn't have the evidence to obtain a conviction in the Duke rape case. In fact, the DNA evidence and ever-changing story of the alleged victim should have cleared the boys within days. This situation with Bonds is much different. The book Game of Shadows sheds much light on the situation, and I, for one, fully expect Barry Bonds to enter into a plea deal. He'll "get his day in Court" if he wants one; but I doubt very much that he does.
I have no problem with jailing Anderson the first time. Thanks for giving a ballpark figure on the costs of the investigation. I probably would have guessed around twice that much, not that $300K is anything to sniff at.
Brian I agree with your comment- since they banned the guy for that, why do they have an entire RSS feed and special section about it?
Hallelujah! The amount of libelous material on here is astounding. I find it hard to believe half of these people are paid. LOL. But everyone's an expert, you know.
lol, ya and we all know how the Floyd Landis ordeal turned out as well. to be continued I guess...enjoyable article. Can we throw in people like Ray Lewis and Leonard Little into the mix if O.J's there?
Oh yuk and of all the work I've done, they highlight that silly Ham Haiku...thanks AC. :-P Otherwise, I don't know the Bonds facts but yeah, big difference between an indictment and conviction.
Your constitutional right to remain silent only applies when you may incriminate yourself. Greg Anderson was given immunity to testify about Bonds so he had to either testify or go to jail. That being said perjury is just about the hardest crime to convict someone of, and California is the most liberal jury pool in the country. I would be stunned if Bonds ever gets convicted of these charges. An educated guess says that so far this investigation has cost the government in the neighborhood of $300,000 excluding salaries. More if they tapped phones. Something to think about when you file your taxes next year.