As I stated in my last post, I've read the 10-page indictment against Barry Bonds and hold that the Federal Government's charge of perjury is flimsy at best. Here's why; let's start with the definition of "Perjury":
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
The problem is this, which comes from the indictment itself:
"having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of California, unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and contrary to such oath, did make false material declarations,"
The problem rests in the use of the words "willfully" and "knowingly". The government's evidence must prove that Barry Bonds did indeed know that what he was being given was a steriod and willfully lied about it. He has testified -- and the information is in the indictment -- that he did not know what he was being given.
Plus, the other problem is that not every steriod was banned at the time. In other words, Bonds could have been given a legal steriod. If the Government's case does not make that distinction, it' fails. I must also add that one main problem with the work of San Francisco Chronicle writers Lance Williams and Mark Fairnu-Wada is that they fail to note the difference between "legal" and "illegal" steriods.
Bodybuilders use many legal steriods to "get big" and without fear of prosecution or arrest. Anabolic steroids, which build muscle, are controlled substances, whereas "Andro" which is what Mark McQuire and other baseball players have supposedly taken, is a hybrid substance and was under scrutiny for prohibtion by the FDA in 2004.
Which brings up another point: the time of focus of Bond's actions is between 2000 and 2003, not on or after 2004.
The other issue not adressed by the indictment is the matter of what was a legal drug at the time. If the Government and the FDA were not banning or prohibiting the use of many of the drugs listed in the indictment at the time Barry supposedly was given them, then it's even more possible he didn't know that what he was being given at the time was a now banned steriod, or for that matter a steriod. Victor Conte, the former head of BALCO, which distributed drugs to athletes, has said he never gave a banned steriod to Barry Bonds.
The Government may have errred here, as well. They can't switch between asking Bonds whether he lied about taking a banned substance or a legal substance. Then, there case not only looks bad, it begins to take on the appearance of an obvious witch hunt. In that instance, a jury in Northern California, where the suit was filed, would almost certainly consist of Bonds sympathizers, and the case would fail.
My bet is the Government's lawyers forgot to consider just what was a banned steriod and what was not at the time. Remember, much of this case calls for rebuilding what happened in the past. And even if the steriods were legal, again, Barry had even less reason to fear that what he took was not appropriate or that he actually knew that he was being given something illegal and of massive concern.
What the Government needs is more than just circumstantial evidence, as the Chronicle writers provide. It needs a document with Bonds handwriting on it that proves he visited and approved of the use of steriods. Without real, hard core evidence of that type -- and there's no sign it's there -- the Government could lose this case, big time.
I think they will.
No comments:
Post a Comment