Convict Bonds with Evidence, Not Charges

Makes sense, except that its not always true. There've been quite a few documented cases where people have pled guilty to crimes that it was later proven they couldn't have committed.

Sometimes the pressure to plead is just too great when conviction look inevitable and a plea offers a better deal/lesser sentence. Or because they can't deal with the expense and stress of trial. Or they could just be batshit crazy attention whores like HL Lucas who pled guilty to all those murders just because he loved the TV attention.

 

Bonds.

 

If that's Bonds, then all the drugs he's taken have had some horrible side effects.

 

Katz may have a point, but the title of this thread is something that Katz should rework:

Bonds is charged, and if evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt, then he is guilty and will be convicted.

We understand the full scope of being charged and if the evidence sticks or not. Don't tell us something we already know.

 

Based on the evidence, we can convict creamora for a copyright violation for cutting and pasting that from Yahoo. Is it that difficult to do a link instead?

 

it's interesting that no one's mentioned that there was only one good reason for bonds to lie about this in court--that he didn't want anyone to find out that he'd used steroids. he had immunity, so he wasn't fearful of going to jail or anything. now, he shouldn't have had to worry about anyone finding out because grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed.

but whaddyaknow...it got out. the government didn't protect him like it said it would, a protection the government must have in place to induce honesty from those that testify in front of grand juries.

that's not to say i believe the GOS authors should have gone to jail or anything for printing the testimony. but the courts dropped the ball here. to me, it's a bit disingenuous to nail bonds for telling a lie he shouldn't have had to tell, but a lie that showed a bit of enlightened foresight.

 

I love how people here always scream about someone being innocent until proven guilty. It's a bedrock of our justice system, but where is it written that the public can't have an opinion and choose to believe it without a conviction? People are going to believe what they want, and it truly matters little whether it's "right" or "wrong" because it is what it is.

Now the media, on the other hand...certain portions of it have been less than journalistic in their approach and even condemnation of Bonds.

 

Jesus, with all due respect, let's look at Rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall we?

Jesus.
Let's look at Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall we?

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.
(1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter’s notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.
(2) Secrecy.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6 (e)(2)(B).
(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6 (e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

 

This is just a continuation of the line of thought that suggests Grand Jury leaks are not really a big deal (Hey, it was going to get out anyway, right?), even though one of the people responsible for the GJ leaks is going to serve a longer sentence (30 mos.) than any of the Balco defendants.

 

My post was in response to your assertion that:

"If you testify before a grand jury you should have no expectation that what you say will remain secret forever."

Rule 6e indicates quite clearly a) that grand-jury secrecy requires that I should have an expectation that the government will not leak my testimony, or someone's testimony ABOUT me, prior to trial -- to, say, pressure me into taking a deal I might not otherwise take, or to coerce me to implicate someone else. That would be a corruption of the process.
This, of course, never happens.