1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's discuss: Jury chosen for Bonds' trial today.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member


    I know. I know. This thread is so 2007. But what the heck.

    Is there actually a 12-person jury in San Francisco that won't have at least one person with strong feelings one way or the other before the trial even starts?

    And is the prosecution really going to be able to get a guilty verdict on a perjury charge?

    And what will that mean for Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong's cases?

    I'll start. My guess is that this is going to be a mess. The court of public opinion went to bed on this long ago. There is a chance the Feds can revive it once the trial starts and it's all over the news, but I am dubious. The public is steroids-weary, and people don't get into THAT much of a twist over someone getting caught lying.

    As for the actual court, I think Bonds is going to walk, with "Why are they bothering with all of this?" or the prosecution putting up a weak case, as the two most likely causes. There is also always the very likely possibility of jury stupidity if they do put up a better case than it sounds like they have.

    While I don't think the public cares that much about Barry Bonds anymore, I know that isn't the case on here. I could see the steam blowing out of people's ears over Jeff Novitzky sitting at the prosecution's table today.
  2. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    I for one will not take this thread seriously until creamora shows back up.
  3. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    A jury of his peers?

    So it's A-Rod, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Jason Giambi, Andy Pettitte, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Gary Sheffield, McGwire, Canseco, Miguel Tejada and Benito Santiago? :D
  4. mb

    mb Active Member

    They'll never get a conviction. Why they've carried on this long, I have no idea.
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    This is the biggest waste of time and prosecutorial misconduct going today. Every day they drop cases as unwinnable when they have twice the evidence. Shit, they dumped the Ted Stevens case and they even had a conviction on him! This is all about stroking Jeff Novitzky's hard-on (for what reason, I don't know) and trying to bully people around and prove a point, a point that has become totally unclear even to those who have been paying attention.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Mark Fainaru-Wada. ...

    @markfwespn 68-year-old Packers fan, wearing Pack jacket, on the jury. Only watches the Pack, thought Congressional steroid hearings were waste of time 25 minutes ago

    @markfwespn Tomorrow: Opening statements in a.m., Greg Anderson refusal to testify next, the govt's 1st witness (#JeffNovitzky) likely after lunch. 22 minutes ago
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I understand your opinion about it being a waste of time and perjury cases being unwinnable.

    My two questions are:

    What is the prosecutorial misconduct?

    And what is unclear about whether Bonds lied after Game of Shadows?
  8. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The prosecutorial misconduct is when they extended to Anderson's family -- I am just grabbing the first Google link, about them threatening his wife, but there are other articles and I believe other people who were similarly threatened. (His mother-in-law's home was raided in 2009; what the hell evidence were they looking for six years after the case broke?)


    The unclear part is, what are we going to trial for, the steroids or the perjury? I get it that it's the perjury, but those cases are so rarely prosecuted, and when they do it's such a slam-dunk. This just looks like they put in all their time and they HAD to get something.

    Very much like Clinton-Lewinsky. The legal proceedings focused on whether he lied, but everyone knew that was a proxy for the government trying to get something out of all that time and energy it wasted.
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Taking anything other than the under on a +2 posts would have been stupid.
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Way too much invested to let it go now. And that's not to judge the merits of either side. But it is clear that years of efforts just can't be quit on
  11. cougargirl

    cougargirl Active Member

    Fainaru-Wada's jury selection tweets had my attention this afternoon. Was just scrolling through them before looking at this thread.
  12. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I usually post this in any Armstrong thread because I am pro Lance (whether he doped or not).
    LET IT GO.

    So for fair balance, I am about as anti Bonds as it comes, but still
    LET IT GO.

    if the governing body of the sport didn't catch the guy in competition, what purpose does it serve now?

    Yeah, look kids, if you cheat with PEDs, you'll make tens of millions of dollars, get a slap on the wrist, pay a fine, serve six months in a 'prison' in Malibu and retire to your own private island. Just say no.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page