Free Barry Bonds!

Feb. 14, 2013

By John Seiler

Don’t talk to the police. And in testimony before a grand jury, take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

That’s the lesson we get from so many unjust prosecutions — really persecutions — of people famous and otherwise, from Martha Stewart to Barry Bonds.

Whether or not Bonds should have used performance-enhancing drugs should be a matter for himself, Major League Baseball and baseball fans — all private entities. It should be none of government’s business.

Yet government has gotten involved. It prosecuted Bonds and convicted him of “obstruction of justice,” supposedly for lying to a grand jury in 2003. The L.A. Times reports:

“Bonds was asked in the grand jury session whether his personal trainer had ever given him a substance that required a syringe to inject. In his response, Bonds rambled on about his childhood and his friendship with the trainer before finally telling the grand jury that he had not received an injectable substance.

“The grand jury eventually indicted Bonds, and he was tried in 2011 on three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction. The trial jury convicted him of obstruction of justice, based on that meandering answer, but it deadlocked on the perjury charges.”

See? He should have taken the Fifth.

The new development:

“SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court wrestled Wednesday with whether to overturn slugger Barry Bonds‘ felony conviction for obstruction of justice.

“The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed whether Bonds broke the law by being evasive in a 52-word answer he gave a federal grand jury in 2003. The grand jury was investigating illegal distribution of performance-enhancing drugs….

“How the three-judge panel was leaning after Wednesday’s hearing was nearly as difficult to parse as Bonds’ answer. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins appeared troubled by the fact that Bonds eventually answered the grand jury query: ‘Can a grand jury witness obstruct justice by giving a series of evasive answers and then giving a direct answer that is not evasive?’ Hawkins asked.

“Assistant U.S. Atty. Merry Jean Chan, however, said Bond’s rambling response was intended to deceive. She argued that the obstruction conviction was not limited to those 52 words but reflected evasion throughout Bonds’ testimony.”

Actually, the whole prosecution/persecution of Bonds is a massive injustice worthy of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s. And remember that Bonds is not in prison only because he’s wealthy and can afford high-priced attorneys. If something like this happened to you or me, we’d be in some hellhole prison for years by now.

Let’s hope the 9th Circuit dumps this case in the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. “Justice” System has become a mockery of real justice and leaving Bonds alone would be a step toward restoring some sense of fairness.