1 of 1- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline - Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Bonds obstruction of justice conviction upheld.
Okay Fors, this is just a law question.
Do we not have an amendment right not to self incriminate ourselves? I'm curious how that means a grand jury can demand a confession from Bonds, that while maybe not an illegal action, still gravely damages his career and pursuit of happiness, and then prosecute him for not giving a clear enough answer under "obstruction of justice"? What justice? If sterroid use was illegal he has a 5th amendment right not to say shit right? If it's not illegal, then how is he obstructing justice?
I need to clarify, I hate the guy. I think he's a complete d-bag, but I don't understand the federal prosecution here trying to lock him up because he juiced. Didn't they just catch Braun red handed? He's not in jail... wtf??
I just don't understand really what makes Bonds misleading statements such a big deal when he should be protected from implicating himself in any way.
Explain for me Fors, I don't understand.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Bonds obstruction of justice conviction upheld.
You have the right not to incriminate yourself--meaning you have the right to shut up and not answer. You don't have the right to lie or provide misleading testimony. The former is constitutionally protected, the latter is a crime.
One other point to add. I just read a little of the 9th Circuit's opinion. Before testifying, Bonds was provided immunity with respect to his testimony, provided that it wasn't false or misleading. That changes things a bit. If a witness is subpoenaed to testify, he/she is required by law to appear and provide testimony under oath. If truthful answers carry the risk of criminal prosecution, the witness can assert the 5th Amendment and not be compelled to testify. However, if the witness is granted immunity, the truthful answers don't carry the risk of criminal prosecution. In that situation, a witness cannot assert the 5th Amendment.
Bonds wasn't protected by the 5th Amendment because he couldn't face criminal prosecution--unless he provided false or misleading testimony.
Last edited by forsberg_us (9/13/2013 3:06 pm)
- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline
- Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Re: Bonds obstruction of justice conviction upheld.
Okay fair enough.
At the end of the day, while I don't think much of him or Clemens particularly, it seemed a bit odd that they would be looking at jail time for refusing to admit their sterroid use.
No amount of immunity would protect him from MLB though. That carried a whole lot more concern I think for a man who was making upwards of 20 million a year playing baseball.
Anyway, I don't have a ton of sympathy for Bonds, just saying it seems like a colossal waste of money and effort to nail someone for this. I think they are expecting the sentence to be 30 days house arrest and 2 years probation? Really??? That was worth the millions we spent prosecuting this clown?
- •
Thread Starter