Thursday, January 24, 2008

Bonds Moves to Dismiss Perjury Charges

Baseball player Barry Bonds asked a federal judge to dismiss his perjury charges, arguing that the indictment is "scattershot" and noted for its "striking inartfulness."[1]

Bonds was charged in November with lying to a grand jury about his use of performance-enhancing drugs.[2] In the motion filed in San Francisco federal court, the he neither admits nor denies taking the drugs but argues that the questions asked by prosecutors during Bonds' December 2003 grand jury appearance were vague, ambiguous and confusing.[3]

His federal criminal defense lawyers said "the questions posed to him by two different prosecutors were frequently imprecise, redundant, overlapping and frequently compound."[4]

Bonds' lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to either toss the case or order prosecutors to streamline the indictment, which cites 19 different instances of Bonds' alleged lying.[5]

Prosecutors asked Bonds several times whether personal trainer Greg Anderson supplied him with steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs beginning in 2000.[6] Bonds answered "no" or "not at all," but his lawyers argued that the questions were not clear.[7]

Bonds has pleaded not guilty to four charges of perjury and one count of obstruction.

Obstruction of Justice
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), it is a crime for a person to corruptly influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. The punishment for a violation of section 1503(a) is a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has previous written about the federal crime of perjury, here; and he has previously written on Barry Bonds here.

[1] AP Staff, Bonds asks federal judge to throw out perjury case, Associated Press Newswire, January 23, 2008, January 9, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.

Labels: ,

Friday, November 16, 2007

Bonds Indicted for Perjury, Obstruction of Justice

Major League Baseball's career home run leader, Barry Bonds, has been indicted on five felony charges in connection with his testimony before a U.S. federal grand jury in 2003 that he never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone.[1] The indictment tops off a four-year federal investigation into steroid use by elite athletes, of which Bonds has long been considered the primary target. Seven others have pleaded guilty in the case, most recently the former Olympic sprinter Marion Jones.[2]

The indictment, which includes four charges of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, contends that the government can prove that a positive steroid blood test result from 2000 seized in a 2003 raid of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or Balco, belonged to Bonds; if true, it would be the first direct evidence that Bonds took steroids.[3]

The 10-page indictment, can be found here, mainly consists of excerpts from Bonds' December 2003 testimony before a federal grand jury investigating the Bay Area supplements lab at the center of a steroid distribution ring. To assert the four counts of perjury, it cites 19 occasions in which Bonds allegedly lied under oath.[4]

An attorney familiar with the investigation asserts that the government obtained the results of positive steroids tests for Barry Bonds during a search of BALCO facilities, and the positive results did not come from confidential testing conducted by Major League Baseball and the players association. [5]

BALCO founder Victor Conte also served three months in prison after he pleaded guilty to steroids distribution. But Conte has long insisted that Bonds didn't get steroids from his lab. Conte says, however, that he "doesn't expect to testify" on behalf of Barry Bonds.[6]

Bonds was charged in the indictment with lying when he said he didn't knowingly take steroids given to him by his personal trainer, Greg Anderson.[7] Bonds is also charged with lying that Anderson never injected him with steroids. "Greg wouldn't do that....He knows I'm against that stuff." Bonds testified when asked if Anderson ever gave him any drugs that needed to be injected.[8]

Prosecutors promised Bonds they wouldn't charge him with any drug-related counts if he testified truthfully.[9] But according to the indictment, Bonds repeatedly denied taking any steroids or performance-enhancing drugs despite evidence to the contrary.[10]

According to the indictment, Bonds even denied taking steroids when prosecutors showed him the results of a test from November 2000 that showed a "Barry B" testing positive for two types of steroids. "I've never seen these documents," Bonds said. "I've never seen these papers."[11]

The indictment does not explain where prosecutors obtained those results, but they likely were conducted at BALCO.[12] Bonds first visited BALCO in November 2000 and submitted to the series of urine and drug tests conducted by BALCO founder Victor Conte on every athlete who went through the lab; the test results may have been seized when federal agents raided BALCO in September 2003.[13]

The indictment charged Bonds with four counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice. If convicted, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison. Bonds is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Dec. 7.

Perjury Perjury is generally covered under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 wherein it states that whoever, 1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;[14] or 2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;[15] is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.[16]

Obstruction of Justice Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), it is a crime for a person to corruptly influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. The punishment for a violation of section 1503(a) is a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.

[1] Duff Wilson and Michael S. Schmidt, Bonds is indicted on 5 felony charges, International Herald Tribune, November 16, 2007, available at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/16/sports/base.php (last visited November 16, 2007).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] ESPN Staff, Barry Bonds indicted on perjury, obstruction charges, ESPN.com news services, November 16, 2007, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3112487 (last visited November 16, 2007).
[5] Id., In 2001, MLB conducted tests to guage the level of substance problems among players. The government subpoenaed those records.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (1) (2007).
[15] Id., at § 1621(2).
[16] Id., at § 1621.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Black's Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys To Investigate Juror Comments


Former media mogul Conrad Black was convicted Friday, July 13, of defrauding newspaper empire Hollinger International out of millions of dollars.[1] He was found guilty by a federal jury of three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice for removing documents out of his Toronto office in defiance of a court order.[2]

However federal criminal defense attorneys are "looking into" a conversation among jurors in the Conrad Black fraud trial about a news story related to the case, that may have taken place despite the fact that juries in civil and criminal cases are repeatedly instructed not to discuss the case outside of deliberations, and not to read media reports about it.[3]

The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday, July 16, that, during deliberations, a juror told her colleagues that she had been told some foreign press suggested the jury was too stupid to understand the complex case which "It didn't settle well with anyone," said Margaret Williams, a juror on the case.[4] Williams said she had reassured her fellow jurors that they were all smart people and "let's do this," but she asserts that the comment didn't affect the jury's verdict one way or the other.[5]

Ron Safer, an attorney for former Hollinger corporate counsel Mark Kipnis, said he may file a motion this week regarding the juror's remark.[6] "Generally, you can't look behind the jury's deliberations….There are limited exceptions. This might be one of them," Safer said.[7] Federal criminal defense attorneys for Black and former Hollinger executive Peter Atkinson also confirmed that they were looking into the Sun-Times report.[8]

"I honestly don't think it's a big deal…….We had 18 weeks of trial, and we're going to have to do a do-over because someone's brother-in-law said something? That would be silly….[the comment would have to have had a prejudicial impact, but it is] a regular occurrence in lengthy trials where people would hear from their relatives about the case," said DePaul University law professor Stephan Landsman.[9]

Obstruction of Justice
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), it is a crime for a person to corruptly influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. The punishment for a violation of section 1503(a) is a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.

Federal criminal attorney Douglas McNabb has also previously discussed mail fraud in his blog, here.



[1] Mike Robinson, Black Convicted of Swindling Millions, Associated Press Newswire, July 14, 2007, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services File
[2] Id.
[3] Mary Wisniewski, Defense in Black case looks into juror's remark, Chicago Sun-Times, July 17, 2007, available at http://www.suntimes.com/business/hollinger/470995,CST-NWS-conrad17.article (last visited July 18, 2007).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.

Labels: ,

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Libby's Sentence Not That Unusual

President Bush said on July 3, that in reaching the decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, "I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict . . . I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it."[1] However records show that President George W. Bush's Justice Department frequently seeks sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to I. Lewis Libby's.[2]

Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice - one of four crimes for which Libby was convicted - got jail time; federal sentencing data shows the average sentence obstruction alone was 70 months.[3] However in Libby's sentence, Bush said that the former aide had suffered enough and that the prison term ordered up by a federal judge was "excessive."[4] We have previously discussed this case here.

Yet, last week the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for an Army veteran convicted of lying to a federal agent about a machine gun he had purchased.[5] The vet had a record of public service - in Vietnam and the first Gulf War - and had no criminal record, but Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines.[6]

The President's decision to make an exception for a political ally is irksome to many career Justice Department prosecutors who assert that the decision would make it harder to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.[7] "It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions," John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in Manhattan, said of the commutation.[8]

Libby was also convicted of perjury, which is covered under 18 U.S.C. §1621 and states that a person who, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;[9] or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;[10] is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.


[1] Richard B. Schmitt & David G. Savage, Libby's sentence not unusually long, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2007, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6710317.story?coll=la-home-center (last visited July 5, 2007).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] 18 U.S.C. §1621(1)(2007).
[10] Id. at. §1621(2)

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Jury Deliberates in Black Fraud Trial


The jury has begun deliberating in the fraud and racketeeting trial of former media mogul Conrad Black.[1] The panel has been in court for three months of testimony, more than 40 witnesses about 30 hours of closing statements and the presentation of hundreds of documents in the trial of Black and three other Hollinger executives.[2]

The jury will be considering all 43 of the charges, which include mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, racketeering and tax fraud; there are 13 counts against Black, 11 against each of former Hollinger International executives Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson and eight against former company lawyer Mark Kipnis.[3]

The key issue in this case rests on non-compete payments from sales of Hollinger newspapers which were made in exchange for promises not to compete in the same markets where the papers circulated.[4] Such agreements are not unusual in the publishing industry, but prosecutors say the money should have gone to Hollinger's shareholders, not the executives.[5]

As they deliberate, the mostly female jury was instructed that it must decide whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Black and the others intentionally lied to enrich themselves at the expense of Hollinger International shareholders.[6]

Obstruction of Justice
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, any person who falsifies documents with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of a department of the United State can be fined, imprisoned for 20 years, or both.

Racketeering
Racketeering is generally covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1951 wherein it states that interference with commerce by threats or violence is a crime that occurs when a person, in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Racketeering charges should be differentiated from RICO charges. Racketeering is the interference of commerce through threats of violence.[7] RICO charges,[8] on the other hand, concern organized crime and systematic racketeering activity infiltration into legitimate organizations. However, because the statutes are written loosely enough to be applied to drug traffickers, it would not surprise us to find out that the individuals in question in this case had been charged under the RICO statutes, rather than solely under the racketeering statutes.




[1] Romina Maurino, In the jury’s hands, The Canadian Press, June 28, 2007, available at http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/851159.html (last visited June 28, 2007)
[2] Id.
[3] Id.; AP Staff, A look at the Conrad Black trial, Associated Press Newswire, June 27, 2007, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services File.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 et seq.; see also Id. § 1961(a) (“racketeering activity” defined).
[8] Id. §§ 1961 et seq.

Labels: , , , , ,