View Full Version : Bonds wants charges dismissed - grand Jury Qs were "vague, ambiguous and confusing"

01-23-2008, 07:42 PM

I can't find the details of the questions - but I recall them being pretty clear and his answers were not indicative of someone who was confused.

This motion should get declined - quickly.

01-23-2008, 08:29 PM

01-23-2008, 09:01 PM
I want a couple million dollars, the Sox to win the next 5 World Series, and Jay Mariotti to leave the city in disgrace.....doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

These motions are fairly common, and more commonly denied.

01-23-2008, 09:08 PM
Aren't they always?

01-23-2008, 09:51 PM
People in hell want ice water.

01-23-2008, 10:42 PM
Here's a link to the indictment for perjury and obstruction charges. Starting on Page 3 it quotes a lot of Barroid's testimony from his previous GJ appearance which is what the current charges are based on:

Q. So, 1 guess I got to ask the question again, I mean, did you take steroids? And specifically the test the (sic) is in November of 2000. So I'm going to ask you in the weeks and months leading up to November 2000, were you taking steroids - -

A. No

Q . - - or anything like that?

A: No, 1 wasn't at all. I've never seen these documents. I've never seen these papers.


Q: Okay. Were you obtaining testosterone from Mr. Anderson during this period of time?

A: Not at all.


Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?

A: No.

Q: And were you taking any other steroids?

A: No.

Not a lot ambiguous or unclear, IMO.


01-23-2008, 10:48 PM
Oh and that article was found on this site, which appears to have a huge amount of information pertaining to steroids and baseball in chronological order.


01-23-2008, 11:13 PM
This is the best comedy I've heard in weeks.

01-24-2008, 05:26 AM
I am going to file a motion in court next week suing Barry Bonds for $29.00. That will be my cleaning bill for my laughter when I got in my car last night, heard his motion, laughed and spit coffee on myself.

Bull**** begets bull****. Pay up, Barry.

01-24-2008, 06:31 AM
These motions are fairly common, and more commonly denied.

Aren't they always?
If a lawyer did not file such a motion, he or she could be liable for malpractice. This is why it is common to see these motions. However, I would not say that they are always denied. They are granted more often than the general public knows. After all 99.99% of criminal cases in this country receive no press coverage at all, so the public does not hear about cases being stricken on leave, dismissed, etc.

Rockin Robin
01-25-2008, 11:23 AM
What? You mean judges don't typically throw out federal cases?


01-25-2008, 12:04 PM
Sounds like he may have just read "8 Men Out". At one point, apparently (I say this because I know there is some dispute over some of the statements the author had made), the defense (players) argued that and the DA had to refile clearer charges.