I really have no idea what the government hopes to achieve with the Bonds indictment. The essence of the perjury charge is that Bonds is alleged to have known that Anderson was supplying him with steroids, but Anderson has spent a year in jail for refusing to testify in connection with the Bonds case and there seems little prospect of that changing. The government therefore faces the high burden of showing not that Bonds used steroids, but that he knew he was using steroids in advance of his grand jury testimony that Anderson told him they were something else.
Unless the government can produce evidence that Bonds was told in advance that Anderson was giving him steroids, the whole case is dead in the water. It is my understanding that Bonds' ex-girlfriend is prepared to testify against him, but such a source has inherent credibility problems. If that's all the government can come up with by way of actual admissible evidence, I'm mystified how they hope to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the critical material fact is what was in Bonds' mind at the time of his grand jury testimony.
Unless the government can produce evidence that Bonds was told in advance that Anderson was giving him steroids, the whole case is dead in the water. It is my understanding that Bonds' ex-girlfriend is prepared to testify against him, but such a source has inherent credibility problems. If that's all the government can come up with by way of actual admissible evidence, I'm mystified how they hope to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the critical material fact is what was in Bonds' mind at the time of his grand jury testimony.
Reply
Leave a comment