WORLD Law Direct Forums
Home > WORLD Law Direct Forums > FORUM INFORMATION > Law News > Feds Triple Charges for Bonds, But Legal Exposure Stays the Same

Feds Triple Charges for Bonds, But Legal Exposure Stays the Same

This is a discussion on Feds Triple Charges for Bonds, But Legal Exposure Stays the Same within the Law News forum, part of the FORUM INFORMATION category; The Feds may have nearly tripled the number of charges against Barry Bonds yesterday, but his legal exposure remains the ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply  POST NEW QUESTION

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old May 14th, 2008, 09:51 AM   #1
News
 
WSJ Law Blog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,079

Default Feds Triple Charges for Bonds, But Legal Exposure Stays the Same



The Feds may have nearly tripled the number of charges against Barry Bonds yesterday, but his legal exposure remains the same. In a re-written indictment unsealed in federal court in San Francisco, Bonds (pictured, in earlier days), who’s accused of lying under oath about his use of steroids, is charged with 14 counts of perjury, up from the original five counts.

“It’s exactly the same,” Golden Gate U. law prof Peter Keane told the AP. “It’s two ways of saying it’s lying and there’s really no substantial difference between what he was charged with then and what he is charged with now.” Another legal eagle told the San Fran Chron that the new indictment wouldn’t necessarily increase Bonds’ likely maximum sentence of 30 months in prison if he is convicted of all the charges at his upcoming trial.

Bonds’ legal team objected to the initial indictment, handed up in November, because by law, the government can accuse a defendant of only one crime per count of an indictment. Bonds lawyer Dennis Riordan contended that the indictment accused Bonds of telling as many as five lies in a single perjury count. Judge Susan Illston agreed, and ordered the government to rewrite the document. The new indictment broke each of the old perjury charges into multiple new ones.

“All the government wanted to do here was cure the indictment to make sure the case could move forward,” Daniel C. Richman, a former prosecutor and Columbia law prof told the NYT. “Ironically, the government’s response was to give the jury more choices on what they can convict him on.”

Last edited by top_admin; May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 AM.
WSJ Law Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark & Share



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bonds Mistress Says Bonds Abused Her, Blamed Injury on Steroids WSJ Law Blog Law News 0 Mar 28th, 2011 04:00 PM
With Trial Looming, Feds Streamline Charges Against Bonds WSJ Law Blog Law News 0 Feb 11th, 2011 03:40 PM
savings bonds: who is entitled to possess the bonds? Unregistered Miscellaneous Topics 2 Sep 21st, 2010 05:17 PM
Chicago pedestrian hit by DUI driver over triple the legal limit forum_admin Law News 0 Nov 29th, 2009 12:12 AM
Afternoon Roundup: Feds Seek to Drop AIPAC Charges, More WSJ Law Blog Law News 0 May 1st, 2009 09:00 PM


International Law Issues?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 PM.