Posted on March 22, 2011 by Anthony Lake

Perjury and Obstruction Trial Against Former San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds Commences in San Francisco; Trial to Begin With Hearing on Bonds' Former Weight Trainer--Possible Contempt

 

The trial of former San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice commenced yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The charges against Bonds arise from his statements to a grand jury in 2003 in relating to an investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) in Burlingame, California, and steriods. Bonds told the grand jury that he never knowingly used banned drugs. The transcript of his December 4, 2003, testimony may be read in full here. Jury selection took place yesterday.

The jurors' names will be kept secret until the conclusion of the trial (however, the jury includes at least one Oakland Athletics fan). Opening statements are expected to take place today, followed by a hearing concerning Bonds' former weight trainer, Greg Anderson. Anderson pled guilty in the BALCO case and has served a year in prison for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of Bonds. The prosecution has subpoenaed him as a witness at trial, however Anderson has stated his intention not to testify against Bonds. The Court has stated that it will rule Anderson in contempt if he refuses to testify and hold him in prison for the duration of the trial.

Bonds, who played as a left fielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates from 1986 to 1993, and for the Giants from 1993 to 2007, holds Major League Baseball records for home runs in a single season, is an all-time leader in walks and intentional walks, and is also the recipient of 14 All-Star awards, 8 Golden Glove awards and 7 Most Valuable Player awards.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on March 1, 2010 by Anthony Lake

Oral Arguments in Skilling Case Focus on Jury Selection Issues, Less Emphasis on Honest Services Fraud

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog,  Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, and Professor Ellen S. Podgor of Stetson University College of Law and the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed more interested in the jury selection/fair trial issues in yesterday's oral arguments in the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, Skilling v. U.S., Case No. 08-1394 then it did in the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1346, the federal honest services fraud statute. The transcript of the oral argument may be read here. After lengthy questioning regarding the jury selection at Skilling's trial by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and others, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., raised the question of honest services. Skilling's counsel, Sri Srinivasan, appeared to have adopted the strategy of arguing for a new trial based upon juror bias relating to the Enron scandal rather than a reversal of Skilling's convictions for honest services fraud. Srinivasan argued that the Department of Justice was interpreting the law broadly enough to reach virtually any falsehood told by an employee.

Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben argued for the government. Dreeben argued ways in which the Court could interpret the honest services fraud statute in order to avoid holding it unconstitutionally vague. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated to Dreeben that it was Congress' job to rewrite the statute and Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on the excessive scope of the statute.

The Court's decision in the case is expected this spring or summer. The parties' arguments regarding honest services fraud largely mirrored the arguments in the two other challenges to 1346 which the Court had heard this term. Commentators have opined that 1346 may not survive without being sent to Congress for reshaping.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on April 9, 2008 by Anthony Lake

Supreme Court Reversal on Batson Grounds

   Jeffrey Brooks was a student at Southern University in New Orleans. Allen Snyder was a Louisiana man on trial in a Louisiana court for the first degree murder of his wife, Mary. And Mr. Brooks was a member of Synder’s jury panel.

   The prosecution and defense winnowed the 85 prospective jurors of the panel down to 36 through challenges for cause. Five of the remaining 36 prospective jurors were African-Americans, including Mr. Brooks. The prosecutor proceeded to eliminate the remaining African-American jurors through the use of peremptory strikes. In the case of Mr. Brooks, the prosecutor offered the alleged race-neutral reasons that Mr. Brooks allegedly looked “very nervous” during questioning, and that he was a student teacher and therefore allegedly might be more inclined to render a guilty verdict on a lesser charge so that he could return to his teaching duties.

The defense made an objection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986), which the trial court overruled. Snyder was convicted of first-degree murder and appealed alleging Batson error, however the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court then granted cert in Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S.Ct. 1203 (March 19, 2008).

The majority, led by Justice Alito, reiterated the test in Batson for adjudicating a claim that a peremptory strike on a juror was based on race:

“First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race[;] [s]econd, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question[;] [and] [t]hird, in light of the parties’ submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.”

Id. at 1207 (quoting Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 277, 125 S.Ct. 2317 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting); quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-329, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003)). The majority found that the trial court did not make any specific findings regarding Mr. Brooks’ alleged demeanor on the record, and rejected his alleged nervousness as a possible ground for upholding the strike. Id. at 1209. Furthermore, the Court found that Mr. Brooks’ student teaching obligations were a suspicious ground on which to uphold the strike, noting that no less than 50 members of the panel expressed concerns that jury service would interfere with work, school, family, or other obligations; that the dean of the university had told the Court that Mr. Brooks could make up his missed work; that, after hearing the dean’s statements, Mr. Brooks no longer seemed concerned about serving on the jury; and that even the prosecution anticipated that trial would be relatively brief. Id. at 1209-1211. It further noted that the prosecution had accepted white jurors with conflicting obligations at least as, or more, important as Mr. Brooks’, and cited several examples. Id. at 1210.

      The majority held that the prosecution’s pretextual explanations supported an inference that the strike was motivated in substantial part by a discriminatory intent pursuant to Batson, and that the state had produced no evidence that the factor was not determinative in the strike. Id. at 1212. It then reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded Snyder’s case. Id.
Tags: , , , , ,