Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

New Hearing for Barry Bonds

I thought this was dead and buried but the full 9th Circuit has decided to hear the case again.

BBTF lawyers—report for duty.

Walt Davis Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:24 PM | 16 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: barry bonds, truth, justice and the american way

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Mark S. is bored Posted: July 02, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4741900)
Bonds already has served his sentence of 30 days' house arrest and paid a $4,100 fine. He also was sentenced to two years of probation and 250 hours of community service in youth-related activities.


If he wins, does he get his $4,100 back?
   2. dlf Posted: July 02, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4741904)
yes ... and he can't go home for 30 days.
   3. Batman Posted: July 02, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4741905)
If he wins, does he get his $4,100 back?
No, but Sid Bream is out.
   4. Mark S. is bored Posted: July 02, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4741911)
yes ... and he can't go home for 30 days.


And he will have youth service him for 250 hours.
   5. Ron J2 Posted: July 02, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4741916)
Too bad we don't have primeys any more. #2 made me laugh out loud.
   6. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 02, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4741964)
. . . but the full 9th Circuit has decided to hear the case again.

That's not quite correct. In every other federal circuit, en banc review includes all the active judges of the circuit, but the 9th Circuit is so large (29 judges) that it has determined that to be too unwieldy, so it uses a special of panel of 11 judges (always including the Chief Judge) for en banc review. The 9th Circuit is far larger than any of the other circuits were when they were split into two circuits (e,g, 11th Circuit carved out of the old 5th Circuit), so from a judicial administration perspective, either every other circuit is the wrong size, or the 9th Circuit is too big. That so much of the size disparity is due to one state, California, has complicated efforts to address the issue, as has the partisan motivations arising from the 9th Circuit being somewhat ideologically out of step for the last couple of decades.
   7. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: July 02, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4741973)
And he will have youth service him for 250 hours.
Your ideas are intriguing to Chad Curtis and he would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
   8. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 02, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4741979)
And don't worry, that newsletter is shipped to you in a plain brown wrapper with the words "NOT PENIS CREAM" stamped all over it in big red letters.
   9. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 02, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4742098)
While clerking I was specifically told, by a federal magistrate judge and a federal district court judge (in the same district, far away from the 9th cir.) to never bring to them, cases from the 9th circuit when preparing bench memos, or other research. These weren't exactly the most right wing judges either.
   10. Howling John Shade Posted: July 02, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4742104)
That's not quite correct. In every other federal circuit, en banc review includes all the active judges of the circuit, but the 9th Circuit is so large (29 judges) that it has determined that to be too unwieldy, so it uses a special of panel of 11 judges (always including the Chief Judge) for en banc review.
Yep. And, as the article notes, the judges on the circuit vote on whether to rehear a case en banc (once there's a petition to rehear it). So this indicates that a significant number of them think that the original panel got the case wrong. I worked for one of the Ninth Circuit judges in law school, and seeing the emails sent around prior to en banc votes was always pretty entertaining. Most judges have pretty high opinions of themselves and they really don't like a bunch of their equally arrogant colleagues telling them that they got it wrong. Also, when I was there they all used Lotus Notes, which was hilarious in itself and infuriated Kozinski.
   11. Walt Davis Posted: July 02, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4742237)
250 hours of community service in youth-related activities.

Lecturing them on the dangers of wandering off-topic I hope.

And apologies, I didn't realize I needed a scorecard to track the 9th circuit.

My memory of the original ruling is that it basically said that what Bonds did was pretty immaterial (he answered the question directly later) but that the obstruction statute was written so broadly that obstructing justice for a minute still counted.
   12. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: July 02, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4742366)
So the whole court (29 judges) votes on the en banc petition -- is the 11-judge panel then random apart from the chief (or 7 randoms plus chief plus original panel)? If so, that's pretty wacky. You could end up with mostly judges who voted against rehearing the case.
   13. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 02, 2014 at 10:05 PM (#4742376)
Too bad we don't have primeys any more. #2 made me laugh out loud.

Me too. But I had to read it twice.
   14. Howling John Shade Posted: July 02, 2014 at 10:22 PM (#4742380)
So the whole court (29 judges) votes on the en banc petition -- is the 11-judge panel then random apart from the chief (or 7 randoms plus chief plus original panel)? If so, that's pretty wacky. You could end up with mostly judges who voted against rehearing the case.
The other 10 judges are drawn by lot, so yeah the composition of the panel can have a dramatic effect on the result.
   15. Ziggy Posted: July 02, 2014 at 10:56 PM (#4742401)
The line about Sid Bream was good too. Good work everyone.
   16. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4743457)
Has Kevin's head exploded?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(4 - 12:40pm, Nov 22)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(70 - 12:38pm, Nov 22)
Last: RickG

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(945 - 12:35pm, Nov 22)
Last: puck

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4138 - 12:34pm, Nov 22)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(3 - 12:34pm, Nov 22)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(18 - 12:31pm, Nov 22)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(6 - 12:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(376 - 12:42pm, Nov 22)
Last: frannyzoo

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(9 - 12:20pm, Nov 22)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(13 - 12:11pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(2 - 12:08pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(14 - 11:40am, Nov 22)
Last: Joey B.

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(35 - 11:36am, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(1 - 10:26am, Nov 22)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogRed Sox offer for Pablo Sandoval might be in the lead - Sports - The Boston Globe
(1 - 10:13am, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Page rendered in 0.1227 seconds
53 querie(s) executed