Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 27, 2007
I'm Confused

I don't understand this story:

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston on Sept. 11 ordered Anderson, Conte and two other BALCO defendants to return or destroy the documents they received after they were charged in 2004 with operating a steroids ring at the now-defunct Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative. Federal prosecutors, who requested the order, argue that since all four men -- including BALCO executive James Valente and former track coach Remi Korchemny -- ultimately pleaded guilty, they no longer need the documents. The papers include other athletes' grand jury testimony and search warrants used to raid BALCO and Anderson's house in 2003.

But the attorneys for the men argue that many of the documents are beyond their control, having been leaked to the media or voluntarily turned over to federal lawmakers and Greek government officials conducting steroid probes of their own.

...

In court papers filed Monday, the four BALCO figures said they fear prosecution based on Illston's order if the sealed documents are leaked again.

I'm sorry I'm being dense here, but if they hand the papers back and there's a leak, why would they be accused of the leak? If they keep the papers and there's a leak, then it seems to me they would be suspects. Does a lawyer care to explain the logic of this to me?


Posted by David Pinto at 01:27 PM | Crime | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Isn't assumed by now that they've made copies? Also what's the constitutionality of making someone surrender a search warrant you've issued them?

Posted by: Jason Rogers at November 27, 2007 01:52 PM

Here's what the lawyers are arguing:

The judge has ordered that all copies be destroyed or returned, and that any other release of the papers would be in violation of the order. The defense is arguing that the documents are already out in the world, beyond defendants' control, and that if the judge's order remains in effect, they will be in danger of being accused of violating the order based on events beyond their control (because the information is already out.) There is no point in a secrey order regarding information that is no longer secret.

The problem isn't whether or not they'd be suspected of a leak, but whether or not that leak would be assumed to be in violation of an order of the court.

Posted by: Capybara at November 27, 2007 02:24 PM

Thank you.

Posted by: David Pinto at November 27, 2007 02:37 PM

Also, the leaks occurred between 2004 and 2006. Probably the defendants and their lawyers were ordered in 2004 not to copy or distribute the documents, and to return them to the court when the case was over. The plan was to keep the information secret while allowing the defense to use it in preparation for trial, balancing the grand jury secrecy / confidentiality of medical records thing against the defendant's right to a fair trial. I think the lawyers are arguing in effect that reality has overtaken the judge's well-laid plans, so there's no reason to continue with what by this point would be a charade of maintaining secrecy.

Posted by: JJ at November 27, 2007 07:58 PM

OR, the Feds believe that something in those docs will help in the defense of others (i.e., Bonds) and the Feds want to make it harder for the defense lawyers to "legitimately" get a copy of it? Just a contrary guess....Hey, it COULD happen, ya know!

Posted by: Zippercat at November 27, 2007 09:32 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?