Michael Rains is Barry Bonds lawyer. He knows that his client is going to draw media attention no matter what he does, or doesn’t do, and that the attention itself can cause his taint his client forever. Once the stain attaches, it is almost impossible to wipe it away. Even if a trial results, and Barry Bonds is found “not guilty,” he will never be found innocent. That’s the American way.
Rains has a tough job. He must both represent his client as a lawyer, and represent his client as a sports celebrity under the scrutiny of the media that feels no constraint of truth, accuracy or reliability. You see, once someone says something bad about your client, the rest of the media get to repeat it and it becomes part of the myth of the story. Not because it is true, but merely because it was said.
The situation is very different for celebrity clients than non-celebrity clients. The media attention doesn’t fade because the lawyer lays low and there’s nothing to report, and the harm to their reputation is going to happen as the “story” develops around them. Trust me, the “myth” becomes your worst nightmare, even though there may be no truth to it at all. Repetition of false information makes it more real than anything else.
So Barry Bonds placed his life in Michael Rains’ hands, and Rains came out slugging.
From the start of the BALCO steroids scandal, Michael Rains, Barry Bonds’ aggressive defense lawyer, took a tough line. Bonds never used steroids, Rains declared, and the former Giants star never lied to the grand jury about his drug use. As federal agents investigated Bonds for perjury, Rains mocked the effort: The government had no evidence, he told reporters, and prosecutors would suffer a humiliating defeat if the case went to trial.
Rains’ approach was at the extreme end of the “tough lawyer” spectrum. While not mentioned, it would come as no surprise to learn that they had a “crisis management” PR person in the background advising them to be as hard and clear as possible to counter the allegations. Why? Two reasons: first, if there was any equivocation, it would be perceived as an admission of guilt and the harm to Barry Bonds career would be done. Second, there’s no appeal from the court of public opinion. You win or lose the first time. Game over.
But the Chronicle article then challenges Rains’ position by offering this alternative:
The wiser course, these experts said, might be to negotiate with the government in hopes of striking a lenient plea bargain calling for little or no jail time.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. Whoever “these experts” may be, they should lose their ticket and never be allowed anywhere near a client. This statement is one of the most ridiculous I’ve ever seen. “Hey, Barry, instead of challenging the allegations and making every effort to preserve your career and reputation, why not waltz down to the United States Attorney’s office and beg them to destroy your life and everything you have ever done. It could save you a few months in prison.” Yeah, there’s a firm grasp on priorities, not to mention the possibility that maybe he isn’t guilty.
Did Michael Rains go too far? Probably. There’s a line between a clear and firm denial of wrongdoing and a challenge to the government, both agents and prosecutors, to nail your client’s butt to the wall. It is always wise to allow your adversary a back door, a way out of a confrontation without losing face. It is similarly wise to leave yourself a back door, because you never know when you may need it. Absolute positions tend to come back to haunt people, and are almost never necessary to make your point.
While there are times when confronted by the media that things get contorted or misreported, and it comes out very differently than you expected. Perhaps that happened to Michael Rains. But if so, then it needs to be corrected through reporters who can be trusted to report fairly and accurately. You get to know who they are with experience, and who can’t be trusted as well.
Given the circumstances, Rains may well have been too extreme in his media defense of Barry Bonds. But then, given that Bonds’ reputation is on the line, and his primary concern is likely to be to preserve his future in baseball history rather than shave a few months off the top of a sentence, his tact was understandable. But now that Bonds is indicted and has to deal with charges in a real court, Rains needs to reassess his strategy and find a way off the edge. Hopefully, he thought of that as his mouth was moving in his pre-indictment statements. If not, he’ll find that it can be a very long drop off the edge.
As for the rampant and baseless speculation as to whether Barry Bonds knowingly lied under oath, I’m in no rush to decide. I can wait for the trial.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.