[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Many judges and juries would not beleive that Bonds acted in a way a person who unknowingly recieved steroids would act. As I explained, most people would act differently than Bonds acted. If it's already been established that the defendant used steroids, as it has, the judge or jury will need a good explantation why he did not act like a person who had unknownly received steriods. If there isn't a good explanation, most judges and juries will similar perceptions. And, without good defendant explanation, if this theoretical case is concerned with whether or not the defendant knowingly used steroids, it's not hard to predict the verdict.