A shot in the dark

Obviously, we must address the Burress/Pierce grand jury hearings.  As a preliminary matter, let's get Pierce out of the way since he wasn't indicted.  The Giants have gone on the record saying they don't believe what Pierce did, aka removing a weapon used to shoot a man in a night club and returning it to his home to evade police detection, warranted criminal charges.  The possible charge is called obstruction of justice.  Obstruction of justice occurs when an individuals goes out of their way to prevent "justice" from being serve, i.e., a criminal from being caught.  That is EXACTLY what Pierce did.  

Nonetheless, the grand jury probably agreed that justice had been served here.  I mean, the idiot shot himself in the leg.  Isn't that punishment enough!?  Not to mention the negative publicity, loss of his career, and embarrassment Burress has endured.  

Next, I would like to address how odd it is, from a legal perspective, that Burress' lawyer advised him to testify before the grand jury.  As everyone points out, he's admitted everything the prosecution will need to prove his guilt which weakens his bargaining position.  Sure, perhaps "cooperating" might be favorable on some level but you should get something for it!  Unless there is something worked out that no one knows about, I can't imagine why Burress would show up without pleading the 5th to anything.  It simply doesn't make any sense to me.  I haven't read anything with respect to an agreement but I am interested to find out what sort of arrangement was worked out because I refuse to believe Burress voluntarily showed up and admitted the prosecution's case for the sake of comity.