home

Barry Bonds Convicted of Obstruction, Jury Hangs on False Statement Counts

Baseball legend Barry Bonds was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice today. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on three counts alleging Bonds made false statements to the grand jury.

What an odd verdict. To convict on the obstruction count, the jury had to consider 7 separate statements, and determine which, if any constituted obstruction. They had to be unanimous on the particular statement.

Of the 7 statements, the jury found Bonds obstructed justice as to one of them, referred to as "Statement C." (The first three statements were the same as those alleged in the three false statement counts. The jury didn't find he obstructed justice with any of those statements. The other four statements were passages from his grand jury testimony, with the underlined portion being the statement the Government alleged amounted to obstruction.)

Here is the instruction the jury was given on obstruction of justice: [More...]

1. The defendant corruptly, that is, for the purpose of obstructing justice,

2. obstructed, influenced, or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede the grand jury proceeding in which defendant testified,

3. by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury.

Here is "Statement C" which the jury determined was made for the purpose of obstructing the grand jury investigation:

6. Statement C:

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

So after all the hype and hoopla about Barry Bonds lying to the grand jury about his steroid use, what he was found guilty of is saying he was a celebrity child who didn't get into anybody's business.

I really wonder how that statement impeded the grand jury investigation.

Barry Bonds is now a convicted felon. All because he said:

That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

Not only was his answer not responsive to the question asked by the prosecutor at the grand jury, the prosecutor didn't follow up on it. How "material" could it have been?.

This verdict makes no sense to me. Were there one or more holdouts who would only agree to a guilty verdict if they could pick the least serious statement, one that had nothing to do with steroid use?

And how does the jury deadlock on making a false statement to the grand jury, but convict on an obstruction count that requires it to find, among other things, that he "knowingly [gave] material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading" to the grand jury? Especially when it couldn't agree that this statement in his testimony (Count 2), which was given right before it, was false?

Question: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

Answer: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?

They were part and parcel of the same exchange. See pages 41- 42 of Bonds' grand jury testimony. Like I said, this verdict makes very little sense.

The jury's full verdict form with their handwritten findings is here.

Update: The jury voted 8 to 4 and 9 to 3 for acquittal on counts 1 and 2, and 11 to 1 for conviction on count 3, which alleged falsely telling the grand jury he had only been injected by his doctors. After the verdict, the jurors said:

The jurors ultimately chose to convict Bonds on obstruction of justice because “he was entirely evasive” in his answers in the grand jury, the jury foreman, Fred Jacob, 56, said. “He was often dodging the question,” Jacob said. “He would just talk about something else.”
The prosecutor at the grand jury did come back to the question a few minutes later (From the transcript):
Q. So no one else other than perhaps the team

5 doctor and your personal physician has ever injected

6 anything in to you or taken anything out?
7 A. Well, there's other doctors from surgeries. I

8 can answer that question, if you're getting technical

9 like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck

10 needles in me and have drawn out -- I've had a bunch of
11 surgeries, yes.
12 Q. So --

I could see them deciding he wasn't telling the truth, but they didn't. They thought he was skirting the issue and being a jerk. Still, how did the statement about being a celebrity child hinder the investigation? I wonder how the 11 convinced the 12th to agree to the obstruction charge.

One of the elements of the obstruction charge is that the defendant "by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading."

" A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing,the decision of the grand jury." In Count 2 he was charged with this false statement:

Question: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with? Answer: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?

...Question: So no one else other than perhaps the team doctor and your personal physician has ever injected anything in to you or taken anything out? Answer: Well, there’s other doctors from surgeries. I can answer that question, if you’re getting technical like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck needles in me and have drawn out - - I’ve had a bunch of surgeries, yes. Question: So - - Answer: So sorry.

Question: - - the team physician, when you’ve had surgery, and your own personal physician. But no other individuals like Mr. Anderson or any associates of his? Answer: No, no.

So even though Bonds answered "no" five minutes later, the pro-conviction jurors tried to convince the holdout that he lied. They couldn't, but they apparently convinced her he was being evasive. It seems they forget (or ignored) the next element the government had to prove, that :
The defendant knew that the testimony described above was false and material to the grand jury before which he testified. A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury to which it is addressed.
Since he fully answered the question moments later, how did the statement about being a celebrity child hinder the investigation, especially considering they didn't all agree it was false?

I think the verdicts are inconsistent. If the judge agrees on May 20, the obstruction conviction won't stand.

If that's all it takes to sink you with a felony carrying up to ten years in prison, we should all be pretty afraid.

< Wednesday Evening Open Thread | Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bi-Polar Disorder II >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Tony on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    Sounds to me like the jury just wanted to go home.

    Every single person the government targeted in this case was indicted and convicted.  It is absurd to think Bonds talking about his father obstructed their case.

    Years and years and tens of millions of dollars spent on this stupid witchhunt.  What a waste.

    You would think... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    the state would have to be seeking justice in order for anybody to be accused of obstructing it...I can't tell ya what exactly our prosecutorial representatives were seeking here...pound of flesh, high profile conviction, other...but it sure as hell had nothing to do with justice.

    I'm thinking one conscience stricken juror was maybe trying to do a solo jury nullification job, and the lone conviction was the result of a jury room compromise with the 11 hang 'em highs.

    Agree. The jurors cut a deal. (none / 0) (#1)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:48:58 PM EST


    Agree its a waste (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    Also, I just updated the post to include links to the documents.


    that answer couldn't support a perjury charge (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:09:58 PM EST
    and I don't see how in the world it could constitute obstruction of justice - unless doubletalk and rambling are obstructive, and the government proved that Bonds rambled on purpose.  I agree with the suggestion in your post that the prosecutor's failure to follow up by saying, "Excuse me, Mr. Bonds, but my question was X.  Would you mind trying again to answer that question?" prevents any valid conviction here.

    Parent
    I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    but gee, even I would have followed up and asked for an answer. Of course it would have been more like "and what does that have to do with the price of beans in China?"  :)

    Parent
    I think the answer was responsive (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:00:43 PM EST
    And then there was ramblng.

    But the response came first.

    Parent

    Can't agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:23:07 AM EST
    Question was: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

    That question, to start with, is barely intelligible. But anyway, the answer didn't say one way or the other whether "Greg," who I assume is not a doctor, ever gave BB anything that would, if BB were to inject it into himself, require a syringe to accomplish that. (I think that's what the question was. [By the way, what other sorts of devices, other than syringes, can be used for "injecting" yourself with "anything"?])

    Instead, BB answers not about "Greg" but about doctors: "I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's [only my] personal doctor."  That doesn't even answer whether any doctor, much less "Greg," had given him anything to inject into himself; it says how many doctors have "touched" him, a totally different question. And then we get off into what BB and Greg talk about (or possible do) together: "Greg, like I said, we don't get into each others' personal lives. We're friends, ...."  

    Not responsive, I say.

    Parent

    Thanks for those links. (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    So... obstruction is whatever one says. What a crock. I hope he appeals and is exonerated.

    Parent
    Exonerated??? (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    Aren't there any bona fide innocent people being convicted of crimes to get worked up about?  Does anyone here believe that Barry Bonds did not commit perjury and did not knowingly use steroids in mass quantities (as opposed to whether or not the government managed to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt)?  

    Parent
    Thankfully (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    that type of approach and attitude went out the window not long after the Salem witch trials.

    Parent
    Well, Dio, for starters, there are the 12 people (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:10:04 PM EST
    who sat on the jury for 3 weeks and heard all the evidence (which I'm pretty sure you didn't).  They didn't believe it ... not unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, which thankfully is the standard that we use in this country for deciding whether the government can put someone behind bars.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Tony on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    I can believe that.  Not that that really matters.

    In any event, aren't there any bona fide guilty people the government can spend tens of millions of dollars on and get more than one sketchy guilty verdict?  Amazing to me that this gets a shrug of the shoulders from people just because they don't like Barry Bonds.

    Parent

    diogenes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    is becoming a predictable troll on crime issues. He's always first or second with an anti-defendant comment that shows a demonstrable lack of understanding of the issues or grasp on the facts. Please don't feed him by taking him seriously. If he keeps it up, and I conclude he's just making these comments for sport, he'll be banned from crime threads.

    Parent
    Please don't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by me only on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 07:37:06 AM EST
    It is almost always a single anti-defendant comment.  Usually trolling includes a long thread pattern of abuse.  There are no ad hominen attacks.

    Diogenes represent an opposing viewpoint to yours.  One of the most refreshing aspects of Talk Left is that opposing viewpoints are generally tolerated provided that the posts are not nasty.

    Parent

    I kind of (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    agree with me only.

    While diogenes is uncommonly predictable, he's not a chatterer and he doesn't try to derail the conversation.

    I also kind of agree that it's best not to feed him.  :\

    Parent

    So, you think the millions of dollars (none / 0) (#28)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    spend on prosecuting Mr. Bonds was well-spent, diogenes, that it will keep MLB players from committing perjury in the future?

    Parent
    perjury prosecutions (none / 0) (#45)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    People here value the integrity of the legal system; both perjury and trials where witnesses refuse to testify make a mockery of the criminal justice system.
    The deterrent value of a high-profile perjury conviction extends everywhere in the criminal justice system, not just among baseball players.  
    If open perjury is never prosecuted, then it makes the system of sworn testimony a joke and rewards those who are willing to shamelessly lie.  If the jurors could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt then that is the job of a trial; you can't blame a prosecutor for prosecuting a case that ends in a hung jury.  It's hardly as if the jury returned with an acquittal in ten minutes and told TV reporters that they thought the case was absurd.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    for your opinion Jeralyn. I was hoping you'd weigh in on this one.

    Very odd (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:54:53 PM EST
    I think, simply stated, the jury was a bit confused.  All in all, a complete waste of time and money.  Barry Bonds is a complete tool, always will be, but the government pretty much bested him in the tool department this time.  All this over 'roids and a ballgame, and yet none of the financial masters who destroyed the economy can be bothered.  Nice country.

    How is Barry a tool? (none / 0) (#24)
    by me only on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 07:40:04 AM EST
    I mean the man was a 5 tool player (no arm, but tremendous batting eye).  Who used Barry?  When you win 7 MVPs you aren't being used by anyone other than yourself.

    However, this case was an absolute waste of taxpayer money.  Bonds used steroids.  I could care less.

    Parent

    The answer is responsive (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:59:34 PM EST
    "Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

    A: I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's my only personal doctor."

    Greg did not touch him or inject him is what that means.

    It may have been perjury, hell I think it was perjury, but it was responsive.

    Or rather (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:01:45 PM EST
    Greg did not give him something to inject himself with is what I should say.

    Parent
    The statement he was convicted (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:55:00 PM EST
    of is specified in the verdict form. It is;

    That's what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that - you know, that - I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see...

    The question was: "Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?"

    The jury found that statement was evasive or misleading and that it had the capacity to hinder the grand jury investigation.

    Even if it was evasive, it didn't hinder the investigation.  Especially when he was asked the same question again a few minutes later and answered "no" except for doctors who drew blood and performed surgeries on him.

    Q. So no one else other than perhaps the team
    5 doctor and your personal physician has ever injected
    6 anything in to you or taken anything out?
    7 A. Well, there's other doctors from surgeries. I
    8 can answer that question, if you're getting technical
    9 like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck
    10 needles in me and have drawn out -- I've had a bunch of
    11 surgeries, yes.
    12 Q. So --


    Parent
    Responsiveness (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    is construed more strictly than that, I would say, in criminal cases.

    Parent
    BONDS (none / 0) (#21)
    by aycee314 on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:10:19 AM EST
    What a waste of taxpayer money going after Barry Bonds for the last 5 years or so.  If this was a "different" athlete we would never be having this discussion.

    Yes or no answers (none / 0) (#22)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 06:59:14 AM EST
    I know we can't know what advice his lawyer actually gave, but it's not like they didn't know this question (or something similar) was coming.


    I am not a lawyer (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 09:03:25 AM EST
    and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night so I won't pretend to be able to correctly opine on the legal issues.

    But I cannot see how the jury could fail to convict on counts 1, 2 and 3 and convict on the 4th.

    I have a Grandson who is heavily into sports, baseball in particular, and I understand that steroid use sends a very bad message to kids.

    But it is his family's responsibility to teach him that there are things you don't do and cheating by enhancing your body is but one of many. And I am not disregarding the pressure of taking something that will make you bigger better quicker brings. Or using something?

    Steroid use is just one of many. Should we also jail the spit ball pitcher or the batter using a corked bat?

    Bonds was convicted because the media has often portrayed him as a jerk and because the jury wanted to show they disliked him.

    And if that is to be the base line there are many politicians and business "leaders" who have a cell in their future.

    If anything positive came out of this, once again, it is that the best answer to questions is no answer.

    Not only are (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    you not a lawyer, you weren't on the jury.  So your inability to see why he was not convicted is ... well, just typical.

    Parent
    One of us is confused (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    My comment was totally sympathetic towards Bonds. I noted he should not have been and that he was convicted because of media exposure.

    Did you not understand?? Or were you just snarking?


    Parent

    I think it was a misunderstanding, jim (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    For myself, I read it as you said- if they didn't convict him on the three others, why on earth would they convict on the fourth?  Yes, I think that a lot of it had to do with Bonds' "unlike-ability."  And maybe resentment on the part of some jurors- they see so many rich sports figures (and movie stars) getting away with things that they themselves would never get away with.  

    Parent
    I was the one confused (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    Sorry.  It's been a rough day.  No excuse -- just an attempt at an explanation.


    Parent
    No harm no foul... or home run (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 07:03:18 PM EST
    I think it's great that arrogant (none / 0) (#42)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:07:27 AM EST
    lying sports figures have a friend in PPJ.  ;-)

    Parent
    Hey everyone! (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    My shadow just showed up!

    Parent
    Thanks as always for the feedback :-) (none / 0) (#44)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    Re: From the San Francisco Chronicle (none / 0) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:22:50 AM EST

    "Just being Barry'

    He was right, to some extent. In fact, Ruby could have called a bunch of witnesses to confirm that one of the most common phrases among Giants players and coaches from 1993 to 2007 was: "That's just Barry being Barry."

    Bonds is not unique among superstars in inspiring that kind of comment. But the jury was loaded with people who knew very little about sports and sluggers' prerogatives. They couldn't have grasped what "just being Barry" meant. They probably expected him to be normal - for want of a better word - while under oath in a federal courthouse.

    An estimated 30 athletes were called in front of the BALCO grand jury. Most of them had perpetuated the Big Sham in one way or another. Track champion Kelli White went along with a fiction concocted by her handlers after she tested positive for a banned stimulant, telling the media that she needed it as treatment for narcolepsy. But when confronted by the government with evidence discovered at the BALCO lab, she showed sufficient respect for the law. So did most of the other athletes. They told the truth

    Click or sfgate me

    Can one of the lawyers answer (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    my question?  What is it that Bonds was supposed to have obstructed?  Yes, I know it was the BALCO investigation, but didn't BALCO founder Victor Conte, chemist Patrick Arnold, and trainer Greg Anderson all spend time in jail, and the company is kaput?  It seems to me that not much was obstructed, since the three main guys there were found guilty and sent to prison.

    I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to (none / 0) (#36)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    explain it:

    The lone conviction came on a count charging Bonds with intentionally giving evasive, false or misleading testimony. In response to a question about whether his trainer gave him injectable drugs, Bonds gave a rambling answer, saying he was a "celebrity child, not just in baseball, by my own instincts."

    Deliberate interference

    Bonds' answer was obstruction of justice, the jury ruled, a deliberate attempt to interfere with the grand jury's probe.

    Click or Sfgate Me

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    for the link, Harry.  Although the whole thing still seems like a waste of time, money and resources on the part of the DOJ.  Not that I think it's a great idea for athletes to use steroids, or to lie under oath (which, I hasten to add, Bonds did not get convicted for).  Far from it.  I do, however, think that there are more pressing problems for the DOJ to pursue in these fiscally tight times.

    Parent
    Somebody help me out please (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    maybe I'm still trapped in a drunken stupor, but see if I've got this right. The prosecutor asks Bonds a question that even I had to stop for a second and make sure I had the meaning right and that it wasn't just a trap. Then Bonds, who nobody has confused with a Mensa Scholar answered in a herky jerky, somewhat disjointed way, a way, by the way, that many non-Rhodes scholars would speak as a matter of course. Obviously, after review, after reconstructing his cut-and-paste type answer, and after testing it with their Official MLB Rooty Kazooty Hologram-O-Meter, they said (shades of Rodney King trial) Yup, there, there it is, you see that? Check out that word, first this way, then that way, got it? Uhhh, I think sss, NO, I Know so. He tried to lie, he tried to lie, yadda yadda ya-ya. Nail'm Dano! We got'm.

    But, after the giggles, in all seriousness, Is there a precise, unwavering, chronological way the prosecutor must ask his question?
    Does he get only one shot at the question? I think I saw this question earlier in the thread, don't recall an answer, but if the prosecutor had any doubts as to Barry's interpretation of the question, or any doubts as to Barry's construction of his answer, why wouldn't he do what most everybody here would do; rephrase, or reconstruct the question in a way whereby there wouldn't be any doubt as to both the prosecutor and the defendant being on the same page?