April 22--REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court Wednesday overturned Barry Bonds' felony conviction for obstructing justice, a development that could help the former San Francisco Giants slugger win a place in baseball's Hall of Fame.
The decision by an 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves prosecutors without a single conviction against Bonds, who was the subject of a years-long investigation into illegal steroid use and was tried in 2011 in a federal court in San Francisco. The jury hung on perjury charges and convicted Bonds only of obstruction for giving a long-winded answer.
In an unsigned 10-1 ruling, the court said there was insufficient evidence that Bonds' rambling reply was material and that he may not be retried.
"Making everyone who participates in our justice system a potential criminal defendant for conduct that is nothing more than the ordinary tug and pull of litigation risks chilling zealous advocacy," Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a concurring opinion, signed by four other judges. "It also gives prosecutors the immense and unreviewable power to reward friends and punish enemies by prosecuting the latter and giving the former a pass."
In a dissent, Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson said the other judges "impermissibly second-guess the jury verdict" and ignore precedent.
"I cry foul," she wrote.
The ruling overturned a unanimous 2013 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld the conviction. That 9th Circuit panel ruled that someone may be convicted of obstruction for making factually true statements if they are intended to mislead or evade. Bonds decided to serve his sentence -- house arrest -- and paid a fine, but also asked a larger panel to review the ruling.
Bonds' lawyer argued that the former slugger could not be found guilty for giving a long-winded answer to a question he eventually answered. Prosecutors argued that his response was a lie and intended to mislead, but the jury did not find Bonds guilty of perjury.
"In this particular case, we must determine whether a single truthful but evasive or misleading answer could constitute evidence of obstruction of justice," Judge N.R. Smith wrote in another concurrence, signed by three judges. "It could not."
Congress could not have intended that the obstruction law apply so broadly, Smith said.
The government could ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
University of Richmond Law Professor Carl Tobias said it was unclear how the ruling might affect other cases because the decision came in a short, terse "per curiam" ruling. All but one of the 11 judges agreed that Bonds' conviction should be overturned, but they disagreed on how to interpret the law.
The decision might " serve notice to federal prosecutors that judges across the political spectrum on the 9th think the government may be overreaching in use of the law generally and in the pursuit of Bonds specifically, on which the U.S. spent millions," Tobias said.
The conviction stemmed from Bonds' reply to a federal prosecutor about whether his former trainer, Greg Anderson, had ever given him an injectable substance. The following exchange before the grand jury in 2003 formed the basis of his conviction:
Prosecutor: "Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?"
Bonds: "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 ... 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?"
Prosecutor: "Right."
Bonds: "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. ..."
Prosecutor: "And, again, I guess we've covered this, but -- did [Anderson] ever give you anything that he told you had to be taken with a needle or syringe?"
Bonds: "Greg wouldn't do that. He knows I'm against that stuff. So, he would never come up to me -- he would never jeopardize our friendship like that."
Prosecutor: "OK. So, just so I'm clear, the answer is no to that, he never gave you anything like that?"
Bonds: "Right."
UPDATES
3:39 p.m.: This post was updated with comment about the possibility for an appeal.
2:52 p.m.: This post was updated to include additional language from the decision.
This article was first posted at 2:05 p.m.
