United States v. Bonds, No. 11-10669 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseBarry Bonds's conviction of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, arose from Bonds's testimony before a grand jury investigation regarding whether the proceeds of the sales of performance enhancing drugs were being laundered. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 1503 applied to factually true statements that were evasive or misleading. Bonds could not escape criminal liability under section 1503 by contending that his response that he was a "celebrity child" was true. The court also concluded that Bonds's contention that his conviction should be reversed on the ground that section 1503 did not apply to a witness's statements before the grand jury was foreclosed by established precedent; the court rejected Bonds's argument that the use of the word "corruptly" in section 1503 was unconstitutionally vague and failed to put him on notice that his conduct was criminal; the indictment was sufficient; and the indictment and the jury instructions made clear that Bonds could be convicted on the basis of individual statements that were evasive or misleading. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Barry Bonds’s conviction of one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, arising from Bonds’s testimony before a grand jury investigating whether the proceeds of the sales of performance enhancing drugs were being laundered. The panel held that § 1503 applies to factually true statements that are evasive or misleading. The panel held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Bonds because his statement describing his life as a celebrity child – in response to a question asking whether his trainer ever gave him any self-injectable substances – was evasive, misleading, and capable of influencing the grand jury to minimize the trainer’s role in the distribution of performance enhancing drugs. The panel rejected as foreclosed by precedent Bonds’s contention that § 1503 does not apply to a witness’s statements before a grand jury. The panel rejected Bonds’s contentions that the use of the word “corruptly” in § 1503 is unconstitutionally vague. The panel held that the indictment – which covered any false, misleading, or evasive statement Bonds made during his grand jury testimony – was sufficient, and that narrowing the indictment via jury instructions listing the specific statements for which Bonds could be convicted – was permissible. The panel concluded that the district court properly rejected Bonds’s request to add the words “when considered in its totality” to the jury instructions.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 1, 2014.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 22, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.