The Barry Bonds perjury case ended with no convictions on his record. A federal grand jury indicted the home run leader in November 2007 on four perjury counts and one obstruction of justice count tied to his 2003 grand jury testimony about steroids. At trial in 2011, jurors deadlocked on the perjury charges and convicted him only of obstruction. Four years later, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that conviction, and the Justice Department declined to take the case to the Supreme Court.
Why Bonds Was Called Before the Grand Jury
In 2003, federal prosecutors investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative subpoenaed Bonds to testify about substances he received from his personal trainer, Greg Anderson, one of the targets of the BALCO probe. Two substances were central to the investigation: “the cream,” a testosterone-based topical steroid designed to mask elevated testosterone levels, and “the clear,” later identified as the designer steroid tetrahydrogestrinone.1Department of Justice. Four Individuals Charged in Bay Area With Money Laundering and Distribution of Illegal Steroids
Before Bonds took the oath, prosecutors gave him use immunity under federal law. That form of immunity prevents the government from using a witness’s own words, or evidence derived from those words, to charge the witness with the underlying offense.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 6002 – Immunity Generally It is narrower than transactional immunity, which would bar prosecution for the conduct itself and is not what federal law provides.3LII / Legal Information Institute. Immunity The statute carries an explicit carve-out: it does not shield a witness who commits perjury or makes a false statement. Bonds could not be punished for what he admitted, but he could be punished for lying.
The 2007 Indictment
On November 15, 2007, more than four years after his grand jury appearance, a federal grand jury in San Francisco returned a five-count indictment.4Department of Justice. Barry Bonds Indicted for Perjury Arising From His Testimony in the Balco Investigation Four counts charged making false declarations under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which criminalizes knowingly false material statements under oath before a grand jury and carries up to five years in prison.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 1623 – False Declarations Before Grand Jury or Court The fifth count charged obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which carries up to ten years.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 1503 – Influencing or Injuring Officer or Juror Generally
The perjury counts pointed to specific denials in the 2003 testimony: that Bonds never knowingly took steroids provided by Anderson, that Anderson never injected him with anything, that Anderson never gave him human growth hormone, and that Anderson never gave him anything other than vitamins before the 2003 season. The obstruction count was broader, alleging that Bonds gave intentionally evasive and misleading testimony to impede the grand jury.
What Happened at Trial
Trial opened in March 2011. The prosecution’s best potential witness, Greg Anderson, refused to testify. Anderson had already served prison time for contempt over his refusal to cooperate and would not change course. Without him, the government built its case on circumstantial evidence and other witnesses.
Prosecutors dismissed one of the four perjury counts during trial. On the three that remained, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether Bonds had lied about knowingly using steroids, receiving injections, or being given human growth hormone. The judge declared a mistrial on the perjury counts, and the government dismissed them in August 2011 without seeking a retrial.
The Single Obstruction Conviction
The jury did convict on the obstruction count, but on a narrow basis. It rested on one exchange. When a prosecutor asked whether Anderson had ever given Bonds anything that required a syringe to inject himself, Bonds launched into a rambling response about being a “celebrity child” who grew up in the spotlight of his father’s baseball career. He never directly answered the question. Jurors found that evasive answer was meant to mislead the grand jury.
The sentence reflected how far the conduct sat from the statute’s usual target. Bonds received 30 days of home confinement, two years of probation, 250 hours of community service with youth programs, and a $4,000 fine, against a ten-year statutory maximum.7Justia Law. United States v. Bonds
The Ninth Circuit Reversal
Bonds appealed. A three-judge panel initially upheld the conviction, but the full Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc. On April 22, 2015, the en banc court reversed.7Justia Law. United States v. Bonds
The decision turned on materiality. To constitute obstruction under § 1503, a statement must have a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the grand jury’s decisionmaking. A single rambling, non-responsive answer did not clear that bar. Irrelevant answers happen routinely in witness examinations, and one meandering detour, standing alone, could not derail a grand jury investigation.
The Bronston Rule
Several judges grounded their reasoning in the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Bronston v. United States, which held that a literally true but unresponsive answer cannot support a perjury conviction, even if the witness meant to mislead.8LII / Legal Information Institute. Samuel Bronston, Petitioner, v. United States The Court’s logic in Bronston put the burden on the questioner: when a witness gives a vague or evasive answer, the prosecutor is expected to follow up and pin the witness down, not accept the answer and later prosecute over it.
That reasoning fit the record. Grand jury prosecutors had, in fact, followed up after the “celebrity child” answer and eventually got Bonds to directly deny receiving injectable substances. One concurring judge would have held that a truthful but evasive statement can never satisfy the materiality requirement unless it amounts to an outright refusal to testify. Another wrote that “corruptly” obstructing justice under § 1503 should be limited to conduct like bribery and threats, not rambling answers from immunized witnesses.
How the Case Ended
After the reversal, the Solicitor General’s office declined to petition the Supreme Court for review, ending the prosecution. The Ninth Circuit had also barred any retrial on the obstruction charge on double jeopardy grounds, and the deadlocked perjury counts had been dismissed years earlier. Bonds emerged with no criminal conviction from a case that had followed him for more than a decade.
What the Ruling Changed
The en banc decision in United States v. Bonds narrowed how far federal prosecutors can push the obstruction statute against grand jury witnesses. Before the ruling, the government could plausibly argue that deliberately evasive testimony was itself obstruction. After it, a conviction under § 1503 requires more than one non-responsive answer. Evasive testimony has to be part of a sustained pattern of irrelevant statements designed to prevent the examination from proceeding, not an isolated detour in an otherwise cooperative appearance.
For federal prosecutors, the practical lesson is that they carry the burden of following up on vague answers as the examination unfolds, rather than banking obstruction charges for later. For witnesses, lying under oath remains a serious federal crime carrying up to five years in prison under § 1623,5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 1623 – False Declarations Before Grand Jury or Court but a single meandering non-answer, however suspicious it looks, is not obstruction.