A federal appeals court overturned Barry Bonds’ obstruction of justice conviction Wednesday, ruling that the steroid-stained slugger’s rambling statement before the BALCO grand jury in 2003 was not relevant to the government’s investigation into steroid distribution.
Prosecutors said Major League Baseball’s career home run leader made a false statement when asked if he had ever received injectable drugs from his longtime friend and trainer, Greg Anderson. Bonds responded with a long and meandering response, but the 9th United States Court of Appeals said that wasn’t enough to convict him on the obstruction charge. Bonds had already served his sentence of 30 days’ house arrest.
“Today’s news is something that I have long hoped for. I am humbled and truly thankful for the outcome as well as the opportunity our judicial system affords to all individuals to seek justice,” Bonds, 50, said in a statement. “I would like to thank my family, friends, and all of you who have supported me throughout my career and especially over the past several years. Your support has given me strength throughout this process and for that, I am beyond grateful.
“This has been a long and strenuous period in my life; I very much look forward to moving beyond it. I do so without ill will toward anyone. I am excited about what the future holds for me as I embark on the next chapter. Lastly and certainly not least, I would like to thank my legal team for their hard work and diligence on my behalf.”
RELATED: YANKEES’ ALEX RODRIGUEZ WORKS OUT WITH BARRY BONDS IN OFFSEASON
An 11-judge panel ruled on the appeal, and one of the judges made particularly forceful remarks about prosecutors’ “unreviewable power.”
“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. “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.”
Allen Ruby, one of the members of Bonds’ legal dream team, said that while the defense “has always respected the system, we’ve maintained all along that Barry Bonds is innocent. Barry Bonds is innocent.”
But one of Anderson’s lawyers, Mark Geragos, called Judge Kozinski’s opinion “spot on.”
“It’s a wonderful lesson that you can’t give prosecutors unreviewable power,” Geragos told the Daily News.
Another key figure in the BALCO saga, the lab’s founder Victor Conte, was only too happy to see the ordeal finally end.
“I could not be more happy that Barry Bonds finally gets to move on with his life. Let’s hope the prosecutors choose not to waste any more resources on what has been nothing more than a frivolous trophy-hunt and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Conte.
Bonds, a seven-time NL MVP with 762 career homers, was convicted on one count of obstruction during his 2011 trial in San Francisco federal court, while the jury deadlocked on three other perjury counts. The obstruction charge stemmed from testimony Bonds made in 2003.
“That’s what keeps our friendship,” Bonds said then, when asked by prosecutor Jeff Nedrow if Anderson had ever given him anything that required a syringe to inject himself with.
“I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father,” added Bonds, whose godfather is Hall of Famer Willie Mays, and whose dad Bobby was an All-Star outfielder. “I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see.”
Anderson never testified in Bonds’ trial, nor at any other point, and was jailed repeatedly for contempt. Geragos repeated what he and Anderson’s lawyers have publicly stated numerous times — that Anderson was not paid off by Bonds to remain silent.
“Greg never got paid by Bonds and his enmity was directed solely at the prosecutors,” Geragos told The News. “I imagine Greg has a little smile on his face today since the prosecutors ended up with nothing but a dry hole.”
Peter Keane, a professor of law at Golden Gate University in San Francisco who has followed the case, said it was clear that Bonds was ducking the question.
“It was clear Bonds was trying to obstruct the prosecutors, but the appeals court said intent was not enough. The baseline is that there has to be some kind of lie for there to be some kind of obstruction,” Keane said.
