Case Title: UNITED STATES v. BONDS
United States v. Bonds. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Barry Lamar BONDS, Defendant–Appellant. No. 11–10669. Decided: September 13, 2013.
Facts
Bonds, who was a son of a celebrity, was a famous basket-ball player. His father Bobby Bonds and his sponsor Willie Mays had always offered their incessant support towards Barry Bonds’ career. This support saw him compete successfully in major basketball leagues. However, towards the end of Bonds’ career, there was strong evidence of steroids usage in his physical form. This came at a time during which there was rampant distribution of performance enhancement drugs (PEDs) in the United States. As such, the US government launched an investigation into the possible supply of PEDs in order to bring the culprits and abusers to account. The main organization of focus during the investigations was the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO). In the course of the investigations, the federal government found some evidence linking Barry Bond’s coach, Mr. Greg Anderson, to the distribution of PEDs. In the evidence found, it was alleged that Mr. Greg Anderson mainly distributed the drugs to professional athletes, including Barry Bonds. In order to dig deeper into the circus, the alleged professional athletes, including Barry Bonds, were called upon to testify before a jury. When it was Bonds’ turn, he denied using or knowing anyone who used, or attempted to offer him, any PEDs. Based on the statements that Barry Bonds provided, he was convicted for having obstructed the factfinder’s effort to obtaining facts about the issue. Obstruction of justice is a legal offence punishable under the 18 U.S.C $ 1503 law.
In particular, Barry Bonds was convicted on the grounds of providing evasive statements. When Bonds was questioned on whether Mr. Greg had ever issued him with anything that required injection such as a syringe. However, in his response, Bonds made a statement that would later form the basis of his conviction. The statement proceeded as follows;
“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.”
According to the jury, the question asked had nothing to do with Bonds’ background and upbringing. As such, it was concluded that he had introduced such information in order to divert the attention of the jury hence obstruct successful collection of information about the distribution and usage of PEDs.
Procedural History
Based on the evasive statement Bonds offered, the jury charged him for issuing false statements before a jury, which was a desecration of the 18 U.S.C. $ 1623 law. This law requires that a person should not issue any false statements knowingly before a grand jury. The grand jury also charged Bonds with one count of obstructing justice by issuing evasive statement, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1503. The jury issued a statement that indicated that Bonds had corruptly attempted to influence, impede, and obstruct justice by intentionally providing false and evasive statements. Bonds appealed the case in which the courts dismissed the prior jury’s ruling on the grounds that the ruling was not based on strong evidence linking Mr. Anderson and Bonds to steroids usage and distribution. According to the courts, Mr. Bonds statements would only be considered ‘false and misleading’ if strong evidence had been found linking Mr. Anderson to the distribution of steroids distribution, and also linking Bonds to steroids usage. The Courts also indicated that the statement issued by Bonds was aimed at denying any association with the PEDs hence he (Bonds) did not deserve any conviction.
The plaintiff, United States, appealed the case in 2011. In this appeal, the jury found that Bonds Statement C was evasive and misleading. This was after the government dropped an allegation claiming that the statements were false. As such, the jury found Bonds guilty of obstructing justice under 18 U.S.C. $ 1503. Having been found guilty, Bonds was later sentenced to a 30-day home confinement with a two-year probation period. However, Bonds has appealed against the District Court’s ruling claiming several misinterpretations by courts. First, Bonds asserts that statement C could only be misleading if it contained false information. Additionally, the courts did not present strong evidence to link Bonds or Anderson to steroids use or distribution. Furthermore, he was not initially briefed on the law prohibiting obstruction of justice.
Issue
Should a person be convicted under clause 18 U.S.C. $ 1503 on the obstruction of justice if they issue indirect statements before a jury in response to the jury’s questions?
Analysis
First, Bond claims innocence by claiming that the courts should not have convicted him for providing an answer that diverged from the jury’s question. According to Bonds, provided the statement he issued was not false, the courts did not execute justice by executing him. Indeed, the statement that Bonds issued, that he was a celebrity’s child, was not false. However, the answer he was giving was not related to the question that he had been asked. Within jurisdictional terms, considering the sensitivity of the issue under investigation, the defendant may have deliberately made the statement in order to divert the attention of the jury and prevent it from collecting factual information relevant to the PED issue under investigation. As a consequence of Bonds’ statements, the jury would then have ended up making a wrong judgment about PEDs, Mr. Anderson, and professional athletes, including Bonds.
Additionally, evidence had sufficed directly linking Bonds to PEDs. According to a witness who had been a former trainer at Bonds club, there had been a conversation between himself and Bonds just before the commencement of the hearing. According to the witness, in their conversation, Bonds had clearly affirmed that he knew that Mr. Anderson was deeply involved in the distribution of steroids and other performance enhancement drugs. The witness further stated that Bonds had acknowledged knowing the exact tactics that Mr. Anderson used in order to prevent athletes who used steroids from being discovered. In an earlier statement before the jury, Bonds had however indicated that he had no knowledge of whether Anderson was involved in any PED business. Considering the evidence issued by the witness as well as evidence provided by other athletes linking Mr. Anderson and Bonds to PEDs usage and distribution, Bonds had issued a false statement. Additionally, Bonds and Anderson had a close professional relationship in such that if Anderson had been found guilty of engaging in PED business, then Bonds must have also taken part in the same business, either as a consumer or peddler, or both.
However, there are some statements that are non-evasive but obstructive. Such statements indirectly answer a question asked by the jury. Even though they provide an answer, such statements are obstructive in the sense that they tend to divert the attention of the jury from the main focus of investigation. For instance, a person is asked whether they drove past a certain gate at a particular time. They may decide to respond that they do not have any driving license, neither do they know how to drive. This statement indirectly implies that the person did not drive past the point of interest. However, the since the respondent did not offer a direct answer, they will have violated the 18 U.S.C. $ 1503 clause by diverting the attention of the jury towards driving licenses. Even though Bonds’ statement implied that he had never been given any form of injection by Anderson, was considered obstructive under the 18 U.S.C. $ 1503 clause.
However, Bonds argued that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence proving that indeed the statement issued was obstructive. According to Bonds, the plaintiff did not provide any sufficient proof that he, the defendant, had intentionally crafted the statement in order to obstruct justice. However, according to the instructions issued by the Jury, it was necessary that United States prove that Bonds purposefully made the statement in order to divert the jury’s attention hence impede justice. United States had argued that Bonds had knowingly given a statement that was evasive and misleading. By providing information about his background, Bonds had the intention of preventing any further interrogation within the context of PEDs and Mr. Anderson. Additionally, in his appeal, Bonds did not directly challenge the provisions set by the jury.
Conclusion
Based on the case analysis conducted, it has been confirmed that the jury’s ruling was correct. This is because, Bonds statement was not only false but clearly violated the 18 U.S.C. $ 1503 clause. On the contrary, Bonds’ appeal is clearly unwarranted as his claims are not in direct alignment with the 18 U.S.C. $ 1503 clause.
