A lawyer for slugger Barry Bonds urged a federal judge Thursday
to overturn his felony conviction for obstruction of justice,
arguing that a
non-responsive answer to a jury question that lasts 75
should not be a federal crime.
By Maura Dolan – Los Angeles Times
SAN FRANCISCO – A lawyer for slugger Barry Bonds urged a federal judge Thursday to overturn his felony conviction for obstruction of justice, arguing that a “non-responsive answer to a jury question that lasts 75 seconds” should not be a federal crime.
But a federal prosecutor insisted that it takes only “a second to tell a lie” and urged U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to uphold the conviction. Illston did not reveal her leanings, saying only that she would issue a written ruling on whether the conviction should be dismissed or retried.
A jury convicted Bonds of obstruction in April after finding he gave an evasive or misleading answer during an appearance before a federal grand jury in 2003. But the trial jury deadlocked on perjury charges, voting 11 to 1 to convict on one and leaning in favor of acquittal on the others.
Bonds’ single conviction for obstruction came as a result of a rambling answer the former San Francisco Giant gave the grand jury when asked whether his trainer ever gave him a substance that required a syringe.
After digressing about his childhood and the nature of his friendship with his trainer, Bonds eventually said the trainer had never injected him. Dennis Riordan, a lawyer for Bonds, argued that no court has ever upheld a conviction for a “non-responsive answer,” especially when the person eventually answered the question directly.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Merry Jean Chan countered that the obstruction conviction was warranted if Bonds gave intentionally evasive, misleading or false testimony, and “all three theories were supported by the evidence.”
“He was specifically asked a very specific question that mandated a yes or no answer,” Chan said. “He could have said yes or no.”
Federal prosecutors have not yet revealed whether they intend to retry Bonds on the perjury charges, which stemmed from the grand jury’s probe of illegal distribution of performance enhancing drugs to elite athletes.
Illston did not indicate when she would rule.