Barry Bonds Guilty: 5 Reasons the Jury Would Not Convict on Perjury Charges
Barry Bonds was found guilty by a jury of his peers on Wednesday afternoon for obstruction of justice, but that same jury was unable to conclude whether or not Bonds lied about knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs during his career.
The obstruction of justice charge stems from the testimony Bonds made regarding the investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO), which has been under investigation by the federal government since 2002. The jury concluded that Bonds misled or impeded a grand jury investigation.
The three counts of lying to a grand jury stem from testimony Bonds made about whether or not he knew that the injections he was given were steroids, or that he was given injections by anyone other than a physician.
While there is much speculation regarding Bonds’ trial, it essentially amounted to a mistrial, as Judge Susan Illston concluded that the jurors would be unable to come to an agreement as to guilt or innocence regarding the remaining charges against Bonds.
Which leads to the next question: Why was the jury unable to reach a conclusion?
We will examine five possible reasons why the jury was unable to convict Barry Bonds on the remaining charges of lying to a grand jury.
For continuing coverage of Major League Baseball, follow Doug on Twitter @Sports_A_Holic.
*Portions of information found in this article can be found here.
5. Conflicting Testimony of Key Prosecution Witnesses
1 of 5
There were three key witnesses for the prosecution: Kimberly Bell, Steven Hoskins and Dr. Arthur Ting. All three contradicted each other at different points during their testimony, a fact that the Bonds defense team seized upon during cross-examination.
Ting directly contradicted the testimony of Hoskins, during which Hoskins recollected several conversations he had with the doctor with regard to steroids. Ting testified that the two had only discussed steroids one particular time, severely damaging the prosecution’s case.
4. The Personal Agendas of Several Witnesses
2 of 5The Bonds defense team was relentless in their attack on the prosecution’s witnesses, repeatedly pointing out personal agendas for wanting to testify against Bonds.
Defense attorney Cristina Aguedas repeatedly went after Kimberly Bell during cross-examination, questioning Bell about her plans to write a book about her affair with Bonds, and her jealousy over Bonds’ second wife. Bell was in a relationship with Bonds for nine years, during the latter part of his first marriage and beginning of his second.
Aguedas also got Bell to admit that comments she made in publications, including Playboy, about Bonds’ sexual organs were not entirely true.
Hoskins, a childhood friend and former business partner of Bonds, testified that he saw Bonds and trainer Greg Anderson walk into the master bedroom of Bonds' spring training home, presumably so that Anderson could inject Bonds with steroids.
However, the defense team characterized Hoskins as bitter about the breakup of their business relationship.
Hoskins also claimed that there were errors in both the grand jury testimony and a government report on an April 2005 meeting he held with prosecutors. The report of that meeting, according to Bonds' defense lawyer Allen Ruby, says Hoskins claimed to have seen Bonds injected.
3. Barely Audible Recording Between Greg Anderson and Steve Hoskins
3 of 5
The prosecution was highly touting its recording of a conversation between Anderson, who was jailed for refusing to testify against Bonds, and Hoskins, during which the two were discussing steroids.
However, the recording itself was scratchy and barely audible, and had little to no impact on the jury. The prosecution would have been much better off reading a transcript of the recording, rather than have the jury strain to hear the barely intelligible words.
2. The Prosecution’s Inability to Prove That Bonds Knew He Was Taking Steroids
4 of 5
The jury essentially heard conflicting testimony throughout the trial about whether or not Bonds knew that the substances he was taking were indeed steroids.
There was no direct evidence linking Bonds to anyone in regards to direct conversations about what substances he was putting into his body, and the only evidence presented regarding conversations were the ones that Bonds allegedly had with his mistress, Kimberly Bell.
Obviously, the jury felt that Bell lacked credibility.
1. The Prosecution Largely Overreached in Its Charges Against Bonds
5 of 5
Throughout the duration of the trial, and for many months before the trial, the prosecution was continually trying to introduce evidence that was not directly related to the specific charges against Bonds.
They would have been much better served with one specific charge rather than getting egg on their face, which is essentially what happened with the verdict handed down today.
This is by no means an opinion of this particular writer with regard to Bonds’ guilt or innocence. The fact that Bonds was found guilty of impeding a grand jury investigation is certainly an egregious act, and will in fact serve to add to Bonds’ legacy regarding his use/non-use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Maybe now, we can get on to the business of watching America’s favorite pastime once again without the cloud of another circus-like atmosphere surrounding former players and their performance-enhancing ways.
Oh, wait…We still have the Clemens trial coming up shortly. Never mind.
