Tweet
Maybe, just maybe... 
But probably not.
But probably not.
Los Angeles Times | September 13, 2013 | 8:23 AM
A federal appellate court today unanimously upheld former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice.
Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice based on an evasive answer to a grand jury question about whether his personal trainer had ever given him a substance that required a syringe to inject. Bonds gave a rambling response, then ultimately told the grand jury that he had not received an injectable substance.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that "there was sufficient evidence to convict Bonds because his statement ... was evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury."
A federal appellate court today unanimously upheld former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice.
Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice based on an evasive answer to a grand jury question about whether his personal trainer had ever given him a substance that required a syringe to inject. Bonds gave a rambling response, then ultimately told the grand jury that he had not received an injectable substance.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that "there was sufficient evidence to convict Bonds because his statement ... was evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury."