## Facts

- Federal investigators examined distribution of performance-enhancing drugs linked to BALCO and possible related money laundering.
- A grand jury convened in 2003 and questioned Barry Bonds about his trainer, Greg Anderson, and alleged steroid use.
- Bonds testified under a grant of immunity and denied knowingly using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs provided by BALCO or Anderson.
- The prosecution asked whether Anderson had ever given Bonds anything that required self-injection.
- Bonds gave a long, non-responsive narrative answer (later labeled “Statement C”) about being a “celebrity child” and not getting into other people’s business, rather than directly answering the injection question.
- The government alleged the answer was intentionally evasive and misleading and was meant to impede the grand jury’s inquiry.
- Bonds was tried in the Northern District of California and convicted on one count of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 based on Statement C.
- The district court imposed 30 days’ home confinement and two years’ probation, and Bonds appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a rambling, non-responsive but literally true answer to a grand-jury question can constitute a “corrupt” “endeavor” to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Statement C was material and capable of influencing the grand jury’s investigation.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that § 1503 is not limited to perjury and can reach misleading or evasive testimony given with the purpose of obstructing the grand jury.
- The court concluded a rational jury could find Statement C was a deliberate diversion from a simple, direct question central to the investigation.
- The court found the evidence sufficient that the answer was capable of influencing or impeding the grand jury’s work, even if the obstruction was not successful.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503’s omnibus clause, obstruction includes “corruptly” endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.
- An “endeavor” to obstruct need not succeed; it is enough that the conduct is capable of influencing the proceeding.
- Obstruction is not confined to false statements; literally true testimony may still violate § 1503 if intentionally evasive or misleading and offered to hinder a grand jury’s fact-finding.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational juror could find the elements of § 1503 beyond a reasonable doubt, including corrupt intent and a relationship to a material inquiry.

## Conclusion

The panel held that a grand-jury witness may commit obstruction under § 1503 by giving a deliberately evasive, misleading, and non-responsive answer to a material question, even if parts of the response are literally true, so long as the answer is capable of impeding the investigation and is given with corrupt intent.


United States v. Bonds, 730 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013)