## Facts

- A federal grand jury investigated steroid distribution connected to BALCO and related offenses.
- Barry Lamar Bonds testified before the grand jury in 2003 under a grant of immunity.
- In 2007, the government indicted Bonds for four counts of false declarations and one count of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, based on his grand jury testimony.
- At trial, the government identified seven portions of Bonds’s testimony as supporting the obstruction charge, but the conviction ultimately rested on one answer (“Statement C”) to a question asking whether Bonds’s trainer had ever given him anything requiring self-injection with a syringe.
- Bonds’s answer was rambling and nonresponsive and did not directly address whether he had received an injectable substance.
- The jury convicted Bonds on the single obstruction count and failed to reach a verdict on the false-declaration counts; the false-declaration counts were later dismissed.
- The district court imposed home confinement, probation, community service, and a fine.
- A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the obstruction conviction, and the court later granted rehearing en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether a single nonresponsive grand jury answer, standing alone, is sufficient evidence of material obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503.
2. Whether the evidence showed the answer had the capacity to influence, obstruct, or impede the grand jury’s investigation.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed Bonds’s obstruction conviction for insufficient evidence.
- The court held the government failed to prove “Statement C” was material to the grand jury’s investigation for purposes of § 1503.
- The court vacated the conviction and sentence.
- Because the reversal was for insufficient evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial on the obstruction count.

## Legal Principles

- Obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 requires proof of a corrupt endeavor that is material to the due administration of justice.
- Materiality requires that the conduct have a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the proceeding.
- A rambling, nonresponsive answer does not satisfy § 1503 on this record absent proof it materially impeded or had the capacity to influence the grand jury’s work.
- Reversal for insufficiency of the evidence precludes retrial on the same count under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Conclusion

The en banc court vacated Bonds’s § 1503 obstruction conviction because the government did not show that the single nonresponsive grand jury answer was materially obstructive, and it held that he could not be retried on that count.


United States v. Bonds, 784 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc)