Appeals court upholds slugger Bonds' conviction
Trial Coverage
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld former Giants slugger Barry Bonds' obstruction-of-justice conviction stemming from rambling testimony he gave during a 2003 appearance before a grand jury investigating elite athletes' use of performance-enhancing drugs.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bonds' testimony was ''evasive'' and capable of misleading investigators and hindering their probe into a performance-enhancing-drug ring centered at the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, better known as BALCO.
In a statement Friday night, Bonds said he was disappointed but he has instructed his attorneys to ask that he be allowed to immediately begin serving his sentence of 30 days of house arrest and two years of probation.
''Meanwhile, I also intend to seek further judicial review of the important legal issues presented by the appeal that was decided today,'' Bonds said. ''This has been a long and difficult chapter in my life and I look forward to moving beyond it once I have fulfilled the penalties ordered by the court.''
Like several other prominent athletes who testified before the grand jury, Bonds was granted immunity from criminal prosecution as long as he testified truthfully.
But after Bonds repeatedly denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs - he testified he thought he was taking flax seed oil and other legal supplements - prosecutors charged him with obstruction and with making false statements.
A jury convicted Bonds of a single felony count of obstruction, stemming from when he was called before the grand jury in San Francisco in December 2003. Bonds was asked whether his trainer, Greg Anderson, had ever injected him with a substance, and he replied by discussing the difficulties of being the son of a famous father. Bonds' father is former major leaguer Bobby Bonds.
Related listings
-
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Trial Coverage 02/28/2012The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana wil...
-
Spain clears way for super-judge's trial
Trial Coverage 05/17/2010Spain's Supreme Court has removed the last potential obstacle to putting on trial the crusading judge who indicted Augusto Pinochet and Osama bin Laden.Judge Baltasar Garzon, who became world famous with cross-border justice cases, faces charges of k...
-
Four FL lawyers face discipline
Trial Coverage 03/06/2008The Florida Supreme Court has disciplined 30 attorneys, including four in Tampa Bay. Terence John Daly of Tampa was suspended for two years retroactive to June 7, according to a Jan. 10 court order. Daly allegedly did not communicate with clients, fa...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.