« New problems with drones smuggling contraband in to prisons | Main | Should judge follow federal prosecutors' recommendation of no prison time for CIA leaker David Petraeus? »

April 23, 2015

"There is no joy in this dissenting judge. The per curiam and concurring opinions have struck out."

The quote in the title of this post is the amusing first line of the sole dissenting opinion authored by Judge Rawlinson in the en banc reversal by the Ninth Circuit of Barry Bonds' federal conviction for obstruction of justice. The other 10 judges in the en banc court considering US v. Bonds, No. 11-10669 (9th Cir. April 22, 2015) (available here), had a variety of different views about why the slugger's conviction could not stand, and all the lengthy opinion are worth reading for anyone concerned about the potentially very broad reach of the federal crime of obstruction of justice.  Here is the two-paragraph per curiam part of the opinion that reflects its actual holding:

During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that Statement C was material, defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record.  Whatever section 1503’s scope may be in other circumstances, defendant’s conviction here must be reversed.

A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant’s right under the Double Jeopardy Clause.  See United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1028 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 (1978)).  His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count.

I would guess Barry Bonds is pleased to be now free from a federal conviction and its collaterally consequences, I would also guess getting to this point cost him a very big bill in attorneys' fees.

April 23, 2015 at 07:39 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201b8d107ae11970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "There is no joy in this dissenting judge. The per curiam and concurring opinions have struck out.":

Comments

"I would also guess getting to this point cost him a very big bill in attorneys' fees."

The real purpose of this pointless exercise.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 23, 2015 8:48:48 AM

I think Bonds made enough money to handle those bills. The prosecution was wrong (at the very least the lengths it was taken) but as in wrong prosecutions, I worry a lot more about those less able to handle them.

Posted by: Joe | Apr 23, 2015 10:03:35 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB