Appeals court overturns Barry Bonds’ obstruction conviction

File - In this 2014, file photo, career home run leader Barry Bonds is seen throwing out the first pitch in an NLCS game. Bonds' obstruction of justice conviction reversed by 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File) less File - In this 2014, file photo, career home run leader Barry Bonds is seen throwing out the first pitch in an NLCS game. Bonds' obstruction of justice conviction reversed by 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on ... more Photo: Beck Diefenbach, Staff Photo Photo: Beck Diefenbach, Staff Photo Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Appeals court overturns Barry Bonds’ obstruction conviction 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Barry Bonds was cleared of his only criminal conviction in a government investigation of steroids in sports Wednesday when a federal appeals court ruled that the former San Francisco Giants star’s “rambling, nonresponsive answer” in grand jury testimony did not amount to obstruction of justice.

In a 10-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a jury’s felony conviction of baseball’s all-time home run leader and said there was not enough evidence to support the charge. The ruling, if it stands, means Bonds cannot be retried.

“An enormous weight has been lifted from his body and soul,” said Bonds’ lawyer Dennis Riordan. He said the prosecution “ruined (Bonds’) career.”

Bonds, 50, said in a statement, “Today's news is something that I have long hoped for. I am humbled and truly thankful for the outcome as well as the opportunity our judicial system affords to all individuals to seek justice.”

He added, “This has been a long and strenuous period in my life; I very much look forward to moving beyond it. I do so without ill will toward anyone.”

Representatives of U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag’s office, which prosecuted Bonds, declined to comment on the ruling. Prosecutors could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

BALCO probe

The prosecution stemmed from an investigation into distribution of performance-enhancing drugs by BALCO, the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, in Burlingame. The lab’s chief executive and several others, including Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson, were sentenced to prison for drug distribution.

Prosecutors disclosed in 2004 that Bonds had tested positive for steroids. But he told the grand jury he believed the substances Anderson gave him were flaxseed oil and arthritis balm.

Bonds, testifying before a grand jury in 2003 under a grant of immunity, described his interactions with Anderson but denied ever knowingly using steroids or other banned drugs. He was charged with three counts of perjury, but the prosecution’s case was damaged when Anderson refused to testify and instead was sentenced to a year in prison for contempt of court.

Bonds’ jury deadlocked on the perjury charges in 2011, but convicted him of obstructing justice for his reply to a prosecutor’s question about whether Anderson had ever given him performance-enhancing drugs.

Instead of a yes-or-no answer, Bonds launched into a discourse about his life as a “celebrity child,” the son of ex-ballplayer Bobby Bonds, and his friendship with Anderson. “If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we'll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on,” Bonds said.

30 days of house arrest

He added, “I just don’t get into other people’s business.”

He flatly denied that Anderson had given him drugs when the same question was asked later, but jurors found that his initial response was an attempt to throw the steroid investigation off course. He was sentenced to 30 days of house arrest, and served that sentence while appealing his conviction.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled against Bonds, saying factually accurate but misleading testimony can be obstruction of justice. But the full court then granted a rehearing, and the larger panel ruled Wednesday that Bonds’ answers, even if evasive, were not “material,” or relevant to the criminal investigation.

Bonds’ answer “says absolutely nothing pertinent to the subject of the grand jury’s investigation” and could not have diverted prosecutors or influenced the decision on whether to indict anyone, Judge Alex Kozinski said in an opinion joined by four other judges. If Bonds’ answer was unclear, Kozinski said, it was up to the prosecutor to clarify it.

1 dissenting judge

A “truthful but evasive or misleading statement” cannot be considered obstruction of justice, Judge N. Randy Smith said in a separate opinion joined by three colleagues.

The sole dissenter, Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, said the court should not “second-guess the jury’s verdict” that Bonds had tried to throw the investigation off the track.

“Giving evasive testimony is inconsistent with the obligation to provide complete and truthful testimony,” Rawlinson said. She cited a federal agent’s statements that Bonds’ nonresponse had required him to conduct further inquiries about steroid use and distribution.

Bob Egelko a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @egelko