What Corporate Defendants Can Learn From the Barry Bonds Case

The San Francisco Chronicle recently put its business section at the back of its sports section. Even before this cost-saving adjustment, the sports pages and the business pages were converging: Both were reporting with increasing frequency on prosecutions. Although the underlying facts in the cases against athletes found in the sports pages differ from those against executives reported in the business pages, executives can gain some valuable insights into their own risks, and into ways to protect against those risks, by reading about the prosecutions of athletes, especially the highly publicized prosecution of Barry Bonds.

That prosecution, primarily on perjury charges, has lasted far longer than the average career of a major league baseball player. The investigation reportedly began in 2002; Bonds testified before the grand jury in 2003; he was indicted in 2007; and, with the case now on appeal as the government tries to overturn a ruling excluding some of its evidence, trial is unlikely before 2010. Howard Mintz & Elliott Almond, “How Strong Is the Case Against Barry Bonds?” (Nov. 16, 2007); A.J. Perez, “ Bonds Federal Case Takes Legal Twist,” USA Today, March 2, 2009, at D1. All this for a case in which the judge, as reflected in her sentences of other defendants, may not impose a substantial jail term: Cyclist Tammy Thomas, for example, charged like Bonds with lying to the grand jury about steroid use, went to trial, was found guilty and was sentenced to home confinement. Carol Pogash & Michael S. Schmidt, “Cyclist Avoids Prison Time, Which May Benefit Bonds,” N.Y. Times, Oct. 10, 2008, D6.