1. The defendant corruptly, that is, for the purpose of obstructing justice,

2. obstructed, influenced, or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede the grand jury proceeding in which defendant testified,

3. by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading.

A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury.

Here is "Statement C" which the jury determined was made for the purpose of obstructing the grand jury investigation:

6. Statement C:

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

A: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. 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. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean? …
Q: Right.
A: That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

So after all the hype and hoopla about Barry Bonds lying to the grand jury about his steroid use, what he was found guilty of is saying he was a celebrity child who didn't get into anybody's business.

I really wonder how that statement impeded the grand jury investigation.

Barry Bonds is now a convicted felon. All because he said:

That’s what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don’t get into other people’s business because of my father’s situation, you see…

Not only was his answer not responsive to the question asked by the prosecutor at the grand jury, the prosecutor didn't follow up on it. How "material" could it have been?.

This verdict makes no sense to me. Were there one or more holdouts who would only agree to a guilty verdict if they could pick the least serious statement, one that had nothing to do with steroid use?

And how does the jury deadlock on making a false statement to the grand jury, but convict on an obstruction count that requires it to find, among other things, that he "knowingly [gave] material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading" to the grand jury? Especially when it couldn't agree that this statement in his testimony (Count 2), which was given right before it, was false?

Question: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

Answer: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. 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. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?

They were part and parcel of the same exchange. See pages 41- 42 of Bonds' grand jury testimony. Like I said, this verdict makes very little sense.

The jury's full verdict form with their handwritten findings is here.

Update: The jury voted 8 to 4 and 9 to 3 for acquittal on counts 1 and 2, and 11 to 1 for conviction on count 3, which alleged falsely telling the grand jury he had only been injected by his doctors. After the verdict, the jurors said:

The jurors ultimately chose to convict Bonds on obstruction of justice because “he was entirely evasive” in his answers in the grand jury, the jury foreman, Fred Jacob, 56, said. “He was often dodging the question,” Jacob said. “He would just talk about something else.”

The prosecutor at the grand jury did come back to the question a few minutes later (From the transcript):

Q. So no one else other than perhaps the team

5 doctor and your personal physician has ever injected

6 anything in to you or taken anything out?
7 A. Well, there's other doctors from surgeries. I

8 can answer that question, if you're getting technical

9 like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck

10 needles in me and have drawn out -- I've had a bunch of
11 surgeries, yes.
12 Q. So --

I could see them deciding he wasn't telling the truth, but they didn't. They thought he was skirting the issue and being a jerk. Still, how did the statement about being a celebrity child hinder the investigation? I wonder how the 11 convinced the 12th to agree to the obstruction charge.

One of the elements of the obstruction charge is that the defendant "by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false, or misleading."

" A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing,the decision of the grand jury." In Count 2 he was charged with this false statement:

Question: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with? Answer: I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but I don’t – we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want – don’t come to my house talking baseball. 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. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?

...Question: So no one else other than perhaps the team doctor and your personal physician has ever injected anything in to you or taken anything out? Answer: Well, there’s other doctors from surgeries. I can answer that question, if you’re getting technical like that. Sure, there are other people that have stuck needles in me and have drawn out - - I’ve had a bunch of surgeries, yes. Question: So - - Answer: So sorry.

Question: - - the team physician, when you’ve had surgery, and your own personal physician. But no other individuals like Mr. Anderson or any associates of his? Answer: No, no.

So even though Bonds answered "no" five minutes later, the pro-conviction jurors tried to convince the holdout that he lied. They couldn't, but they apparently convinced her he was being evasive. It seems they forget (or ignored) the next element the government had to prove, that :

The defendant knew that the testimony described above was false and material to the grand jury before which he testified. A statement was material if it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the grand jury to which it is addressed.

Since he fully answered the question moments later, how did the statement about being a celebrity child hinder the investigation, especially considering they didn't all agree it was false?

I think the verdicts are inconsistent. If the judge agrees on May 20, the obstruction conviction won't stand.

If that's all it takes to sink you with a felony carrying up to ten years in prison, we should all be pretty afraid.