The government arrested Barry Bonds on charges, and he potentially faces 30 years in prison. The case centers around his use of drugs, but that is not what he is arrested for. Instead of being accused of using drugs, he is accused to not telling the truth.
This is I suppose much like the case of Martha Stewart. She was not convicted of insider trader. She was convicted of lying about her trading activities.
I find this trend of prosecutors to be disturbing. If Barry Bonds committed a "real" crime, and there is a need to punish him, then I think they should pursue the underlying crime, not the lying about the crime. If there is no underlying crime, then how can he be convicted of lying about the crime?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that perjury should not be a crime. It is a crime and should be a crime. What I am suggesting is that if a prosecutor cannot get enough evidence to substantiate that the crime occurred and he can't prosecute the actual underlying crime, then he should not use a secondary offense of perjury to attack the same suspect.