barry bonds steroidsBarry Bonds’ legal team is on a roll again as they move to have 10 charges dismissed on the former Giants outfielder’s new indictment.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports the latest on the Barry Bonds’ legal battle:

In documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Bonds’ lawyers asked Judge Susan Illston to dismiss 10 of the 15 charges of perjury and obstruction of justice contained in an indictment handed up in May.

Seven charges should be dismissed because the prosecutors asked Bonds “fundamentally ambiguous” questions when he testified before the grand jury that investigated the BALCO steroid case, wrote lawyers Dennis Riordan and Donald Horgan. The lawyers claimed other defects in three other charges.

A hearing on the matter is set for Oct. 24. If Bonds prevails, he would go to trial in March on five charges of perjury. If convicted of perjury and obstruction, he faces a maximum sentence of about 24 to 30 months in prison, legal experts say.

This is the second time Bonds’ lawyers have tried to pare down their client’s indictment.

During his December 2003 grand jury appearance, the 44-year-old Bonds repeatedly denied that he had knowingly taken anabolic steroids sourced from the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative in Burlingame and from Greg Anderson, Bonds’ personal trainer since 2000.

On November 15, 2007, Bonds was indicted for both four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice stemming from the government investigation of BALCO. Bond’s legal team objected, complaining that the indictment was “impermissibly accused Bonds of telling as many as five lies in a single count”, according to San Francisco Chronicle.

Subsequent to Judge Illston’s agreement with the complaint, the prosecuting team sought to correct the problem with a new indictment. The new indictment charged Bonds with 15 felonies for the same set of alleged offenses.

The defense’s second set of objections was about the questions the prosecutors had posed to the controversial slugger. Bonds’ lawyers said the questions “often were impermissibly vague and confusing”.

As an example, Bonds was accused of perjury for answering “no” when asked whether he had been taking “anything like” steroids in 2000. That count should be expunged, the lawyers argued in the filing, saying the question “utterly fails to reasonably identify what substances can be deemed ‘anything like’ steroids.”