Barry Bonds was found guilty of his Obstruction of Justice charge and there was a hung jury on the other three counts against him.  There appears to be no word on whether the Federal Prosecutors will seek another trial for the mistried counts.  There also appears to be no word yet on how the jury was deadlocked, whether the numbers were 10-2, 6-6, etc.  That may play a role in whether another trial goes forward.  

In a post verdict press release U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag stated in part:

"This case is about upholding one of the most fundamental principles in our system of justice — the obligation of every witness to provide truthful and direct testimony in judicial proceedings. In the United States, taking an oath and promising to testify truthfully is a serious matter." 

That being said, an interesting point arises: what should the Federal Prosecutors do about their own witnesses  whom the jury (or some members of the jury) felt were not credible?  For instance, Barry Bonds' former mistress testified for the Prosecution.  Apparently her testimony was more related to the charges which ended up with a hung jury.  Did the jury feel she did not provide "truthful and direct testimony."   Probably so.  

But don't expect a trial against Bonds' former mistress anytime soon.  There is an age old presumption that the only witnesses ever to receive perjury related charges are those testifying for the defense.