Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

U.S. vs Clemens


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
144 replies to this topic

#51 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383233 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:25 AM

Maybe the prosecutors will claim the non-redacted version of the hearings video was shown inadvertently.


From SI.com:

Why does Hardin deserve credit for detecting the error? It was an obvious hearsay situation that any lawyer should catch. Seems like a pretty low bar to set.

#52 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 11895 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:30 AM

If I was brought before a kangaroo court of self-important politicians who are basically grandstanding for headlines, I would probably lie too.

The outrage about lying to CONGRESS to me is overblown. We never needed Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball and the argument that it carries any benefit to society is specious at best. I don't carry as much hate for Clemens and many others, but to me it really does seem like "I hate Roger (/Bonds/Palmeiro/Schilling/whoever) so I'm glad Congress and DOJ and everyone else that has better things to do decided to try and take him down a notch." Congress shouldn't be in the business of taking private citizens down a notch, and I hope the lesson of this entire affair is that they stop pissing money away tilting at windmills. I don't really want to have all the same arguments about the seriousness of perjury, etc. I get it and I get why perjury is bad. But when the case being examined is a huge stinking pile of propaganda shit, I honestly can't get worked up about the misdeeds of the accused. Others feel differently I know and you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to try to change anyone else's.

Take away the anti-trust exemption if needs be and get government's nose out of baseball forever. Please.


In the main, I agree. The rub here is that Roger requested -- indeed virtually demanded -- to appear before Congress and to testify under oath. That was his calculated strategy to deal with the Mitchell Report and punch his HOF ticket.

When you lie in these circumstances, you're begging to be prosecuted.

#53 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6637 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:36 AM

Personally, I never needed to see Clemens behind bars for this, but it would have been great to watch him be subject to cross-examination (I assume he would have taken the stand). That would have been appointment TV. Oh well.

Why does Hardin deserve credit for detecting the error? It was an obvious hearsay situation that any lawyer should catch. Seems like a pretty low bar to set.

Or, more to the point, Hardin deserves outright scorn - not credit - if the article posted by dcmissle on page 1 is at all factual when it said (emphasis added):

"There was no objection from Clemens' team during the Laura Pettitte reference, but the judge stopped the proceedings, called attorneys up to the bench and spoke to them privately for several minutes. Hardin pointed out during that time, the video remained frozen on the screen in front of jurors with a transcript of what was being said on the bottom."


Edited by wade boggs chicken dinner, 15 July 2011 - 08:37 AM.


#54 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 11895 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:44 AM

Personally, I never needed to see Clemens behind bars for this, but it would have been great to watch him be subject to cross-examination (I assume he would have taken the stand). That would have been appointment TV. Oh well.


Or, more to the point, Hardin deserves outright scorn - not credit - if the article posted by dcmissle on page 1 is at all factual when it said (emphasis added):



Unless, of course, the Clemens camp was ambivalent at best about a mistrial. Hardin before this case had a terrific reputation. Some of the things he has done from the outset -- like filing a lawsuit -- have been unfathomable unless viewed through the prism of Clemens' determination to prove that he is innocent of PED use.

I would not represent a client in these circumstances if, as in Clemens case, I was persuaded he is delusional. All of this was entirely avoidable. Hardin obviously made a different call.

As others have noted, if the goal here is to prove your innocence, yesterday was not a victory for Roger.

#55 uncannymanny

  • 1135 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:14 AM

If I was brought before a kangaroo court of self-important politicians who are basically grandstanding for headlines, I would probably lie too.

The outrage about lying to CONGRESS to me is overblown. We never needed Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball and the argument that it carries any benefit to society is specious at best. I don't carry as much hate for Clemens and many others, but to me it really does seem like "I hate Roger (/Bonds/Palmeiro/Schilling/whoever) so I'm glad Congress and DOJ and everyone else that has better things to do decided to try and take him down a notch." Congress shouldn't be in the business of taking private citizens down a notch, and I hope the lesson of this entire affair is that they stop pissing money away tilting at windmills. I don't really want to have all the same arguments about the seriousness of perjury, etc. I get it and I get why perjury is bad. But when the case being examined is a huge stinking pile of propaganda shit, I honestly can't get worked up about the misdeeds of the accused. Others feel differently I know and you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to try to change anyone else's.

Take away the anti-trust exemption if needs be and get government's nose out of baseball forever. Please.


Steroids "saved" baseball and in light of the steroid scandal public opinion on the game threatened to hit a new low. I don't think the original hearings had anything to do with "the good of the game" or even "the children," it was simply to protect the massive amount of revenue the game was bringing in. I would be surprised if the All Star week brought in any less in taxes than this trial cost.

It's. Always. About. The. Money.

#56 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9970 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:24 AM

If I was brought before a kangaroo court of self-important politicians who are basically grandstanding for headlines, I would probably lie too.


Let's not pretend that Clemens was some reluctant witness dragged before Congress. He embarked on a scotched-earth campaign to "clear his name" that was going to inevitably lead to a congressional hearing from the moment he went on 60 Minutes and declared that everything about him in the Mitchell Report was a complete fabrication. The entire fiasco, including lying to a congressional panel, was his choice.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for Mark McGwire and the others who were, in fact, dragged up to Capital Hill for the first hearing. I have none for Clemens. He did it to himself.

#57 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11995 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:36 AM

A few thoughts:

-- I'm sure Hardin would've objected to the reference to Mrs. Pettitte's excluded testimony. Hardin couldn't assume the judge would declare a mistrial, however, and so he had to time and phrase his objection so it wouldn't make the jury think the defense was trying to use technicalities to hide unhelpful facts. Of course, the judge raised the issue on his own motion before Hardin got around to objecting.

-- There's a lot of tin-foil hat stuff in this thread. The prosecutors may have bent the rules, figuring they'd get nothing more than a scolding and a corrective jury instruction. Or, they might simply have screwed up. There is zero chance they were instructed to botch the prosecution so as to create a mistrial.

-- Likewise, the decision to prosecute Clemens was not based on some nefarious scheme to use government resources to protect MLB or to defend the (miniscule) contribution that pro sports make to the public fisc. The DOJ has prosecuted a lot of famous people in recent years for perjury, obstruction, and similar charges -- Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby* and Barry Bonds, among others. The Clemens prosecution is part of that pattern. The only factors other than the merits that may have been considered were (1) members of Congress -- including some who seemed sympathetic to Clemens at the actual hearing -- felt they were lied to, and the DOJ knew they would anger some congressmen if they didn't prosecute; and (2) the DOJ knew that prosecuting Bonds and not prosecuting Clemens would look bad, even though there were valid reasons to treat the two differently.

-- It's hard to find an objective expert to assess the likelihood of a retrial. The people who know most and are willing to talk tend to be defense attorneys, and as you'd expect, they are framing the issue as more clear-cut in Clemens' favor than it actually is.

*Edit -- Libby was prosecuted by an independent prosecutor, so that's not a good barometer of DOJ's practice -- although I don't think there's any doubt that the DOJ would have reached the same decision.

Edited by maufman, 15 July 2011 - 09:39 AM.


#58 uncannymanny

  • 1135 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:56 AM

Likewise, the decision to prosecute Clemens was not based on some nefarious scheme to use government resources to protect MLB or to defend the (miniscule) contribution that pro sports make to the public fisc.


Data seems pretty sparse, but I did find this:

http://www.plunkettr...stry statistics

Doesn't seem miniscule to me. Maybe it's not Exxon, but it isn't Home Depot either.

#59 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16497 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 10:12 AM

Just for the record. I really do understand why lying under oath or to Congress is a problem and I understand Roger's hubris and I even understand that two wrongs don't make a right.

But I can't over my visceral feeling is that Congress and DOJ overstepped (or perhaps misstepped is a better word) so much that it dwarfs anything any individual baseball player did. A baseball player shooting up doesn't really affect my life that much other than whatever entertainment value gets changed. My government deciding to misuse its power concerns me a lot more (and hence in my mind I am probably exaggerating that) , even if it also doesn't have a direct affect.

#60 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9970 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 10:53 AM

Just for the record. I really do understand why lying under oath or to Congress is a problem and I understand Roger's hubris and I even understand that two wrongs don't make a right.

But I can't over my visceral feeling is that Congress and DOJ overstepped (or perhaps misstepped is a better word) so much that it dwarfs anything any individual baseball player did. A baseball player shooting up doesn't really affect my life that much other than whatever entertainment value gets changed. My government deciding to misuse its power concerns me a lot more (and hence in my mind I am probably exaggerating that) , even if it also doesn't have a direct affect.


Again, I think most of us agree with the general sentiment. We give a lot of power to our government, and we trust them to use it wisely. It's not pretty when that trust is abused.

Of course, there's a fine line in cases like this. At the time, I thought the initial intrusion of Congress into the PED drama was improper and their methodology was pretty outlandish. And yet, it's clear that baseball preferred to turn a blind eye to the problem until they were forced to do something about it. And because they have an anti-trust exemption, one of the only ways to do this is to shame them, which is what Congress did here.

While the expense of prosecuting people like Bonds and Clemens seems way out of proportion to the underlying nature of the offense, that too is the players choice. The vast majority of the players who found themselves in a tight spot over this ended up either cooperating (like Giambi, Sheffield or Pettitte) or getting their wrist slapped (Tejada) after admitting the truth when their deceptions were uncovered. The two exceptions were Bonds and Clemens, who refused to tell the truth and refused to take responsibility for their deception. And given their prominence, they essentially dared the government to come after them, which is never a good plan.

Does this mean the government acted responsibly here? Far from it. But the responsibility for the PED mess is shared by all parties.

#61 StuckOnYouk

  • 1987 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 11:05 AM

For those who say that a mistrial is not a victory for Clemens because of his mindset of complete and unadulterated innocence.

Is there anyway possible that over the next 6 weeks this freakin yahoo comes to the same conclusion and demands his legal team do what it can to have the judge continue on with a separate trial? Maybe his legal team would rather quit than do such a thing, and maybe Clemens would have to find someone else to represent him...

Sounds crazy, but this is Roger Clemens we're talking about here. Nothing is impossible.

#62 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11995 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 11:43 AM

While the expense of prosecuting people like Bonds and Clemens seems way out of proportion to the underlying nature of the offense, that too is the players choice. The vast majority of the players who found themselves in a tight spot over this ended up either cooperating (like Giambi, Sheffield or Pettitte) or getting their wrist slapped (Tejada) after admitting the truth when their deceptions were uncovered. The two exceptions were Bonds and Clemens, who refused to tell the truth and refused to take responsibility for their deception. And given their prominence, they essentially dared the government to come after them, which is never a good plan.


Bonds lied to a grand jury, which makes his case different from the others. The feds treated him the same way they would've treated you or me in that situation.

Clemens is a closer call -- it's hard to say how the feds would treat you or me in that situation, because it's almost inconceivable that we'd be asked to testify before Congress.


{Edit: fixed typo.)

Edited by maufman, 15 July 2011 - 11:44 AM.


#63 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8115 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 11:58 AM

-- It's hard to find an objective expert to assess the likelihood of a retrial. The people who know most and are willing to talk tend to be defense attorneys, and as you'd expect, they are framing the issue as more clear-cut in Clemens' favor than it actually is.

I have spoken to several knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers who have all said about the same thing. If Walton faithfully applies the principles from Oregon v. Kennedy, Clemens will very likely be tried again. Absent some smoking gun making clear that the government bagged the trial -- a gun that no one expects to be out there -- Hardin will not be able to show sufficient intentional misconduct/prejudice in order to avoid Round 2. As to Walton, despite his annoyance and demeanor the last time, people expect him to get this right.

#64 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8270 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 12:08 PM

Given the change in political climate since this action was initiated maybe the DOJ told the prosecutors to take a dive and get out of the arena.


The prosecutors would have put their licenses at risk by intentionally throwing a case. Ethically, if the prosecutors no longer thought the case was winnable or viable, the right thing to do would have been to withdraw it.

#65 mandro ramtinez

  • 1127 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 01:42 PM

Ethically, if the prosecutors no longer thought the case was winnable or viable, the right thing to do would have been to withdraw it.


If the prosecutors filed a motion to withdraw this case without any new facts coming to light that would have changed the underlying facts that led to Clemens' indictment, they would have faced some very serious sanctions. To withdraw the case without any new facts would not be as ethically problemmatic as throwing the case intentionally but it would raise some very serious questions about the professional ethics of the AUSA's, especially given how vigorously the government had sought to prosecute this case up to the moment the mistrial was declared.

#66 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8270 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 02:51 PM

If the prosecutors filed a motion to withdraw this case without any new facts coming to light that would have changed the underlying facts that led to Clemens' indictment, they would have faced some very serious sanctions. To withdraw the case without any new facts would not be as ethically problemmatic as throwing the case intentionally but it would raise some very serious questions about the professional ethics of the AUSA's, especially given how vigorously the government had sought to prosecute this case up to the moment the mistrial was declared.


I agree 100%, but do you really think that intentionally blowing the case is less problematic ethically? I don't.

#67 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41584 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 02:57 PM

I have spoken to several knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers who have all said about the same thing. If Walton faithfully applies the principles from Oregon v. Kennedy, Clemens will very likely be tried again. Absent some smoking gun making clear that the government bagged the trial -- a gun that no one expects to be out there -- Hardin will not be able to show sufficient intentional misconduct/prejudice in order to avoid Round 2. As to Walton, despite his annoyance and demeanor the last time, people expect him to get this right.


The case reads like DJ would only ever apply in these situations (defendant requests and receives mistrial) where a prosecutor figured out he fucked something up and then was looking for a way out so he could re-try it and fix his mistake. I think that's really the spirit of what the Supreme Court is saying in its opinion. If you think you are going to lose a case with one witness left on the stand, you can't purposefully do something to entice the defendant into a mistrial so that you can do it over again and present your case differently (or maybe to a more friendly jury). In such a case, the prosecutor has already constructively had an opportunity to fully try the defendant and the spirit of DJ would apply. Thus, if faithfully followed, Kennedy's application here wouldn't make much sense. I don't see a winning argument that he has been constructively tried, as the case had just started. The judge shouldn't apply DJ as a punitive measure against the prosecution, because it is the community at large trying Clemens, not those individual prosecutors. DJ isn't a punitive measure, it is a protective measure, and Clemens isn't of the class that deserves to be protected (legally, not just because he is a giant bastard). The remedy that makes more sense would be to sanction the prosecutors and to allow a re-trial with an untainted jury.

Anyway, that's just my reading and understanding of the case.

I agree 100%, but do you really think that intentionally blowing the case is less problematic ethically? I don't.


I honestly think they just completely fucked up. I don't buy the theory they were looking for an out. The government is going to argue in favor of a re-trial, and if they win and go ahead and re-try I don't see what the motivation to throw the case would have been.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 18 July 2011 - 04:01 PM.


#68 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8270 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:07 PM

I honestly think they just completely fucked up. I don't buy the theory they were looking for an out. The government is going to argue in favor of a re-trial, and if they win and go ahead and re-try I don't see what the motivation to throw the case would have been.


I agree. I read (sorry, no link) that the prosecutors just didn't review the videotapes for compliance with the judge's rulings on excluding evidence before they showed them to the jury. While completely inexcusable, that sounds plausible to me.

The prosecutors should've handed the judge's evidence rulings to a room full of first-year associates and told them to go through every single exhibit to make sure they weren't inadvertently going to introduce something already ruled out.

Edited by OilCanShotTupac, 18 July 2011 - 03:08 PM.


#69 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5644 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:10 PM

If the prosecutors filed a motion to withdraw this case without any new facts coming to light that would have changed the underlying facts that led to Clemens' indictment, they would have faced some very serious sanctions. To withdraw the case without any new facts would not be as ethically problemmatic as throwing the case intentionally but it would raise some very serious questions about the professional ethics of the AUSA's, especially given how vigorously the government had sought to prosecute this case up to the moment the mistrial was declared.


Is there any way to explain this to a nonlawyer? Why is saying "we goofed, you win" bad? You hear about charges getting dropped all the time. It makes them look bad of course, but doesn't makeing an elementary mistake also do that? How is withdrawing worse?

#70 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8115 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:22 PM

Is there any way to explain this to a nonlawyer? Why is saying "we goofed, you win" bad? You hear about charges getting dropped all the time. It makes them look bad of course, but doesn't makeing an elementary mistake also do that? How is withdrawing worse?

Effectively admitting that the case should not have been brought in the first place is worse because the prosecutor has to admit that he didn't know whether what he had was sufficient when he hit send. In the absence of any new exculpatory evidence, that's pretty bad as it shows that the prosecutor didn't stop, look and listen enough before ringing the bell, and is much worse than an error in execution, even an extremely stupid one.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 18 July 2011 - 03:57 PM.


#71 mandro ramtinez

  • 1127 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:38 PM

I agree 100%, but do you really think that intentionally blowing the case is less problematic ethically? I don't.


Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I think that intentionally blowing the case would be a horrifically bad ethical violation. That would be among the most serious ethical breaches an attorney could commit. I was trying to say that withdrawing the case would be a breach of the AUSA's professional ethics but not as bad as a breach as intentionally blowing the case would be.

#72 mandro ramtinez

  • 1127 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:50 PM

Is there any way to explain this to a nonlawyer? Why is saying "we goofed, you win" bad? You hear about charges getting dropped all the time. It makes them look bad of course, but doesn't makeing an elementary mistake also do that? How is withdrawing worse?


I would say that most often, criminal charges against a prospective defendant are "dropped" before the state has secured an indictment against that individual. If the state has secured an indicment and especially if a jury has been impaneled, the state almost never drops charges unless previously unknown, exclupatory evidence is discovered.

In Clemens' case, no new information has come to light that would make his indictment seem any less sound and it would be highly unusual and unorthodox for DOJ to withdraw the charges against him simply because they made a bungling mistake in the first trial.

#73 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 11895 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 03:52 PM

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I think that intentionally blowing the case would be a horrifically bad ethical violation. That would be among the most serious ethical breaches an attorney could commit. I was trying to say that withdrawing the case would be a breach of the AUSA's professional ethics but not as bad as a breach as intentionally blowing the case would be.


Abandoning the case, in fact, would not breach any ethical code. Prosecutors have lots of discretion and are expected to use it.

The problem here is not evidentiary; it's political. There is plenty of evidence to convict. The major difficulty is whether the case should have been brought in the first place. During jury selection, the judge had to bounce people who believe this is frivolous.

The case is going to be exceptionally difficult to drop now (assuming it can go forward) for several reasons. First, the lion's share of the costs, which undoubtedly run to the millions, are sunk costs. Second, abandoning the case would reflect poorly on the judgment of the people who brought it and are now abandoning it, likely the same people; they either screwed up badly in the first instance, or are doing so now. Third, this was done as a result of a referral from Congress; certain people in Congress, who have investigatory powers and/or control the purse strings, may be pissed if the prosecution is dropped.

There is no clean way out if, as I now believe, the case is permitted to be re-tried by the district court.

Edited by dcmissle, 18 July 2011 - 03:53 PM.


#74 mandro ramtinez

  • 1127 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 04:28 PM

Abandoning the case, in fact, would not breach any ethical code. Prosecutors have lots of discretion and are expected to use it.


I overstated it to say that withdrawing the case would be an ethical violation under the ABA code. I think it would be a glaring professional mistake for that US Attorney's to withdraw the charges now after their debacle at trial. The appropriate time for the prosecution to use their discretion in this case was before they secured an indictment against Clemens and impaneled a jury. It just strikes me as an abuse of their discretion to withdraw the charges and not retry Clemens if the judge allows them to.

#75 Sampo Gida

  • 3115 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 12:46 AM

I agree. I read (sorry, no link) that the prosecutors just didn't review the videotapes for compliance with the judge's rulings on excluding evidence before they showed them to the jury. While completely inexcusable, that sounds plausible to me.


Not buying it. I don't believe mistakes at this level and of this magnitude happen, even though we are often asked to believe so (oops, sorry we did not know about that brake problem for 5 years despite all the incident reports, so sorry). More plausible is that they thought they could get it through, thereby influencing the jury in a way detrimental to Clemens and favorable to their weak case, with only a slap on the wrist, and the Judge admonishing the jury to ignore it what they heard/saw (which we all know is impossible).

If something is inexcusable, it should not be excused. The burden of proof for "it was only an honest mistake" should be on the prosecution, and short of admitting professional incompetence (due to Alzheimers or something) and resigning, I do not see how that is done in a manner that is very convincing.

While there is a responsibility to punish those who have committed crimes, the only way to protect the system and ensure fair trials is to punish the "inexcusable" conduct of prosecutors when they get caught cheating. Then maybe they will think twice before pulling these stunts.

#76 TomTerrific

  • 273 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:02 PM

Looks like l'affaire Clemens is on again.

http://www.nytimes.c...w-trial.html?hp

Unfortunately, we have to wait until next April for the fun to resume.

#77 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8115 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:32 PM

Looks like l'affaire Clemens is on again.

http://www.nytimes.c...w-trial.html?hp

Unfortunately, we have to wait until next April for the fun to resume.

Some silver linings:

- Roger will have to live with a rather large cloud over his fat head until April;

- The delay will cost Roger substantially more in legal fees as lawyers will fill the time;

- The delay will afford the prosecution team more time to get their ducks in a row...time they apparently need given their spectacular blunder in round one; and

- The April timing -- near opening day -- will tie Clemens to the new season and likely intensify the focus on his travails as a result.

#78 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41584 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:38 PM

Funny that SoSH had this figured out before all of the media lawyer experts. Glad Clemens is back on trial, that POS.

#79 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9970 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:55 PM

Funny that SoSH had this figured out before all of the media lawyer experts. Glad Clemens is back on trial, that POS.


SoSH doesn't have to pander to people who are interested in seeing "both sides" of an argument represented, regardless of the merits of those arguments. As outlined by several posters here, the law in this case seemed pretty straightforward and so the legal eagles here sussed it out correctly.

"Media lawyers" on networks like ESPN are another story altogether. They love to play things right down the middle, because doing so doesn't piss anybody off. Also, it's much easier to present yourself as a legal genius when you only take strong stands in hindsight.

#80 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41584 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 10:47 PM

SoSH doesn't have to pander to people who are interested in seeing "both sides" of an argument represented, regardless of the merits of those arguments. As outlined by several posters here, the law in this case seemed pretty straightforward and so the legal eagles here sussed it out correctly.

"Media lawyers" on networks like ESPN are another story altogether. They love to play things right down the middle, because doing so doesn't piss anybody off. Also, it's much easier to present yourself as a legal genius when you only take strong stands in hindsight.


Actually, most of the people I saw right after the trial were screaming about how this was a clear case of Double Jeopardy. It was all part of the panic mode the media had to portray.

#81 wibi


  • SoSH Member


  • 7745 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:39 PM

Someone who understands the legal environment better than I do can you explain why Roger's lawyers would do this

http://espn.go.com/m...ion-court-order

#82 wibi


  • SoSH Member


  • 7745 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:39 PM

Can someone with more legal background explain the value of Roger's lawyers contacting the jurors against the judges orders?

http://espn.go.com/m...ion-court-order

#83 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 13955 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 04:08 PM

It seems to me like it was a miscommunication on behalf of the judge.

There's no rule against contacting jurors to ask them about the trial after they've been relieved of their service. As the judge points out in that article, it's only a rule violation if the juror states he does not wish to be contacted.

It's not clear if the judge failed to give the jurors the correct instruction (as he should have), and Clemens' team just didn't realize it/chalked it up to an oversight, or if some of the jurors stated they didn't want to be contacted but the lawyers did so anyway.

As to the "why" part of your question, it's often very useful for a lawyer to get input from jurors on what they thought about the case. E.g., what the weaknesses were, how the opening statement went, if the evidence was presented in a convincing manner, etc... I'm sure Clemens' people wanted to know more about what presumptions they would have to overcome, and even how damning (since they saw it) the Pettitte information was.

There's nothing sinister about this, it's common practice and it can help attorneys hone their skills (for instance, a juror says "I really didn't buy your opening statement..." that tells the lawyer that he has to work on that next time). It honestly sounds like the judge goofed by failing to give the proper instruction, and Clemens' lawyers just went about business as usual anyway.

Edited by drleather2001, 07 September 2011 - 04:11 PM.


#84 TomTerrific

  • 273 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:57 PM

Well, the fun is about to begin again.

The article makes it seem as though the gov't has a steep hill to climb, especially as (according to the article) the judge has already indicated he is not thrilled with the government's case. That's too bad, I was really hoping the fat bastard was going to get it.

Well, at the very least, Andy Pettitte couldn't have picked a better time to attempt a comeback :q:

#85 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9970 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:29 PM

Andy Pettitte just testified that it's "50 - 50" that he might have misunderstood what Roger Clemens was telling him about the use of HGH. This apparently came as quite the surprise to the government lawyers.

IMO, the case against Clemens is done.

Story here: http://espn.go.com/m...lemens-hgh-talk

Edited by Average Reds, 02 May 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#86 FelixMantilla


  • reincarnated mr hate


  • 8528 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:33 PM

Lying to save a friend? Who would do that?

#87 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8489 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:05 PM

Andy Pettitte just testified that it's "50 - 50" that he might have misunderstood what Roger Clemens was telling him about the use of HGH. This apparently came as quite the surprise to the government lawyers.

IMO, the case against Clemens is done.

Story here: http://espn.go.com/m...lemens-hgh-talk


I don't think so. The government's case is going to rely heavily on the testimony of McNamee at this point. If he can hold up to cross-examination and remains convincing that he personally injected Clemens with steroids and HGH and Clemens knew what he was getting, then it's hard to imagine Clemens getting off scott free. We'll see ...

#88 Minneapolis Millers

  • 526 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:56 PM

The prosecution still has:
- Pettitte - Clemens' best friend - has admitted to using HGH
- Pettitte thought he heard Clemens admit to it as well, even if he now says he might have been mistaken.
- Pettitte and Clemens both agree that Clemens' wife used HGH
- She was injected by the same guy who injected Pettitte and claims to have injected Clemens.
- McNamee's testimony that he injected Clemens
- the syringe etc. with Clemens' DNA.

I realize that there are holes all over the place, but in the end, the jury still has a ton of reasons to discredit Clemens' position and buy the prosecution's case. It certainly is not over.

#89 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9970 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:25 PM

The prosecution still has:
- Pettitte - Clemens' best friend - has admitted to using HGH
- Pettitte thought he heard Clemens admit to it as well, even if he now says he might have been mistaken.
- Pettitte and Clemens both agree that Clemens' wife used HGH
- She was injected by the same guy who injected Pettitte and claims to have injected Clemens.
- McNamee's testimony that he injected Clemens
- the syringe etc. with Clemens' DNA.

I realize that there are holes all over the place, but in the end, the jury still has a ton of reasons to discredit Clemens' position and buy the prosecution's case. It certainly is not over.


The reason I said it's over is that juries have shown a fairly reliable tendency to look for holes so that they can acquit in cases like this.

The Bonds case is instructive - he almost certainly committed perjury, but the sloppiness in the way the case was presented combined with the "why are we even here?" aura that hung over the trial led to something less than a resounding victory for the prosecution.

This case is different in a lot of ways, including the fact that Clemens was not targeted for prosecution - he placed himself at risk by insisting that he testify in front of Congress to "clear his name" and then committing perjury in front of a Congressional panel. The problem with the case now is that the testimony of Pettitte was critical corroboration for both McNamee's claims and the physical evidence that he (McNamee) preserved. And now that corroboration has been ruined by Pettitte's unwillingness to state his certainty about what Clemens told him.

I have a hard time believing that not a single juror will look at Pettitte's uncertainty and conclude that he now has reasonable doubt.

#90 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 21969 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:22 PM

Verdict expected within the hour.

#91 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37363 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:34 PM

Jury has reached a verdict after deliberating less than 11 hours. Prosecutors have re-entered courtroom. Clemens not there yet. Announcement forthcoming.

#92 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37363 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:46 PM

Not guilty, all counts.

#93 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 22587 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:47 PM

Fucking bullshit.

#94 NickEsasky


  • Code Name: Duchess


  • 6771 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:48 PM

That sucks. Way to go US Attorneys!

#95 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37363 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:48 PM

Awesome job by the feds. Anyone got a tally of expenses on the Clemens and Bonds trials?

#96 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 21969 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:48 PM

Not guilty on all counts per ESPN

#97 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 21969 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:49 PM

Soooooo... This means he makes the HoF, right?

#98 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11995 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:54 PM

The prosecutors were under a lot of pressure from members of Congress who were pissed that Clemens lied to them.

I blame the congressmen -- both for holding the hearing in the first place, then for getting so damn outraged when one of the two parties lied to them -- which was certain to happen.

#99 bankshot1


  • SoSH Member


  • 7428 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:55 PM

My guess is a substantial # of BBWA voters believe he's guilty. and will not vote for him, at least on the 1st ballot.

.

#100 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383233 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:58 PM

If writers are going to leave players off their ballot due to PED issues, Clemens has to be included on that list. If not, they need to let Bonds and company in as well.