Clemens perjury trial - mistrial

[DanMcQ]

bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/other_mlb/view.bg?articleid=1349588&position=1

Should be interesting...

[Just Cos]

Why didn't he settle and disappear quietly?

[DanMcQ]

Jul 4, 2011 19:38:14 GMT -5 Just Cos said:

Why didn't he settle and disappear quietly?

Roger? ;D

[DanMcQ]

www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/07/06/clemens_already_in_a_jam_before_start/?p1=News_links

[RDF]

Clemens "misremembered" why he didn't settle.

[DanMcQ]

sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-clemens-steroids

Jurors were asked about their knowledge of those figures as well as their feelings about the case, baseball, Congress and principles of criminal law. They were asked whether they had scientific training, played organized sports or were baseball fans. One public relations consultant was not. “I can’t imagine spending money to watch a sport where guys scratch themselves and spit a lot,” she said, drawing a smile from Clemens, who otherwise sat expressionless through most of the proceedings.

The woman said she could still be fair to Clemens, quipping that she doesn’t consider spitting and scratching crimes. She was qualified to serve along with six others so far.

[AustinHoya03]

Mistrial:

newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/07/14/judge-in-roger-clemens-perjury-case-declares-mistrial/

[hoyarooter]

Nice job by the prosecution.

[DFW HOYA]

I'm no lawyer (the law school admissions process saw to that) but the judge had to declare a mistrial. Good move in the long run for the prosecution, too--had Clemens been convicted, the defense could appeal the decision based on this alone.

Best bet for the prosecution is to start over with a new jury, and then get a clean conviction. Best hope for the defense is to hope for a favorable jury pool the next time around.

[hifigator]

And in times of extreme economic distress, this incredible waste of taxpayer dollars continues.

[hifigator]

or should I say, "begins anew!"

[strummer8526]

Jul 14, 2011 13:34:45 GMT -5 hifigator said:

And in times of extreme economic distress, this incredible waste of taxpayer dollars continues.

Eh, it's not like the government would fire a bunch of Assistant US Attorneys if they weren't working on this specific case. They would just be investigating and prosecuting something else. The judge would still be a judge, his clerks would still be clerking. Jurors would still be empaneled to hear a trial.

I agree that the resources are being misused. There are almost certainly better things for prosecutors and law enforcement to be doing right now. But it's not like the federal government would be saving money if the US Attorney's Office just didn't bother with Roger Clemens.

[hifigator]

strummer, at the risk of taking this off-topic, even if I agree with you, does that not make this some sort of problem?

I don't have a magic wand, but right now it certainly looks like we have too many people doing things that ... depending on your political view ... either shouldn't be done now or don't need to be done at all.

[strummer8526]

Jul 14, 2011 14:55:18 GMT -5 hifigator said:

strummer, at the risk of taking this off-topic, even if I agree with you, does that not make this some sort of problem?

I don't have a magic wand, but right now it certainly looks like we have too many people doing things that ... depending on your political view ... either shouldn't be done now or don't need to be done at all.

I agree it's a problem that people in such positions are wasting their time. I don't think it's a problem that the positions exist or that we have people in place to do essential jobs like prosecute criminals.

[DanMcQ]

www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2011/07/15/feds_blew_their_chance_with_clemens/?p1=News_links

[hoyarooter]

Jul 14, 2011 12:09:24 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

I'm no lawyer (the law school admissions process saw to that) but the judge had to declare a mistrial. Good move in the long run for the prosecution, too--had Clemens been convicted, the defense could appeal the decision based on this alone.

Best bet for the prosecution is to start over with a new jury, and then get a clean conviction. Best hope for the defense is to hope for a favorable jury pool the next time around.

According to what I read earlier today, this isn't exactly so. There is a definite possibility that the judge will rule that the feds are barred from trying Clemens again based on double jeopardy [Alex, my question is how did ol' Roger get off the hook, and I've wagered my whole bankroll!). I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I don't know the nuances of the double jeopardy rules. It seems a little odd to me that they could apply where the trial never got past the opening arguments, but I'm sure that position has merit.

As for good ol' Roger, he can hardly claim that he's been vindicated, but he'll likely be breathing a big sigh of relief.

[kchoya]

Jul 14, 2011 18:47:45 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

Jul 14, 2011 12:09:24 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

I'm no lawyer (the law school admissions process saw to that) but the judge had to declare a mistrial. Good move in the long run for the prosecution, too--had Clemens been convicted, the defense could appeal the decision based on this alone.

Best bet for the prosecution is to start over with a new jury, and then get a clean conviction. Best hope for the defense is to hope for a favorable jury pool the next time around.

According to what I read earlier today, this isn't exactly so. There is a definite possibility that the judge will rule that the feds are barred from trying Clemens again based on double jeopardy [Alex, my question is how did ol' Roger get off the hook, and I've wagered my whole bankroll!). I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I don't know the nuances of the double jeopardy rules. It seems a little odd to me that they could apply where the trial never got past the opening arguments, but I'm sure that position has merit.

As a general matter, once the jury is empaneled, double jeopardy attaches. I don't have any specific experience with the issue, but from the Judge's comments, it seems as though that rule is not absolute -- at least in this instance. However, if one of the factors they look at is the conduct of the prosecutors, then that's a good sign for Clemens. This doesn't look like an inadvertent, or inconsequential, mistake.

As an aside, has the quality of AUSA's suddenly gone down in this country? From this, to the Bonds trial, to even the Ted Stevens case, it seems like there's been lots of crappy lawyering lately.

Jul 14, 2011 18:47:45 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

As for good ol' Roger, he can hardly claim that he's been vindicated, but he'll likely be breathing a big sigh of relief.

Not claim he was vindicated? Are we talking about the same Roger Clemens?

[AustinHoya03]

Jul 15, 2011 8:40:08 GMT -5 kchoya said:

However, if one of the factors they look at is the conduct of the prosecutors, then that's a good sign for Clemens. This doesn't look like an inadvertent, or inconsequential, mistake.

Retrial is barred if it can be shown that the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.

If anyone's interested in some light reading this morning, the relevant case is Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).

Sloppy, sloppy mistake by the prosecution, but it's also crazy that Rusty Hardin did not object when the government introduced evidence that was explicitly deemed inadmissible prior to trial. If the judge had not stopped the proceedings and signaled that the defense should move for a mistrial, would the trial have continued? Poor job on both sides.

[kchoya]

Jul 15, 2011 9:54:52 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jul 15, 2011 8:40:08 GMT -5 kchoya said:

However, if one of the factors they look at is the conduct of the prosecutors, then that's a good sign for Clemens. This doesn't look like an inadvertent, or inconsequential, mistake.

Retrial is barred if it can be shown that the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.

If anyone's interested in some light reading this morning, the relevant case is Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).

Sloppy, sloppy mistake by the prosecution, but it's also crazy that Rusty Hardin did not object when the government introduced evidence that was explicitly deemed inadmissible prior to trial. If the judge had not stopped the proceedings and signaled that the defense should move for a mistrial, would the trial have continued? Poor job on both sides.

Or crazy like a fox (maybe). Letting the judge take the lead may have been beneficial.

[hifigator]

Jul 15, 2011 11:52:45 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Jul 15, 2011 9:54:52 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Retrial is barred if it can be shown that the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.

If anyone's interested in some light reading this morning, the relevant case is Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).

Sloppy, sloppy mistake by the prosecution, but it's also crazy that Rusty Hardin did not object when the government introduced evidence that was explicitly deemed inadmissible prior to trial. If the judge had not stopped the proceedings and signaled that the defense should move for a mistrial, would the trial have continued? Poor job on both sides.

Or crazy like a fox (maybe). Letting the judge take the lead may have been beneficial.

That's what I was sort of thinking, but I'm no lawyer and don't play one on TV. Hell, I don't even think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in my life either.