Mistrial declared in Clemens perjury case (Round 2: He Walks...)

[SirFozzie]

Clemens trial is over before it starts. Mistrial. Prosecution done fucked up.

Roger Clemens trial -- Judge declares mistrial - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6768625/roger-clemens-trial-judge-declares-mistrial)

[Thomkal]

Unbelievable.

[JediKooter]

So the liars side messed up on trying to get the other liar tried?

[britrock88]

They can get him on a second go. I hope the federal prosecutors have a better command of their evidence next time, though I understand the challenge that can pose.

[molson]

Ironic that the prosecutors broke the rules in order to get an edge in competition.

The government might not necessarily get another shot at this. When the defendant requests the mistrial based on misconduct, and gets it, double jeopardy can attach. I'm sure that hearing is forthcoming. The government will argue, "hey, we're not evil, we're just incompetent!"

[Logan]

Any chance a member of the prosecution is on the take?

[molson]

Any chance a member of the prosecution is on the take?

While I believe government attorneys can legitimately be this stupid that is a possibility. Because it would only take one person. And it does have the feeling of a boxing match where a guy takes a dive 10 seconds into the first round.

[Logan]

I mean, I'm no lawyer, never contemplated a career in law, never read a law book, and barely even watch law-based shows.

But I don't need to be a 1L to know that when the judge says "don't say this" twice, I shouldn't say it day one.

[Sun Tzu]

Another big case of "who cares" on the Baseball steroid issue.

[Galaxy]

They can get him on a second go. I hope the federal prosecutors have a better command of their evidence next time, though I understand the challenge that can pose.

If they get the chance to have a second go at him. He could be free if double jeopardy issues come into play.

[SackAttack]

I mean, I'm no lawyer, never contemplated a career in law, never read a law book, and barely even watch law-based shows.

But I don't need to be a 1L to know that when the judge says "don't say this" twice, I shouldn't say it day one.

Seriously. If there's criminal misconduct involved at all in this trial, it's got to be criminal stupidity.

That was just breathtakingly dumb.

[britrock88]

If they get the chance to have a second go at him. He could be free if double jeopardy issues come into play.

I read (somewhere) that the judge found there to be inadvertence in the prosecution's mistake. That's why I assumed the retrial; I could well be wrong, of course. :)

[Ksyrup]

That won't be argued until early September, upon motion by Hardin.

[Logan]

I'm barely following the trial, but apparently Pettitte now claims he is "50/50" that he may have misunderstood what he originally thought was Clemens admitting to HGH use. Case closed.

[Rizon]

I'm barely following the trial, but apparently Pettitte now claims he is "50/50" that he may have misunderstood what he originally thought was Clemens admitting to HGH use. Case closed.

One roider defending another roider. I'm shocked.

[spleen1015]

I think this is a very effective way to spend time and money.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Pettitte has no balls. Of course I hear steroid use will do that to you.

[bulletsponge]

they are still wasting taxpayer $$ on this shit? that government employee's for ya, no respect for the taxpayers $$

[stevew]

I'm barely following the trial, but apparently Pettitte now claims he is "50/50" that he may have misunderstood what he originally thought was Clemens admitting to HGH use. Case closed.

Good. Fuck the DOJ for wasting their time with this bullshit.

[molson]

I can feel the prosecutors' pain (if not necessarily have sympathy for them or this case). They probably had 5 or 6 meetings with Pettite and every single time, he told them the same version of the story, and said he was definitely sure what he heard. He gets on the stand, gets intimidated by Clemens' defense counsel, and says something completely different. Facepalm.

The case isn't necessarily over for the government though, I haven't followed it but isn't there still DNA on a needle, and the only defense to that is that it was planted there? I can see juries not buying that, if they don't, they could convict.

[cartman]

The jury has reached a verdict. The parties have been summoned to hear the announcement.

[Logan]

Not guilty on all counts, per NYT.

[cartman]

Yep, acquitted on all counts.

Roger Clemens Acquitted of Federal Charges Over Steroid Use - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-18/roger-clemens-acquitted-of-federal-charges-over-steroid-use.html)

[Logan]

I think Deadspin summed it up best:

Roger Clemens found not guilty after stupid investigation and two stupid trials.

[Grover]

Still guilty of being a jackass.

[Logan]

Still guilty of being a jackass.

The downside of the acquittal is that now we're going to have to watch him be a jackass much more often.

[bhlloy]

Hopefully whoever made the decision to prosecute and reprosecute gets canned for this. What an epic waste of taxpayers money. Wonder how many important cases didn't get prioritized while this circle jerk was going on.

[molson]

It still would have been easier for him just to tell the truth. It would have been better for his reputation and opportunities in baseball also. (unless of course, he never used PEDs, which I don't think anyone actually believes).

[molson]

And this is also why Congress maybe shouldn't get involved in baseball and other sports. What's the point of Congressional hearings if the DOJ isn't supposed to care if anyone lies under oath at the hearings? If the subject matter isn't important enough to care about that, maybe Congress shouldn't be involved in that subject matter.

Edit: Of course, the DOJ also clearly misjudged the caliber of their evidence here. That took me by surprise too that that's all they had, and they were willing to go to trial on that. If they didn't prosecute any of the players, I don't think people would think it was due to lack of evidence, they'd just think the DOJ was "protecting the rich" or something.

[cartman]

Or maybe the DOJ shouldn't take a case to trial when the entire case hinges on the testimony of one person, who before the trial proved to be an erratic witness.

[molson]

Or maybe the DOJ shouldn't take a case to trial when the entire case hinges on the testimony of one person, who before the trial proved to be an erratic witness.

Well, they weren't expecting Andy Petite to change his story at the last second. The federal government usually goes into trial with a lot more, but that's a bit of exaggeration to say it was all one on one witness. And I didn't follow the whole thing at all, I think there was some other circumstantial stuff involving his wife, probably some stuff that got excluded as well. Somehow there was 46 witnesses.

[Lathum]

What an idiotic waste of money

[cartman]

Well, they weren't expecting Andy Petite to change his story at the last second. The federal government usually goes into trial with a lot more, but that's a bit of exaggeration to say it was all one on one witness. And I didn't follow the whole thing at all, I think there was some other circumstantial stuff involving his wife, probably some stuff that got excluded as well. Somehow there was 46 witnesses.

Pettite wasn't the main witness, it was Brian McManee. He was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case. Almost all of the other witnesses were called to either back up or refute his testimony.

[bhlloy]

Maybe now we can spend 18 months prosecuting Pettite. Or McNamee. We have to get to the bottom of this

[frnk55]

Arrogant prick. Good luck getting to the Hall. ha!

[molson]

Pettite wasn't the main witness, it was Brian McManee. He was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case. Almost all of the other witnesses were called to either back up or refute his testimony.

That was the heart of the defense argument. The state argued Clemens' guilt was supported by the fact that Clemens, who could afford any doctor in the world, choose a seedy drug dealer to inject him.

That's the tricky part, reputable doctors and trainers tend not to inject athletes with illegal drugs. Some people shot down Jose Canseco's claims because of his credibility, but the classy, law-abiding baseball veterans would never have been in a position to know the things Canseco did.

Kind of a classic prosecution problem that comes up in a lot of different kinds of cases. If there's a way to get around that and prosecute cases like this, the federal government certainly never figured it out, and worse, they never figured out that they hadn't figured it out.

Edit: I still think perjury cases aren't prosecuted nearly enough, at both the federal and state levels, for testimony given at congressional and any other type of hearings under oath. There would be a lot more truth at those hearings if people believed prosecution was a possibility, and a lot more justice would come from those hearings, of all types, from tax cases, bankruptcy cases, family law, everything. This whole thing will probably make prosecutors more gun shy though, and that's too bad.

[cartman]

Kind of a classic prosecution problem that comes up in a lot of different kinds of cases. If there's a way to get around that and prosecute cases like this, the federal government certainly never figured it out, and worse, they never figured out that they hadn't figured it out.

They must not do too bad, considering the conviction rate in federal cases that go to trial is above 90%.

[molson]

They must not do too bad, considering the conviction rate in federal cases that go to trial is above 90%.

Like most states, they decline a ton of cases and plead down many others to maintain a conviction rate worth bragging about. This case is an outlier, a decision probably made by someone higher up not really involved in the day-to-day stuff (usually a bad idea when deciding whether to prosecute), and once that call was made, there was no possibility of turning back, no matter what the evidence was or wasn't.

[bronconick]

I'd like to thank those twelve jurors from for not hanging on one of the counts and letting some moron decide to go for the third bite at the apple.

[RomaGoth]

The entire fiasco is embarrassing...

[Blackadar]

Arrogant prick. Good luck getting to the Hall. ha!

This probably helps him getting into the HoF. In some ways, the HoF voters would have a better case if it was still just a "strong suspicion" rather than an acquittal. How do you deny him now? It's going to be easy to justify his selection as someone who has been through 2 trials and came out acquitted.

Yeah, and what a friggin' waste of time.

[CU Tiger]

To think about this...innocent until proven guilty. Clemens has now been "proven" not guilty twice but baseball will still convict him.

shrug.

dont really care what building his plaque hangs in. To tell the history of baseball and not include Clemens in the list of 20 greatest pitchers of all time or Bonds in the 10 greatest players is just a mockery.

I dont care what synthetic they shoved in.

[stevew]

Perhaps it is semantics, but Clemens was never acquitted of using PEDs, but rather found not guilty of lying about it. The preponderance of the evidence still probably points to him being a user.

And TBH, Clemens and Bonds were HOF players before it appears that they started using.

Clemens is still a douche fwiw. Hopefully he just goes off into the sunset.

[Logan]

Perhaps it is semantics, but Clemens was never acquitted of using PEDs, but rather found not guilty of lying about it. The preponderance of the evidence still probably points to him being a user.

And TBH, Clemens and Bonds were HOF players before it appears that they started using.

Clemens is still a douche fwiw. Hopefully he just goes off into the sunset.

It's not semantics at all. I don't believe Clemens has ever denied the possibility that he took steroids. His claim is that if he did, it's because McNamee injected him without his consent.

[Lathum]

And TBH, Clemens and Bonds were HOF players before it appears that they started using.


This is how I look at it, there are 2 schools of players. Guys who would have been in anyway, Clemens and bonds, and guys who wouldn't have been in, Sosa, McGwire, etc.

[molson]

This probably helps him getting into the HoF. In some ways, the HoF voters would have a better case if it was still just a "strong suspicion" rather than an acquittal. How do you deny him now? It's going to be easy to justify his selection as someone who has been through 2 trials and came out acquitted.

Yeah, and what a friggin' waste of time.

I don't think McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, or Clemens are getting in any time soon. The cultural view and writers' view could shift on them decades down the road, but I don't think an acquittal on perjury charges is going to change anything. The acquittal is as convincing a factual statement as "hey, he never failed a drug test!".

[jbergey22]

I dont like voters getting to make their own rules in deciding who gets in and when. MLB needs to be more strict with this. Just because Joe Dipshit only thinks certain players should only get in on the first ballot doesnt make it right. Their job should be to vote for the best qualified players according to MLBs guidelines for voting not deciding their own damn rules.

If MLB decides any player rumored to have taken steroids is out dont let them in. If they decide that they are ignoring that part of history let the players be in. We dont need the idiot voters making the rules.

[Logan]

I dont like voters getting to make their own rules in deciding who gets in and when. MLB needs to be more strict with this. Just because Joe Dipshit only thinks certain players should only get in on the first ballot doesnt make it right. Their job should be to vote for the best qualified players according to MLBs guidelines for voting not deciding their own damn rules.

I'm with this. Just put the players in regardless of steroids, betting on baseball, being a meanie to reporters, whatever. Follow the idea of writing whatever the hell you want on their plaque to cement it in history. This isn't the 1920s...the information will always be out there. My grandson will easily be able to tell his grandson about what happened.

[jbergey22]

I'm with this. Just put the players in regardless of steroids, betting on baseball, being a meanie to reporters, whatever. Follow the idea of writing whatever the hell you want on their plaque to cement it in history. This isn't the 1920s...the information will always be out there. My grandson will easily be able to tell his grandson about what happened.

This works for me as well. Its going to be hard for the Hall of Fame to keep its prestige if the all time hits leader and home run leader arent even in it. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth werent exactly role models as were many others that are currently in the HOF.

The thing with Bonds and Clemens is they werent EVER even suspended for cheating. Most of us are near certain they did but it doesnt change the fact that MLB never even suspended them. In my opinion the voters are saying they are above the game when they are making these decisions on keeping these two out that MLB didnt do anything about.

[SirFozzie]

He walked, because his friend did a Uturn on the stand and because the government had an unreliable main witness.

He's guilty in that he did take steroids and lied about it to Congress, but the government's fuck ups mean they couldn't prove their case.

[Lathum]

I'm with this. Just put the players in regardless of steroids, betting on baseball, being a meanie to reporters, whatever. Follow the idea of writing whatever the hell you want on their plaque to cement it in history. This isn't the 1920s...the information will always be out there. My grandson will easily be able to tell his grandson about what happened.

I tend to agree that I am not a fan of the current process. That is illustrated by the fact that there are some old fart sports writters who refuse to vote anyone first ballot. It is a joke that guys like Cal Ripken don't have 100% on the first try.

[molson]

I dont like voters getting to make their own rules in deciding who gets in and when. MLB needs to be more strict with this. Just because Joe Dipshit only thinks certain players should only get in on the first ballot doesnt make it right. Their job should be to vote for the best qualified players according to MLBs guidelines for voting not deciding their own damn rules.

If MLB decides any player rumored to have taken steroids is out dont let them in. If they decide that they are ignoring that part of history let the players be in. We dont need the idiot voters making the rules.

If you're going to have a "rule" that voters can only consider statistics and nothing else you could just dump them and just use one of those baseballreference HOF monitor stats as a cutoff.

Personally, I'm fine with the writers using the limited information they have and making their own judgments (though I think there's all kinds of criteria that could be considered for the HOF - I think "fame", big moments, cultural impact, character, championships, etc, are all fair game depending on the guy.) If the union and MLB wanted clear lines about drug users that voters could evaluate they should have, you know, had real drug testing. They chose to leave those calls in the hands of the writers instead.

[jbergey22]

If you're going to have a "rule" that voters can only consider statistics and nothing else you could just dump them and just use one of those baseballreference HOF monitor stats as a cutoff.

Personally, I'm fine with the writers using the limited information they have and making their own judgments (though I think there's all kinds of criteria that could be considered for the HOF - I think "fame", big moments, cultural impact, character, championships, etc, are all fair game depending on the guy.) If the union and MLB wanted clear lines about drug users that voters could evaluate they should have, you know, had real drug testing. They chose to leave those calls in the hands of the writers instead.

These voters are on a power trip. They need to know their roles. Its not about anything other than them getting few big moments in their life and them wanting to leave a mark.

They dont have to just go by stats but they also cant just be stupid with their votes. As Lathum mentioned how can someone like Cal Ripken not be a 100 percent first time ballot? Some of them have their own rules they just make up.

Now this huge decision on steroids is going to be left up to these guys that cant even realize that Cal Ripken was a no brainer first ballot HOF'er.

There really is very limited evidence out there on who was actually taking the steroids and even less evidence out there and how much it actually helped these players out. In our American system it really doesnt seem fair that we assume that so many not proven guilty players actually did the juice.

Im not a fan of Bonds, Clemens, or ARod but I think it would be wrong if they arent in the HOF. Of course I also think Pete Rose should be in so thats my POV on the HOF. I never considered it a moral ethics fame I consider it a place for the best players in the history of game(whether they cheated or not) to be a part of. So many unethical players are already in to make it some type of ethical shrine.

[RomaGoth]

I'm with this. Just put the players in regardless of steroids, betting on baseball, being a meanie to reporters, whatever. Follow the idea of writing whatever the hell you want on their plaque to cement it in history. This isn't the 1920s...the information will always be out there. My grandson will easily be able to tell his grandson about what happened.

I totally agree with this. In fact, I...

Wait. You have a grandson? :eek:

[molson]

These voters are on a power trip. They need to know their roles. Its not about anything other than them getting few big moments in their life and them wanting to leave a mark.

They dont have to just go by stats but they also cant just be stupid with their votes. As Lathum mentioned how can someone like Cal Ripken not be a 100 percent first time ballot? Some of them have their own rules they just make up.

Now this huge decision on steroids is going to be left up to these guys that cant even realize that Cal Ripken was a no brainer first ballot HOF'er.

That's kind of different issue than the Clemens thing, if you want to tweak the criteria for being a voter (maybe they have to be younger or something), that's cool, but I don't think you can just tell them "don't be stupid," or dump someone specifically because you don't like their vote one year (I really don't think they should go down that road - one, I don't even know who "they" is or what the process to make those decisions would be, and two I'm sure that power would be abused). I don't get the first-ballot thing myself, but if it's important to a qualified voter, then fine, they're there for their varied takes on things, and obviously it's such a small number of them it doesn't impact anything anyway.

[Logan]

If you're going to have a "rule" that voters can only consider statistics and nothing else you could just dump them and just use one of those baseballreference HOF monitor stats as a cutoff.

Personally, I'm fine with the writers using the limited information they have and making their own judgments (though I think there's all kinds of criteria that could be considered for the HOF - I think "fame", big moments, cultural impact, character, championships, etc, are all fair game depending on the guy.) If the union and MLB wanted clear lines about drug users that voters could evaluate they should have, you know, had real drug testing. They chose to leave those calls in the hands of the writers instead.

Statistical voting for the first wave of inductees, and then something similar to the Veteran's Committee later on for those who missed? Sign me up. As Lathum said, the fact that some of the indisputably best players of all time don't get 100% of the vote says how messed up the "system" is. It's about taking a stand, making guys wait, etc. How about just shutting the fuck up and putting Hall of Famers in the HoF? Really, there are 23 distinguished baseball writers who felt that Willie Mays didn't deserve to be in the Hall?

I totally agree with this. In fact, I...

Wait. You have a grandson? :eek:

Yep, he turns -32 next month.