Skip to content

The Clemens prosecutors make their case to try him again

Aug 19, 2011, 5:07 PM EST

Roger Clemens AP

Despite the calls from lawmakersmany lawmakers, actually — to give up on a second go at prosecuting Roger Clemens, the prosecutors today made their case for a do-over:

Prosecutors in the Roger Clemens perjury case say they made an honest mistake in showing jurors inadmissible evidence and the baseball star should face another trial … the prosecutors say their case remains strong and Clemens wants to “gain an unwarranted windfall from this inadvertent error.”

Clemens argument is that the prosecutions offered the evidence on purpose in an effort to get a mulligan because their case was going poorly. I’m still kind of skeptical of that — the trial was a day old when that happened — but those are the contours of the argument.

  1. Walk - Aug 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM

    I have worked law enforcement most of my adult life, bit less than fifteen years, both local and federal. This is not the first time i have seen this type of play by lawyers, both sides in fact. What it usually ammounts to is trying to get influence on the jury by suggesting there is more going on than is allowed to be shown in court, which is almost always the case anyway. By forcing the issue prosecution was hoping the defense might rebutt it thereby bringing the issue up and getting it in the open circumventing the judge’s ruling. If that did not happen, and the judge rightly put a stop to it, it would give tham all the excuse they need to save face if they went on to lose the case. Clemen’s arguement sits poorly for me though, if they knew enough about the case to try to get it thrown out on purpose so early they knew enough to ask for a continuance prior to such a drastic action to allow them more time. I only know what i have read on hbt and local papers but i did not see them try and fail to get a continuance.

  2. whiskyriver27 - Aug 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM

    You had your chance,spent millions,and f’d it up. Leave it be.
    I can’t stand the man,but all he ever wanted was to be known as one of the best ever. He never will be,and I think that is the best punishment for him.
    He’s gone from a great to a joke.
    Stop wasting our tax dollars on petty stuff like this.

    • 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Aug 20, 2011 at 12:28 AM

      Agreed, his name and reputation have been dragged through the mud repeatedly, I’m pretty sure all the fans he has left could fit comfortably in the courtroom he was tried in

    • hittfamily - Aug 20, 2011 at 12:30 AM

      Call me crazy, but when a massive investigation is going on, and you interfere in it by lying, you should be punished for it. He didn’t have to answer the questions that he was asked. The fifth amendment protects him from that. He chose to answer, and he lied. He doesn’t get a free pass because he has high profile lawyers that can draw out a perjury case for years. It is costing the taxpayers a lot of money. However, that cannot be a “get out of jail free” card for everyone who lies in federal cases, and has the money to hire lots of lawyers.

      • ditto65 - Aug 20, 2011 at 8:23 AM

        Congress had no business wasting our tax dollars investigating baseball in the first place. End it.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 20, 2011 at 11:20 AM

        Philosophically I agree with you, but the expense of trying this case to begin with wasn’t worth it. Re-trying it, presumably with more competent prosecution, is definitely not worth it. Meanwhile, Clemens has paid–he’s spent millions on his defense, lost every shred of goodwill with the public he ever had, lost millions more in potential revenue from endorsements/appearance fees/jobs either in TV or MLB, lost friends he’d had for years, & may well have even cost himself guaranteed spot in the HoF. He’s a pariah & that’s the appropriate punishment for his crime.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (4536)
  2. G. Stanton (3397)
  3. J. Lester (3040)
  4. Y. Tomas (2908)
  5. R. Martin (2728)
  1. J. Heyward (2553)
  2. M. Scherzer (2346)
  3. A. LaRoche (2190)
  4. J. Upton (2037)
  5. T. Hunter (2027)