Comments on: Roger Clemens wants the jury to know how bad a dude Brian McNamee is

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Wed, 02 May 2012 04:37:15 +0000

“Your honor, the prosecution’s key witness was accused of rape. He was never convicted, tried, or charged, but the investigators think he lied to them. Can we use this to attempt to discredit him?”
“Objection!”
“Sustained. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please disregard that.”

That kinda doesn’t work.

By: bigharold

bigharold — Tue, 01 May 2012 20:43:00 +0000

“I believe they have the syringes with Clemens’ DNA in them to corroborate his testimony.”

It’s still coming from a lying POS. The fact that he supposedly held on to this stuff “in case” he needed it means if he’s not credible why wouldn’t I think he doctored the evidence, .. “in case” he needed it.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact McNamee has a great big credibility issue and barring any evidence from a source other than McNamee the Feds still have a weak case.

By: imaduffer

imaduffer — Tue, 01 May 2012 20:29:58 +0000

Do they do Hall of Fame inductions from prison?

By: xmatt0926x

xmatt0926x — Tue, 01 May 2012 20:27:30 +0000

That’s the woman I was trying to remember. As far as rape goes, didn’t it come out several years back that Clemens had a sexual relationship with Mindy McCready when she was 15 years old? I know the age of consent varies from state to state but that’s statutory rape in a lot of states.

By: greymares

greymares — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:00:04 +0000

bigger scumbag Clemens or Bond thumbs up for Roger, thumbs down for Barry

By: dexterismyhero

dexterismyhero — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:39:02 +0000

Clemens misremembers his member since he cannot find it anymore. Except with Mindy McCready.

By: shawndc04

shawndc04 — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:05:42 +0000

I believe they have the syringes with Clemens’ DNA in them to corroborate his testimony. I also, umm, have a problem with Clemens letting McNamee inject his wife with HGH so she would have shapely or muscular abs.

By: davidpom50

davidpom50 — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:54:10 +0000

Clemens lawyers make reference to “prescription drug fraud and distribution.” That’s gotta be about steroids, right? I’m not a lawyer, but I gotta think the prosecution will have a hard time keeping that out – it’s directly related to what’s going on. Or am I way off base?

By: bigharold

bigharold — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:36:28 +0000

I kind of think Clemens did use PEDs. But, If a lying POS like McNamee is all they’ve got I can’t see how he’s convicted or even should be.

If Brian McName is your best evidence it merely underscores that fact that you’ve got a pretty crappy case.

By: ltzep75

ltzep75 — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:04:52 +0000

More like an evidence refresher course. I say that only because all I could picture during the run-down was my former prof’s voice droning on and on about rule 608…

By: jimbo75025

jimbo75025 — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:48:18 +0000

Neither Clemens or McNamee is an altar boy. If I was the prosecutor I would be very worried with having him as the star witness.

By: brettj666

brettj666 — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:44:27 +0000

It’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, unless the topic is WMD, then it’s guilty if we say you are.

By: tuftsb

tuftsb — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:47:43 +0000

I marvel at how Clemens had possibly the best year of his career in Houston (2005) after the hearings……..

By: garylanglais

garylanglais — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:35:50 +0000

If the Trial Judge rules in favor of the Government on this issue don’t be surprised to see Rusty Hardin move for an interlocutory appeal. This would freeze the proceedings and bring the Judge’s decision (on whether to allow/disallow evidence on McNamee’s past acts) to the Appeals Court.

While such an appeal is usually prohibited until the trial has concluded, it may not be the case here. As Craig emphasized, the case practically hinges on this decision. This is typically when interlocutory appeals are allowed.

Not saying Hardin’s request for an interlocutory appeal would be granted but he at least has a basis to make the request. Worst thing that happens is he further delays the case.

By: groundruledoublebourbon

groundruledoublebourbon — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:24:20 +0000

Thanks for the CrimPro refresher course, Professor Calcaterra. Interesting stuff.

By: mybrunoblog

mybrunoblog — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:10:36 +0000

McNamee is a pimp. He could never have outfought Clemens but i did not know until this day that is was Clemens all along……

Guilty…bye bye Roger. See you in 2 to 4.

By: brockw82

brockw82 — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:00:38 +0000

No, jury doesn’t know, then there would be no point to the motion – whole purpose is to keep it from them.

By: phukyouk

phukyouk — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:57:37 +0000

Craig – I would like to ask the obvious question here.
Does the Jury know that these motions are being filed? what i mean is, if they know about it then they also know that the prosecution is trying to “hide” it from them due to the nature of what can be said. so wouldn’t they already be prejudice to his character without the actual information?

I know that Jurys are ONLY supposed to go on what they hear in actual testimony but if someone is sitting on the stand and is asked a question, to which the judge does not allow do to “past acts” you would assume that the Jury can only see that as a bad thing, right?

By: danindelray

danindelray — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:56:45 +0000

I don’t think the supposed rape incident will come in but if it does, the Yankees won’t be too pleased. Its been reported that McNamee didn’t lie to protect himself, he was protecting certain players. Will he tell the full truth if forced to on the stand?

And Craig, how about something about Rusty’s brilliant tactics yesterday, which have given the government the opportunity to re-argue whether or not Knoblauch and others should be allowed to testify -this will not help Clemens if they boost McNamee’s credibility by testifying that he told the truth about them.

By: shawndc04

shawndc04 — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:53:15 +0000

The rape allegation won’t be a tough call for the judge. The guy was never charged or convicted. Just because a cop says he/she doesn’t believe someone doesn’t mean an allegation can be used against him in an unrelated court proceeding. Come on Craig.

By: rollinghighwayblues

rollinghighwayblues — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:47:05 +0000

That picture is classic.

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:45:48 +0000

So why did Clemens hire him if he was a scumbag? Two peas in a pod?