OT: (kind of OT) Roger Clemens mistrial

[RPS]

Judge rules prosecutors screwed up, and declares mistrial.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Judge-declares-mistrial-in-Roger-Clemens-steroid-perjury-case-071411/?gt1=39002

According to one attorney in local Houston news, if mistake was intentional, then Clemens may walk for good on perjury charges related to drug use. Apparently if intentional and after jury is seated then it can be considered an attempt to deny Clemens a fair trial and he can’t be retried.

Should they stop wasting money or go after him again -- assuming they get a second chance?

[rugbysecondrow]

They need to stop. It will be interesting if the Judge even allows them to go forward after this.

[michael white]

After Casey Anthony I'd be surprised if we could convict anyone for anything.

[JMerring]

dylan. hurricane. "[it all] makes me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game. now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise."

[RPS]

This may seem a little out there to most, but my first thought was whether government prosecutors had blown the case on purpose. If so, I’d understand because IMO they were in a no-win situation.

Clemens is a baseball hero, and if they win and put him in jail it will seem a little over the top, especially when other baseball players have admitted to doing drugs and walked. Obviously the Clemens crime was about lying under oath and not the drugs themselves, but if there is one thing we learned from the Clinton case is that the American people don’t distinguish between these two very well.

Another reason is that Americans are becoming increasingly angry at government for spending money on things that are not essential (and sports really are not essential) while at the same time discussing the possibility default, which may include stopping payments on social security and other real necessities. For prosecutors the timing of this trial was less than ideal (more like a nightmare).

If I were in their shoes I’d gladly throw in the towel early (even if it means looking a little incompetent for making a rookie mistake) rather than engage in a no-win battle.

[forrestw]

dylan. hurricane. "[it all] makes me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game. now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise."
Uniformly the baseball fans where I used to work were quite aware that the ball players were using steroids and HGH, they were glad the team was winning games. Interestingly when the subject turned to spandex-clad cyclists in that french road race, their views on drug use were more critical.

As I understand it most of the good seats in the ball parks now are bought by corporations as entertainment expense, still a lot of reg'lar folks still pony up to pay for the hideously expensive tickets. I don't buy for a minute that geam management hasn't been involved in this, fans look the other way, why wouldn't the prosecutors?

"in a world of thieves the only final sin is stupidity" Hunter Thompson

[toaster]

Good news for Lance.

[malcolm]

dylan. hurricane. "[it all] makes me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game. now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise."

Where is a better legal system? At least here than is a presumption of innocence.

[rugbysecondrow]

Uniformly the baseball fans where I used to work were quite aware that the ball players were using steroids and HGH, they were glad the team was winning games. Interestingly when the subject turned to spandex-clad cyclists in that french road race, their views on drug use were more critical.

As I understand it most of the good seats in the ball parks now are bought by corporations as entertainment expense, still a lot of reg'lar folks still pony up to pay for the hideously expensive tickets. I don't buy for a minute that geam management hasn't been involved in this, fans look the other way, why wouldn't the prosecutors?

"in a world of thieves the only final sin is stupidity" Hunter Thompson

It is because of the higher level of skill needed in baseball than cycling, the drugs don't make the athlete the same as in cycling.

[BillG]

It is because of the higher level of skill needed in baseball than cycling, the drugs don't make the athlete the same as in cycling.

I would think it's because many Americans identify with their baseball teams and think cyclists are freaks and so are glad to be critical of cyclists while cutting their teams a break.

[JMerring]

Where is a better legal system? At least here than is a presumption of innocence.

i'm not really qualified to comment on other countries' legal systems so i can't say. in re: casey anthony, i, like most of the world, was convinced she's a murderer; however, upon reflection, the jury made the right call. the games were played by the prosecution and in their lust for blood they were blinded by the fact that the evidence didn't support the crime they were pursuing. in all likelihood, casey anthony did something wrong and should have been punished somehow. instead, she'll likely make tons of $$ and become a celebrity (even if an infamous one). no justice for the child that might have drowned when casey may have been doing her 10th vodka shot, but caylee wasn't discovered until casey may have done her 13th, at which point she was so ????-faced she hatched a plan to make it look like a murder so she wouldn't be held liable for gross criminal negligence. well done, casey - i guess the moral of your story is that if you want someone dead, make it look like a murder.

as for clemens, guys a cheat and, more importantly, a liar, but he's going to continue living the good life. you and me lie under oath or cheat in our jobs and we're frikked. where's the justice in that?

as for presumption of innocence, that didn't work out so well for dsk, now did it?

yes, on balance, our legal system works ok. but, it's still a joke and a game and subject to serious abuse if you have the moolah. the corollary to that is that you're subject to serious abuse if you don't have the moolah (or are the wrong color, etc, etc).

the rich get richer and the poor get children. there it is.

[93legendti]

Hmmm, charged with lying to the 2006-2010 Congress...

What was Congress doing investigating Baseball in 2008??

I can think of quite a few perjury charges that could be filed against members of that Congress that would be a better use of our legal system, time and money.

FWIW, if the case was open and shut, the prosecutor wouldn't need to defy the Judge's orders...


Almost as soon as it began, Clemens' perjury trial ended Thursday - in a mistrial the judge blamed on prosecutors and said a ''first-year law student'' would have known to avoid.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton left the question of a new trial up in the air. But he called a halt to the trial under way after prosecutors showed jurors evidence that he had ruled out - videotaped revelations that a teammate had said he'd told his wife Clemens confessed to using a drug.

[RonW87]

Where is a better legal system?

Off the top of my head, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Canada, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

R.

[RPS]

i'm not really qualified to comment on other countries' legal systems so i can't say. in re: casey anthony, i, like most of the world, was convinced she's a murderer; however, upon reflection, the jury made the right call. the games were played by the prosecution and in their lust for blood they were blinded by the fact that the evidence didn't support the crime they were pursuing. in all likelihood, casey anthony did something wrong and should have been punished somehow. instead, she'll likely make tons of $$ and become a celebrity (even if an infamous one). no justice for the child that might have drowned when casey may have been doing her 10th vodka shot, but caylee wasn't discovered until casey may have done her 13th, at which point she was so ????-faced she hatched a plan to make it look like a murder so she wouldn't be held liable for gross criminal negligence. well done, casey - i guess the moral of your story is that if you want someone dead, make it look like a murder.


Seriously?

I would have found her guilty of murder if for no other reason than she went out partying just days after her daughter died, and was rotting in the woods where she discarded the body in a way I wouldn’t get rid of a dog. Whether it was an accident or not, or whether it was her father who did it or not, or whether she was abused or not wouldn’t make much difference to me. Sorry, but I’d fry her @$$.

I’d find her guilty first and let her appeal later if she is innocent. To find her “not guilty” was the real crime.

After the trial an expert described her perfectly: “Immature, egocentric, narcissistic, and very very shallow.” He left off future millionaire. :rolleyes:


As to differences in justice systems, just look at Italy and how they found what is probably an innocent American girl guilty of murder. No valid evidence and no motive so they condemned an even younger girl on basis she acted a little goofy while under extreme pressure and sleep deprivation.

[67-59]

Another reason is that Americans are becoming increasingly angry at government for spending money on things that are not essential (and sports really are not essential) while at the same time discussing the possibility default, which may include stopping payments on social security and other real necessities. For prosecutors the timing of this trial was less than ideal (more like a nightmare).

Yep. It was a joke that they were spending tax dollars going after Clemens, and it's a joke that they're spending tax dollars going after Lance. Let the authorities within the sports govern themselves (or choose not to), and save the tax revenues for things we really need. And let the fans decide with their wallets whether they want to pay to watch the sports given the level of enforcement.

[weiwentg]

Seriously?

I would have found her guilty of murder if for no other reason than she went out partying just days after her daughter died, and was rotting in the woods where she discarded the body in a way I wouldn’t get rid of a dog. Whether it was an accident or not, or whether it was her father who did it or not, or whether she was abused or not wouldn’t make much difference to me. Sorry, but I’d fry her @$$.

I’d find her guilty first and let her appeal later if she is innocent. To find her “not guilty” was the real crime.

After the trial an expert described her perfectly: “Immature, egocentric, narcissistic, and very very shallow.” He left off future millionaire. :rolleyes:


As to differences in justice systems, just look at Italy and how they found what is probably an innocent American girl guilty of murder. No valid evidence and no motive so they condemned an even younger girl on basis she acted a little goofy while under extreme pressure and sleep deprivation.

Seriously? That's a major misunderstanding of how the American justice system is supposed to work. Juries are supposed to be impartial, and they're supposed to decide if the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, the defendant is not guilty - not necessarily innocent, just not guilty. The sort of partiality you describe is one reason Amanda Knox is in prison in Italy. With all due respect, you're letting your impression of her blind you as to how to best conduct a trial.

Besides that, it is exceedingly difficult to reconsider the verdict at an appeal. It's mainly about procedural flaws at that point (e.g. did the judge improperly exclude evidence).

[nahtnoj]

It is because of the higher level of skill needed in baseball than cycling, the drugs don't make the athlete the same as in cycling.

Thank you for explaining that so concisely.

[JMerring]

Seriously?

I would have found her guilty of murder if for no other reason than she went out partying just days after her daughter died, and was rotting in the woods where she discarded the body in a way I wouldn’t get rid of a dog. Whether it was an accident or not, or whether it was her father who did it or not, or whether she was abused or not wouldn’t make much difference to me. Sorry, but I’d fry her @$$.

I’d find her guilty first and let her appeal later if she is innocent. To find her “not guilty” was the real crime.

After the trial an expert described her perfectly: “Immature, egocentric, narcissistic, and very very shallow.” He left off future millionaire. :rolleyes:


As to differences in justice systems, just look at Italy and how they found what is probably an innocent American girl guilty of murder. No valid evidence and no motive so they condemned an even younger girl on basis she acted a little goofy while under extreme pressure and sleep deprivation.

please don't mistake me for a casey anthony apologist, for i'm not. she's scum and should be punished for something. whether that something is murder, however, is a very open question that will likely never be answered. dershowitz wrote a good op-ed for the wsj that i think you should read.

[michael white]

about tot mom: if she left a knife in her baby's heart I think she'd be convicted. Duct tape on a baby's face, not to mention the chloroform, is no different: that's murder on first, second, third, fourth, and last consideration. They were initially deadlocked 6-6 for manslaughter and should've thought some more about it. Should've taken the job a little more seriously. Try it again on the same evidence and I bet another jury would've found her guilty. I guess that's the beauty or curse of the American system.

[JeffS]

Yes, retry him.

If you're not going to enforce the laws, remove them - and I can't imagine anyone suggesting that there shouldn't be a penalty for perjury.

That you don't care that he broke the law doesn't change his guilt. That he has enough money to fight it and make it an "expensive" trial shouldn't change your decision either. If this was a bum of the street with a public defender no one would be suggesting we let him walk. In fact, the bum would have been in jail since day one and convicted long ago.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, retry him.

If you're not going to enforce the laws, remove them - and I can't imagine anyone suggesting that there shouldn't be a penalty for perjury.

That you don't care that he broke the law doesn't change his guilt. That he has enough money to fight it and make it an "expensive" trial shouldn't change your decision either. If this was a bum of the street with a public defender no one would be suggesting we let him walk. In fact, the bum would have been in jail since day one and convicted long ago.

The same is true for the criminal process though, the judge gave specific instructions, they weren't followed (either on purpose or through ignorance) and thus the consequence...mistrial. Now the issue, from what I understand) is whether that rule breaking by the Government is enough to halt future attempts at prosecution. If a conviction was so important, the Government ought to have been more competent, correct?

A bum off the street would not be in Federal court for perjury, the bum would not have been in front of Congress. That is a false analogy as the world we are discussing is not one normal citizens interact in daily...Congressional Testimony. Pretty much anybody in front of Congress is powerful, is well equipped financially. They work in a world of advantages from soup to nuts.

[RPS]

Seriously? That's a major misunderstanding of how the American justice system is supposed to work. Juries are supposed to be impartial, and they're supposed to decide if the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, the defendant is not guilty - not necessarily innocent, just not guilty. The sort of partiality you describe is one reason Amanda Knox is in prison in Italy. With all due respect, you're letting your impression of her blind you as to how to best conduct a trial.

Besides that, it is exceedingly difficult to reconsider the verdict at an appeal. It's mainly about procedural flaws at that point (e.g. did the judge improperly exclude evidence).
I was just venting. ;)

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever I would have found her guilty. To me "reasonable" doubt doesn't mean "no" doubt.

For what it's worth, the same logic can be applied to just about any case, including the Roger Clemens drug use case. Even if he was seen injecting himself (or having someone else doing it), there is always the possibility that he didn't know it was a drug. Additionally, even if he told his best friends he was using drugs he could have been lying to them for some crazy reason. And if his friends tell Congress they know Clemens used drugs maybe they are the ones lying -- even if it's ten against one. One can always fine "some" doubt if you go looking for it, but reasonable people using reason should have found her guilty. I don't need a video of her killing her daughter to know the woman is evil. And I don't apologize for having a negative opinion of her character -- or lack thereof. :rolleyes:

[JeffS]

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever I would have found her guilty.


Yea, most people really don't have a clue how the justice system is supposed to work. That we have some of them there doesn't surprise me.

I'm assuming, of course, that you're getting your information from the media and you weren't actually sitting in the courtroom. If you were there, I apologize.

[oldguy00]

Not that it matters, but I too agree with the verdict. And I too think she is guilty of -something-, but the prosecutor didn't prove anything specific.
And as bad a rap as Baez got in the press during the trial, I actually think he did a great job on closing.
I always believed the theory out there that nanny zanny -was- Xanax, and that the she either overdosed her on that, or used chloroform as an alternative to knock her out, and accidentally overdosed on that.
Either is terrible, but neither was proven, nor anything else.

[michael white]

Q: how do you get away with an accident?
A: make it look like murder 1.

Q: how do you get away with murder 1?
A: same way.

[malcolm]

Off the top of my head, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Canada, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

R.


Have you lived there or been through the legal system in those countries. The US gets bashed for everything, many times rightfully so, but I think our legal system works overall. Certainly its better to have money and the correct skin color, but I suspect that is true everywhere, pigment issues probably less so but money gets special treatment everywhere. I think since the us is a struggling super power everything is under international scrutiny. For many countries that seems to be their major pass time all the while with their hand our for us dollars.

As for as casey anthony I personally think shes guilty but the prosecution couldn't convince a jury and she walked. They system worked, the had the burden of proof and couldn't present the evidence in a fashion to compete with csi and sway the jury.

[rugbysecondrow]

Have you lived there or been through the legal system in those countries. The US gets bashed for everything, many times rightfully so, but I think our legal system works overall. Certainly its better to have money and the correct skin color, but I suspect that is true everywhere, pigment issues probably less so but money gets special treatment everywhere. I think since the us is a struggling super power everything is under international scrutiny. For many countries that seems to be their major pass time all the while with their hand our for us dollars.

As for as casey anthony I personally think shes guilty but the prosecution couldn't convince a jury and she walked. They system worked, the had the burden of proof and couldn't present the evidence in a fashion to compete with csi and sway the jury.


The US Courts have international contingents very frequently who visit with the purpose being to learn from the US and how we manage our court system. That is different that how justice is actually implemented, but I can tell you that our system is envied.