Roger Clemens Trial

[ChrisE]

Let us know if you find some sources that are not Clemens/Armstrong Media machine.

To be fair RR, he is just quoting "reputable" media sources. Not everything you don't agree with is a result of the RC/LA media machine. Lazy stenographers just quote whoever gets to them first if access is not in play.

I do find the fact that double jeopardy could come into play after the jury is seated interesting. I always thought it was after the verdict that the accused could not be retried. The judge did say this, and that is not a fabrication of this media machine you speak of, along with the varying opinions of the talking heads on the subject.

I personally think the judge, on the surface, overeacted. Why not just strike it from the record and instruct the jury to ignore it? This wasn't something complicated. How hard is "what Pettitte's wife heard Pettitte say is irrelevant"? If Pettitte claims he saw bigfoot running around in his backyard trying to screw his dog and told his wife this, does that make it true? Even the avg. rube on a jury could probably understand this concept.

Then again this is such a blatant mistake, and as I say IMO an overeaction by the judge, my BS radar going off. This whole situation is stupid.

When we gonna bet LA goes to trial RR? And, what are the terms?

 

[Race Radio]

To be fair RR, he is just quoting "reputable" media sources. Not everything you don't agree with is a result of the RC/LA media machine. Lazy stenographers just quote whoever gets to them first if access is not in play.

I do find the fact that double jeopardy could come into play after the jury is seated interesting. I always thought it was after the verdict that the accused could not be retried. The judge did say this, and that is not a fabrication of this media machine you speak of, along with the varying opinions of the talking heads on the subject.

I personally think the judge, on the surface, overeacted. Why not just strike it from the record and instruct the jury to ignore it? This wasn't something complicated. How hard is "what Pettitte's wife heard Pettitte say is irrelevant"? If Pettitte claims he saw bigfoot running around in his backyard trying to screw his dog and told his wife this, does that make it true? Even the avg. rube on a jury could probably understand this concept.

Then again this is such a blatant mistake, and as I say IMO an overeaction by the judge, my BS radar going off. This whole situation is stupid.

When we gonna bet LA goes to trial RR? And, what are the terms?

No, he isn't. The source for the "100" claim is Clemens and him only. It has no basis in fact, there is no evidence to support it.

I think the judge was correct to declare a mistrial. It was a huge mistake by the prosecution. If he had not declared a mistrial there is no way any conviction would have held up on appeal. As for double jeopardy, the precedent on this is well defined for decades, there is no way it applies. (U.S. v. PEREZ)

As for Lance. I expect that any charges brought against him to be a slam dunk. The Feds know that he is well funded and far more popular then Clemens or Bonds. They will have to have an iron clad case, which could lead to less charges then would be the case for someone not as famous or rich.

I expect that after charges are filed there to be years of smoke and mirrors from Armstrong's legal. They will smear Miller, Novtizky, and anyone connected with the case.....but ultimately they will work a plea deal

 

[davestoller]

Lets see here:

Washington Post-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...icable-error/2011/07/14/gIQA6txiEI_story.html

"Now, after the government has spent months and millions to assemble every shred of negative information about him that it could muster, Clemens not only was gifted a mistrial but received it before the prosecution could send even one witness to the stand to tarnish him. If this blunder had occurred 10, 20 or 30 days into a trial, how much would those 45 government witnesses have said to damage his legacy?"

So, The Washington Post has it at millions of dollars and 45 (count 'em) government witnesses. Not even counting all the ones NOT called as witnesses.

"Double jeopardy law can be complex. If prosecutors try to create a mistrial or goad the defense into seeking one as a tactic to “get another bite of the apple,” then the defendant might indeed end up walking away without a second trial. But if the mistake is just a blunder by the prosecutors, sometimes there is still a second trial. There are many variations. Right now, it’s probably too soon to know."
Double jeopardy reviewed by TWP.

Major resources--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-new-jury-following-mistrial-lawyers-say.html

<<The mistrial highlights questions about the value of prosecuting Clemens to begin with, said Artur Davis, former House member and now a criminal defense lawyer at SNR Denton in Washington.
“This is not the wisest use of public resources,” said Davis.
Steven Ross, general counsel to the House from 1983 until 1993, said “major resources were spent getting it to this point” and he doesn’t expect the mistrial will change the Justice Department’s commitment to prosecution.>>

 

[Race Radio]

Lets see here:

Washington Post-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...icable-error/2011/07/14/gIQA6txiEI_story.html

"Now, after the government has spent months and millions to assemble every shred of negative information about him that it could muster, Clemens not only was gifted a mistrial but received it before the prosecution could send even one witness to the stand to tarnish him. If this blunder had occurred 10, 20 or 30 days into a trial, how much would those 45 government witnesses have said to damage his legacy?"

So, The Washington Post has it at millions of dollars and 45 (count 'em) government witnesses. Not even counting all the ones NOT called as witnesses.

"Double jeopardy law can be complex. If prosecutors try to create a mistrial or goad the defense into seeking one as a tactic to “get another bite of the apple,” then the defendant might indeed end up walking away without a second trial. But if the mistake is just a blunder by the prosecutors, sometimes there is still a second trial. There are many variations. Right now, it’s probably too soon to know."
Double jeopardy reviewed by TWP.

Major resources--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-new-jury-following-mistrial-lawyers-say.html

<<The mistrial highlights questions about the value of prosecuting Clemens to begin with, said Artur Davis, former House member and now a criminal defense lawyer at SNR Denton in Washington.
“This is not the wisest use of public resources,” said Davis.
Steven Ross, general counsel to the House from 1983 until 1993, said “major resources were spent getting it to this point” and he doesn’t expect the mistrial will change the Justice Department’s commitment to prosecution.>>

And your point is?

 

[Polish]

And your point is?

Taxpayer dollars being flushed down the toilet.
Floyd has pictures.
Maybe Floyd should blow the whistle.
Wouldn't he get a percentage of the wasted taxpayer dollars?

 

[D-Queued]

... according to the defense, has involved more than 100 law enforcement officials...

Most law enforcement officials ever!

He must be innocent.



Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Taxpayer dollars being flushed down the toilet.

I agree with Polish. Clemens is indeed wasting taxpayer money with his lies. He should stop the games and settle.

 

[eleven]

I woulda thought so too, but former federal prosecutors interviewed in NYTimes stated that these prosecutors are among the hardest working and most ethical blah blah blah, and that it would NOT be unusual for them to get a chance to bring the case back. Double jeopardy rarely applies.

However, the writers also opined that the fact that the judge dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial (as opposed to scolding the prosecutors and telling the jury to ignore what they heard and saw) also spoke volumes about how weak the judge thought the case was to begin with, after three years of investigation, over a 100 different federal investigators involved and who knows how much money.

The judge said on the record that if the case wins, CLemens goes to jail--and with the stakes that high, there is no margin for error. Hope Novitzky is listening.

Clemens' attorneys will almost certainly be making the double jeopardy claim if need be, and they are very likely to win it. You don't have to stand through a full trial for double jeopardy to be applied.

 

[eleven]

How would "Double Jeopardy" come into play if there was no trial?

There was a trial. That's what the jury was taking part in when the prosecution decided to defy the judge's order.

 

[eleven]

As for Lance. I expect that any charges brought against him to be a slam dunk. The Feds know that he is well funded and far more popular then Clemens or Bonds.

Far more popular than Barry Bonds? The greatest power hitter in the most popular sport in America?

Or Roger Clemens, seven-time Cy Young award winner in America's most popular sport?

I don't think Armstrong's more popular. I would suggest that such a belief comes from being engrossed in cycling and not seeing the bigger picture of sports in America.

 

[Race Radio]

Far more popular than Barry Bonds? The greatest power hitter in the most popular sport in America?

Or Roger Clemens, seven-time Cy Young award winner in America's most popular sport?

I don't think Armstrong's more popular. I would suggest that such a belief comes from being engrossed in cycling and not seeing the bigger picture of sports in America.

Barry bonds and Rodger Clemens are widely disliked, Barry especially.

A second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Josef Perez

The likelihood that this dismissal will qualify for double jeopardy is zero.

 

[eleven]

Barry bonds and Rodger Clemens are widely disliked, Barry especially.

Roger Clemens was disliked in exactly one place: Boston ("twilight of his career" was never forgotten) - Which was part of the reason he was so popular everywhere else. For evidence of such, just peruse the All-Star voting.

A second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Josef Perez

The question of what constitutes double jeopardy is far from settled law. Findlaw describes it thus:

...some Justices have expressed the belief that the purpose of the clause is only to protect final judgments relating to culpability, either of acquittal or conviction, and that English common law rules designed to protect the defendant's right to go to the first jury picked had early in our jurisprudence become confused with the double jeopardy clause.....

Others have expressed the view that the clause not only protects the integrity of final judgments but, more important, that it protects the accused against the strain and burden of multiple trials, which would also enhance the ability of government to convict.

Still other Justices have engaged in a form of balancing of defendants' rights with society's rights to determine when reprosecution should be permitted when a trial ends prior to a final judgment not hinged on the defendant's culpability.

The likelihood that this dismissal will qualify for double jeopardy is zero.

Uh huh.

 

[fatandfast]

There was a trial. That's what the jury was taking part in when the prosecution decided to defy the judge's order.

This is exactly the case. The judge scolded the team saying that even a first year law student would not have acted so stupid. The feds put things in their opening arguments that the judge told them not to include. Clemens is the luckiest guy around.

 

[Polish]

On a wing and a prayer.

As for Lance. I expect that any charges brought against him to be a slam dunk. The Feds know that he is well funded and far more popular then Clemens or Bonds. They will have to have an iron clad case, which could lead to less charges then would be the case for someone not as famous or rich.

A "slam dunk"?
An "Iron Clad" case?
Are you serious?

After watching the Feds bumble and stumple their way through the Bonds and Clemens Cases - you are expecting a "slam dunk" against Lance?

More like a between the legs underhanded alley-oop shot from half court.
Be lucky if it gets anywhere near the backboard.
Be lucky if its gets to trial.

Slam Dunk LOL.
The only way the Feds get a slam dunk is if they hire the Geico Kid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbn-GQXYzWg

 

[Race Radio]

Roger Clemens was disliked in exactly one place: Boston ("twilight of his career" was never forgotten) - Which was part of the reason he was so popular everywhere else. For evidence of such, just peruse the All-Star voting.




The question of what constitutes double jeopardy is far from settled law. Findlaw describes it thus:

...some Justices have expressed the belief that the purpose of the clause is only to protect final judgments relating to culpability, either of acquittal or conviction, and that English common law rules designed to protect the defendant's right to go to the first jury picked had early in our jurisprudence become confused with the double jeopardy clause.....

Others have expressed the view that the clause not only protects the integrity of final judgments but, more important, that it protects the accused against the strain and burden of multiple trials, which would also enhance the ability of government to convict.

Still other Justices have engaged in a form of balancing of defendants' rights with society's rights to determine when reprosecution should be permitted when a trial ends prior to a final judgment not hinged on the defendant's culpability.


Uh huh.

Lots of people who do not follow Baseball thought Clemens was a ****** when he started fooling around on his wife with that 15 year old

Sounds like a wager, how much are you willing to bet this gets dismissed because of double jeopardy?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Roger Clemens was disliked in exactly one place: Boston ("twilight of his career" was never forgotten) - Which was part of the reason he was so popular everywhere else. For evidence of such, just peruse the All-Star voting.




The question of what constitutes double jeopardy is far from settled law. Findlaw describes it thus:

...some Justices have expressed the belief that the purpose of the clause is only to protect final judgments relating to culpability, either of acquittal or conviction, and that English common law rules designed to protect the defendant's right to go to the first jury picked had early in our jurisprudence become confused with the double jeopardy clause.....

Others have expressed the view that the clause not only protects the integrity of final judgments but, more important, that it protects the accused against the strain and burden of multiple trials, which would also enhance the ability of government to convict.

Still other Justices have engaged in a form of balancing of defendants' rights with society's rights to determine when reprosecution should be permitted when a trial ends prior to a final judgment not hinged on the defendant's culpability.




Uh huh.

When I put in 'double jeopardy" in to the website you suggested I got this:

double jeopardy n

: the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted — see also jeopardy, Amendment V to the Constitution in the back matter compare merger NOTE: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The double jeopardy clause bars second prosecutions after either acquittal or conviction, and prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.

 

[davestoller]

Lots of people who do not follow Baseball thought Clemens was a ****** when he started fooling around on his wife with that 15 year old

Sounds like a wager, how much are you willing to bet this gets dismissed because of double jeopardy?

Every time I open the newspaper I read another discussion of double jeaopardy by serious legal experts who appear not to be exactly sure which way this will go. Only on this forum, by a cycling poster, do i see absolute confidence and assurance.

Reminder--it was the sitting FEDERAL JUDGE who brought it up in discussion--way above your pay grade.

 

[D-Queued]

Every time I open the newspaper I read another discussion of double jeaopardy by serious legal experts who appear not to be exactly sure which way this will go. Only on this forum, by a cycling poster, do i see absolute confidence and assurance.

Reminder--it was the sitting FEDERAL JUDGE who brought it up in discussion--way above your pay grade.

But you are enough of an expert to know when RR is wrong?

Heck, he was just offering a wager.

Me, I will put $0.25 down that there will be no double jeopardy and that this will be re-tried.

Dave.

 

[eleven]

Lots of people who do not follow Baseball thought Clemens was a ****** when he started fooling around on his wife with that 15 year old

That wasn't public knowledge until after he retired, long after he was the 7-time Cy Young Award winner and considered one of the three or four greatest pitchers of all time.

Sounds like a wager, how much are you willing to bet this gets dismissed because of double jeopardy?

Nothing. i'm simply pointing out that you were wrong in your definitive interpretation of the law. It's not settled law

 

[JRTinMA]

Lots of people who do not follow Baseball thought Clemens was a ****** when he started fooling around on his wife with that 15 year old

Sounds like a wager, how much are you willing to bet this gets dismissed because of double jeopardy?

Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir...

http://www.carlspackler.com/sounds/039.mp3

 

[Race Radio]

That wasn't public knowledge until after he retired, long after he was the 7-time Cy Young Award winner and considered one of the three or four greatest pitchers of all time.




Nothing. i'm simply pointing out that you were wrong in your definitive interpretation of the law. It's not settled law

It does not matter what people thought of him 10 years ago, the trial is now. Most people today think Clemens is a dirtbag.

Their is not such thing as settled law, that is why there are lawyers. They are paid to argue anything. The fact remains that the huge majority of case law for the last 100 years supports the notion that this case will not be dismissed for double jeopardy. Certainly there are lawyers that will push that it should be in an effort to increase billable hours but the fact is there is close to zero chance that it will.

 

[eleven]

It does not matter what people thought of him 10 years ago, the trial is now. Most people today think Clemens is a dirtbag.

Perhaps. But the relevent timeframe to compare his popularity to Armstrong's would be when he was still pitching.

Their is not such thing as settled law, that is why there are lawyers. They are paid to argue anything. The fact remains that the huge majority of case law for the last 100 years supports the notion that this case will not be dismissed for double jeopardy.

No, that's just not true. A) There is very much such a thing as settled law. Marbury vs. Madison is settled law, as an extreme example. B) The judge is a bit less sure than you on this topic. Perhaps you know more than the judge on this topic?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Perhaps. But the relevent timeframe to compare his popularity to Armstrong's would be when he was still pitching.



No, that's just not true. A) There is very much such a thing as settled law. Marbury vs. Madison is settled law, as an extreme example. B) The judge is a bit less sure than you on this topic. Perhaps you know more than the judge on this topic?

What?
Why would someones popularity from years before have any bearing?
The only timeframe is when the claims were made against him.

To your second point - the judge has ruled, well that settles it - what did they rule?

 

[ChrisE]

What?
Why would someones popularity from years before have any bearing?
The only timeframe is when the claims were made against him.

To your second point - the judge has ruled, well that settles it - what did they rule?

You stated upthread when you jammed "double jeopardy" into that website that it stated "The double jeopardy clause bars second prosecutions after either acquittal or conviction, and prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense." This falls in line with my interpretation upthread to my response to RR.

So why, in this case, after a couple of days of the trial would this be deemed double jeopardy? Why did the judge even float this out when declaring a mistrial?

I can understand where this may take place, sans a verdict. Let's say after OJ did his acting job and didn't get the glove on his hand, that the prosecution freaked and did something blatant to obtain a mistrial. Next trial, they surely don't ask him to try on that glove, or do any of the other stupid things they did thoughout that trial up to that point. Or, blatantly at the end of a trial the prosecutions is doing very poorly at they do something stupid to cause a mistrial.

Of couse I can see how double jeopardy could play in that case. But here, I don't see it since the trial was so young. Then again, this was pretty blatant. As I stated upthread something smells, and it is not my upper lip this time.

 

[eleven]

What?
Why would someones popularity from years before have any bearing?
The only timeframe is when the claims were made against him.

Because RR claimed that Armstrong was "far more popular" during the relevant period, pre trial, than Clemens. I pointed out that Clemens was the 7x Cy Young Award Winner, one of the top All Star vote-getters each year, and renowned nationwide as the best pitcher of his generation. I assure you more people are aware of Clemens pitching career than Armstrong's racing career.

To your second point - the judge has ruled, well that settles it - what did they rule?

No, the judge has not ruled. RR made it sound as if his ruling would be obvious, that this is clearly not double jeopardy. (I made no such claim of fact).

As proof, he cited a single case. That case is not the settled law, as legal experts and other case law demonstrate.