Interesting stuff from the Roger Clemens perjury trial in Washington. For the non-sports fans, Clemens was the greatest baseball pitcher of his generation. He pitched for the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees and Astros. But he (allegedly) took performance enhancing drugs and lied to Congress about it. Federal perjury charges followed.
LXBN This Week Ep. 3: Facebook’s IPO, Oracle V. Google, POM’s “Juice Wars” And U.S. V. Roger Clemens
After some time away, and coming at you after the long holiday weekend, we have the third installment of LXBN This Week, where LXBN editors Colin O’Keefe and Jared Sulzdorf run down the most talked about and most interesting stories on the LexBlog Network over the past week. In this week’s episode, they discuss the many different angles on Facebook’s big initial public offering, the big Oracle/Google battle over Android, POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola and the second go-around in the Roger Clemens perjury trial.
The Roger Clemens [re]trial officially kicked off on Monday, though it still has yet to get started. Today marks day three of jury selection. New York Daily News sports investigative reporters Michael O’Keeffe and Nathaniel Vinton are tweeting live covereage of jury selection from the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. (@NYDNSportsITeam).
Even though the US Attorneys’ Office committed an error in the first trial for perjury, Roger Clemens will be facing another trial for perjury for allegedly lying to Congress (Clemens faces second perjury trial in April).
US District Judge Reggie Walton set a new trial date of April 17, in the opening weeks of the 2012 baseball season, on charges Clemens lied under oath to Congress in 2008 when denying he took performance-enhancing drugs.
In the world of “star justice,” Roger Clemens’ trial for lying to Congress started out looking like “must see TV.” It quickly fell apart and the court declared a mistrial based on the failure of the prosecutors to play by the rules. Only six days into the trial, and on only the second day of testimony, prosecutors apparently defied a court order and presented prejudicial hearsay testimony the judge had already barred from trial. The judge specifically found that the government’s conduct had placed the case in a posture where Clemens could not get a fair trial from the seated jury. But could he get a fair trial from another jury? Will the government get a second chance to convict the baseball superstar?
The mistrial in the Roger Clemens perjury trial last week was stunning. The cause of the mistrial was that the prosecution played video tape of Congressional testimony that contained hearsay and had already been ruled inadmissible. Here is a link to a Washington Post article discussing how it happened.
By all accounts the prosecutors are honest and simply threw this one behind the batter. So how does it happen? Easy. The prosecutors did not actually review the edited video excerpts before trial…
One of our practice areas, in addition to business litigation and employment law, is sports law. So it was that, in my review of sports law blogs, I came across AthletesinCourt, published by Davis & Hoss, P.C. of Chattanooga, Tennessee. It turns out that Bryan Hoss, one of the name partners, went to my undergrad alma mater, Denison University, so these guys must know what they’re doing. Right? What caught my eye was this post on considerations in jury selection in the Roger Clemens perjury trial. There’s nothing like a high profile case involving a celebrity to bring the subtleties of law practice into focus for the layman.
If you listen to the Congressmen who presided over Roger Clemens’ ill-fated hearing, you will learn that Clemens demanded to testify to clear his name. Instead of exonerating himself, the Rocket coined the “misremember” phrase and got himself indicted. Nice work.
Clemens and his attorneys suffered another loss, as the United States Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal of the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against Brian McNamee. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed all claims against McNamee, because the allegedly defamatory statements were made in New York, and Texas courts had no jurisdiction over McNamee in connection with those alleged statements. The United States Supreme Court simply declined to hear the matter, effectively ending Clemens’ case against McNamee. Clemens could have filed suit in New York, but the statute of limitations would now preclude him from doing so.