Mis-trial for Hall of Fame pitcher?

[whitehall]

Halfway into Bush's 2nd term when democrats won the majority in both houses of congress what is the first important National issue they tackled? The potential collapse of Fannie Mae? Nope. Democrats went after steroid use in Baseball. When the McCarthy like hearings went bust, democrats went after Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens who is on trial in federal court for "lying to congress". If we indicted every member of congress for lying the Capital building would be virtually empty. America is going to hell in a handbasket and A.G. Holder's justice dept thinks it's important to send a Hall of Fame pitcher to jail? Give me a break. The judge in the case has announced that he might declare a mistrial because of improper conduct by the prosecution.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

When you refer to an event in the news, you need to give us a link.

The judge in the Roger Clemens perjury trial said Thursday he would probably have to declare a mistrial after jurors heard details he had previously ruled were inadmissible.

"I can't in good faith leave this case in a situation where a man's liberty is at risk when the government should have taken steps to ensure that we were not in this situation,'' said Judge Reggie Walton, who is overseeing the trial in federal court in Washington. "I don't see how I can unring the bell.''

The second day of testimony came to a halt Thursday morning after prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Clemens being questioned by a member of Congress. The tape contained references to a conversation the judge had ruled was hearsay, and not admissible.

"I think a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of a witness with clearly inadmissible evidence,'' Judge Walton chastised prosecutors as he considered the mistrial motion.

 

[whitehall]

When you refer to an event in the news, you need to give us a link.

The judge in the Roger Clemens perjury trial said Thursday he would probably have to declare a mistrial after jurors heard details he had previously ruled were inadmissible.

"I can't in good faith leave this case in a situation where a man's liberty is at risk when the government should have taken steps to ensure that we were not in this situation,'' said Judge Reggie Walton, who is overseeing the trial in federal court in Washington. "I don't see how I can unring the bell.''

The second day of testimony came to a halt Thursday morning after prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Clemens being questioned by a member of Congress. The tape contained references to a conversation the judge had ruled was hearsay, and not admissible.

"I think a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of a witness with clearly inadmissible evidence,'' Judge Walton chastised prosecutors as he considered the mistrial motion.

Where does it say I need to give you a link? This isn't a bulletin board for media bites. It's a discussion forum. What do you think about it or do you think?

 

[whitehall]

It's a mistrial but it seems the "justice" dept is going to waste taxpayer money and do it all over again.

 

[rightwinger]

Clemens is not a Hall of Fame Pitcher


Based on his steroid use, he may never get in. If it were up to me ....he wouldn't

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you refer to an event in the news, you need to give us a link.

The judge in the Roger Clemens perjury trial said Thursday he would probably have to declare a mistrial after jurors heard details he had previously ruled were inadmissible.

"I can't in good faith leave this case in a situation where a man's liberty is at risk when the government should have taken steps to ensure that we were not in this situation,'' said Judge Reggie Walton, who is overseeing the trial in federal court in Washington. "I don't see how I can unring the bell.''

The second day of testimony came to a halt Thursday morning after prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Clemens being questioned by a member of Congress. The tape contained references to a conversation the judge had ruled was hearsay, and not admissible.

"I think a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of a witness with clearly inadmissible evidence,'' Judge Walton chastised prosecutors as he considered the mistrial motion.

Where does it say I need to give you a link? This isn't a bulletin board for media bites. It's a discussion forum. What do you think about it or do you think?

The rules clearly state that when you quote something you have to link to the original, or at least acknowledge the source. You did neither.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a mistrial but it seems the "justice" dept is going to waste taxpayer money and do it all over again.

Actually, it really looks like they are completely incompetent, threw the dice and lost, or deliberately fucked up the case in order to blame the fact that they cannot get a conviction on the judge tossing the case.

Prosecutorial conduct that might be viewed as harassment or overreaching, even if sufficient to justify a mistrial on defendant's 676*676 motion, therefore, does not bar retrial absent intent on the part of the prosecutor to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. A defendant's motion for a mistrial constitutes "a deliberate election on his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact." United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 93 (1978). Where prosecutorial error even of a degree sufficient to warrant a mistrial has occurred, "[t]he important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error." United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 609. Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to "goad" the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.

​

Intent, however, is determined in the usual way:

By contrast, a standard that examines the intent of the prosecutor, though certainly not entirely free from practical difficulties, is a manageable standard to apply. It merely calls for the court to make a finding of fact. Inferring the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances is a familiar process in our criminal justice system.
​

Few cases command the degree of attention that this case did, given the high profile of the defendant and its interest and impact on the cultural institution of baseball, the great American pastime.

To conclude that the government did not intent to goad the defense into moving for a mistrial, and thus waiving the defendant's double jeopardy protections, one would have to believe that the prosecution was so mind-bogglingly incompetent, so wholly incapable of performing their function with the barest minimum competence, as to not be aware that a video it presented to the jury contained the very testimony it had been admonished not to show.

Simple Justice: Does Clemens Get A Walk?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Sounds like a clear case of deliberate misconduct to me.

Were I the judge I would fine the DDA for that and send him to poky for a weekend for contempt.