re: Judge Declares Mistrial In Clemens Trial

quote:

---

possible the defense saw this, and decided to let the prosecution dig their own grave.

---

quote:

---

This.....Hardin knows what the frick he is doing.

---

Hardin is a very good attorney and knows what he is doing. However, every great trial lawyer misses or chooses not to object to certain objectionable evidence.

quote:

---

There was no objection from Clemens' team during the Laura Pettitte reference, but the judge stopped the proceedings, called attorneys up to the bench and spoke to them privately for several minutes.

---

If a congressman lies from the podium, can he be charged with lieing to Congress?

Clinton committed perjury in the Lewinski trial and was only censured by congress

never faced trail in Fed Court

quote:

---

I just don't understand how he couldn't be tried again considering what the prosecution showed has been plastered all over the media anyways.

---

What was shown being all over the media would seem to be more of a problem for whether or not the evidence should be allowed, not really relevant to whether or not double jep. attached or not.

quote:

---

Hardin is a very good attorney and knows what he is doing. However, every great trial lawyer misses or chooses not to object to certain objectionable evidence.

---

I've been racking my brain on this issue since I heard about the mistrial, but I can't understand why the judge wouldn't allow Laura Pettite to testify. The judge in his own statement (which is a bit odd in itself...unless he was making it on the record and directing his comments tothe prosecution) said that a 1L should know that you can't bolster a witnesses credibility by using inadmissable evidence. How is it bolstering? And what is inadmissible about her testimony? If Laura were to take the stand and offer evidence that her husband is a good man, that he never lies, and he never mishears anybody---that would be bolstering. If she's simply recounting what her husband told her and the circumstances therein, that's called valid testimony. Second...what would be inadmissable about her testimony. Roger is the Defendant, he has made statements (those are admissable), Andy Pettite is the hearer of those statements who relays those statements to his wife. Pettite and his wife are both available for cross-examination (unless Pettite is exercising a privilege). How is her testimony inadmissable?

Next...the defense must really have high hopes (I do not) that this double jeopardy thing is going to work out, if this is a planned move. I wasn't there, but I'm guessing the prosecution laid their foundation, moved to admit the video (apparently, with no objection from defense), and following admission, asked to publish the video to the jury--which was granted. After the video is already in evidence, I don't see how the defense could have objected even if they wanted to. It was evidence at that point. Unless, they could prove that they hadn't been given a copy, or the copy they had been given was different than what was being played, I think they're up a shite creek because there was no objection when it was admitted. If the defense is trying the alley of inviting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they've got nothing else, so be it, but roger will be sitting in prison while the appeals and habeas work its way through the courts. If the defense had the crystal ball of knowing the judge would stop sua spontae the video and declare a mistrial, then the only thing that gets his client off completely is to win the double jeopardy motion. If defense counsel pulls that off, then that's a helluva good day in court, and excellent trial strategy.

All of this, of course could have been avoided by the prosecution taking one extra-simple step--redacting the video pursuant to the court's order. Considering the magnitude of this case and the fact that the COURT ORDERED THEM TO NOT SHOW PORTIONS OF LAURA'S TESTIMONY VIA TRANSCRIPT READ BY THE CONGRESSMAN, it's an embarassment at best, and at worst contemptible, misconduct, and ethically consequential.

quote:

---

aid that a 1L should know that you can't bolster a witnesses credibility by using inadmissable evidence. How is it bolstering?

---

She can't get on the stand and say "yeah andy told me Roger said this" it's hearsay.

There is also a specific immunity statute covering statements made by congressmen from the podium within the Senate and House.

quote:

---

How would it be double jeapardy if the trial never reached a verdict?

---

because a witness took the stand

quote:

---

I believe jeopardy attaches to a defendant in a criminal trial once a jury is seated, it does not require the return of a verdict

---

you could got write long winded briefs about double jeopardy.

Usually after a jury sits, if the prosecution withdraws the charges, DJ attaches. In some instances if the mistrial is declared bc of prosecutorial misconduct it would also attach

Not a sure thing by any stretch either way, but I think Clemens has a good chance of winning that motion

quote:

---

the prosecution may instead simply choose not to pursue a second trial, considering cost etc.

---

This.

Clemens is finished, anyway. Probably nobody in baseball will want to touch him, employment-wise, and I'd guess he's lost his shot at the HOF. A real pity, too, because without the juice, he was an HOF pitcher.