The Meaning Of the Clemens Mistrial
Posted in Lawyers, Guns & Money, The Sporting Life on July 15th, 2011 by glennm
Whatever one thinks of Roger Clemens’ veracity (let alone possible steroid use), the idea that his criminal trial ends without a verdict because the prosecutors blatantly disregarded the court’s instructions by showing the jury inadmissible evidence is just astounding. Brings to mind former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous question from the 1920s — should the suspect go free because the constable has blundered?
From the reports I’ve read, this was either incompetence or intentional overreaching, as the U.S. Attorneys’ office played in open court a videotape of congressional testimony in which a member read aloud portions of an affidavit (from Andy Petti’s wife) the court had declared — correctly, in my view — could not be used (at least not until rebuttal, if the defense attacked Pettit’s credibility). Astonishing. The meaning of this fiacso is that the government, no less and perhaps more than any other litigant, cannot under our American system of constitutional justice avoid its responsibilities to ensure fairness in criminal prosecutions.
Posted via email from glenn’s posterous.
Related Posts:
Tags: baseball, celebrities, Clemens, Constitution, criminal law, DC, judiciary


The New York Yankees face the Minnesota Twins in Minneapolis today with baseball’s American League divisional playoff series tied 1-1. Roger Clemens starts in his last season, having notched 310 wins under his belt in a storied 20-year career. But the Twins and their “homer hankies” of 2002 are still a hot and talented team. So, yes, Bombers fans, it’s time to worry, just a little.





