Rocket pleads not guilty

[Skyy God]

Just drop it, DOJ. This is just embarrassing.

The judge in the Roger Clemens federal perjury trial abruptly declared a mistrial on the second day of testimony after the government inadvertently allowed the jury to hear statements from a U.S. congressman questioning the credibility of one of the key witnesses against the former All-Star baseball pitcher.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton was livid Thursday that a video screen was left on in the courtroom while he and the lawyers privately discussed an issue away from the jury, and yet the jurors could clearly see written comments by U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) during a 2008 House hearing in which Clemens testified he never used steroids or other enhancement drugs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1724711.story

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Just drop it, DOJ. This is just embarrassing.



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1724711.story

Brilliant move by the prosectution to get a new jury. The cousin of one of Clemens' old coaches was a jury member as well as a jury member that thought Michael Vick was "done wrong".

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by kstater

Brilliant move by the prosectution to get a new jury. The cousin of one of Clemens' old coaches was a jury member as well as a jury member that thought Michael Vick was "done wrong".

Really? That was either an epically bad jury pool or a crap voire dire by the prosecution.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by kstater

Brilliant move by the prosectution to get a new jury. The cousin of one of Clemens' old coaches was a jury member as well as a jury member that thought Michael Vick was "done wrong".

Criminal trial

likely Double Jeopardy ruling



How is that a brilliant move?

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Criminal trial

likely Double Jeopardy ruling



How is that a brilliant move?

I'm sure that only applies if it goes to verdict.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I'm sure that only applies if it goes to verdict.

You're wrong

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're wrong

So you think Roger CAN NOT be charged again because of a mistrial?

I'm not a legal expert, but that doesn't make any sense.

[notorious]

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

So you think Roger CAN NOT be charged again because of a mistrial?

I'm not a legal expert, but that doesn't make any sense.

I think you are right, but I don't know anything for certain.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

So you think Roger CAN NOT be charged again because of a mistrial?

The judge hasn't yet ruled on it. However, it's likely that he'll rule that Roger cannot be tried again on the same charges. Clemens will either be free of this after the Sept. 2 hearing, or he'll have an obvious issue on appeal.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Criminal trial

likely Double Jeopardy ruling



How is that a brilliant move?

I won't say likely. I won't even go with probable.

'Possible', certainly. But the prosecution never even truly began it's case-in-chief, let alone wrapped it up. And as this case was clearly not decided based on the merits, I'm not sure how a court would determine there was any double jeopardy here.

The obvious issue is the fact that a jury was selected and there could be prejudice to the defendant by now subjecting him to a 2nd jury. But with the court having no earthly idea how jury 1 would have ruled (afterall, maybe this saves Rocket's ass), I think they would be reluctant to engage in that much speculation and call it a double-jeopardy matter.

Now this is bad prosecuting. That's probably the singled dumbest thing I've ever even heard of an attorney doing. It's just staggering that a US Attorney could've been that careless.

Somebody should lose their job over it, for sure.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I won't say likely. I won't even go with probable.

'Possible', certainly. But the prosecution never even truly began it's case-in-chief, let alone wrapped it up. And as this case was clearly not decided based on the merits, I'm not sure how a court would determine there was any double jeopardy here.

The obvious issue is the fact that a jury was selected and there could be prejudice to the defendant by now subjecting him to a 2nd jury. But with the court having no earthly idea how jury 1 would have ruled (afterall, maybe this save's Rocket's ass), I think they would be reluctant to engage in that much speculation and call it a double-jeopardy matter.

Now this is bad prosecuting. That's probably the singled dumbest thing I've ever even heard of an attorney doing. It's just staggering that a US Attorney could've been that careless.

Somebody should lose their job over it, for sure.

Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

You've got this wrong.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.

I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.

Found it - US v. Scott; 437 U. S. 82

http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/82/

In a situation such as the instant one, where a defendant chooses to avoid conviction not because of his assertion that the Government has failed to make out a case against him, but because of a legal claim that the Government's case against him must fail even though it might satisfy the trier of fact that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the trial, suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause if the Government is permitted to appeal from such a trial court ruling favoring the defendant. The Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant of the consequences of his voluntary choice.

The facts can be distinguished, but the rule of law therein really can't.

In the event the defendant seeks to have the proceedings terminated without a determination as to his ultimate guilt or innocence, he can be re-tried.