PDA

View Full Version : Other Sports Rocket pleads not guilty


redfan
08-30-2010, 02:20 PM
http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=5512659&top

Maybe he didn't use PEDs.
:shrug:

kstater
08-30-2010, 02:29 PM
Maybe he didn't use PEDs.
:shrug:

I'm gonna go with he's a dumbass.

JD10367
08-30-2010, 03:40 PM
Whenever I get frustrated by the assholery that is Brett Favre, I think of Roger Clemens and feel better, knowing that karma will eventually get you.

BWillie
08-30-2010, 03:42 PM
Hahahah Roger Clemens you f*cking douchebag. At least Bonds had a deal w/ his guy who served time and wouldn't talk, and then gave him some outs by saying "I never knowingly did steroids". What an asshat. He deserves what he gets.

Demonpenz
08-30-2010, 03:42 PM
i hope he throws a bat at piazza!

boogblaster
08-30-2010, 03:43 PM
"da Rocket" neber touch-da chit ....

Sofa King
08-30-2010, 03:48 PM
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2007/12/20/1198184251_4075.jpg

He did it. Here's the proof.

BIG_DADDY
08-30-2010, 04:58 PM
I wonder how many millions we are going to throw away on this one?

Deberg_1990
08-30-2010, 05:10 PM
Maybe he didn't bone Mindy McCready either...
Posted via Mobile Device

redfan
08-30-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm gonna go with he's a dumbass.

Even Raphael Palmiero's index finger thinks Roger juiced.

OnTheWarpath15
08-30-2010, 05:19 PM
What a dumbfuck.

First, he wasn't even subpoenaed by Congress. But the dumbfuck begs to get invited so he can clear his name.

Then he lies under oath, and gets caught.

Now, he's still fighting, as if this is all going to go away.

While I don't condone their taking of PED's, I can at least keep a little respect for the guys that have opened up and admitted it.

Over-Head
08-30-2010, 05:36 PM
Why do these fools lie about it???
Hang the fucker, and kick him outa pro sports!!!
Assholes like that should be delt with swift and stern

NUTTHOOKS!!!:cuss:













PS:
I can't stand baseball :shake:
Just worken on my post count :D

Dinny Bossa Nova
08-30-2010, 05:53 PM
I feel sorry for Pete Rose.

For cryin' out loud already.

Dinny

ShowtimeSBMVP
07-14-2011, 09:57 AM
darrenrovelldarren rovell





Breaking News: Pete Williams of NBC reporting Roger Clemens trial has been declared a MISTRIAL.

Demonpenz
07-14-2011, 10:13 AM
favorite Notre Dame Player ever.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 10:13 AM
Hahahah Roger Clemens you f*cking douchebag. At least Bonds had a deal w/ his guy who served time and wouldn't talk, and then gave him some outs by saying "I never knowingly did steroids". What an asshat. He deserves what he gets.

Clemens apparently deserved a mistrial.

MIAdragon
07-14-2011, 10:19 AM
I feel sorry for Pete Rose.

For cryin' out loud already.

Dinny

He will get in eventually.

Skyy God
07-14-2011, 10:30 AM
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/la-pn-clemens-mistrial-20110714,0,1724711.story

BigCatDaddy
07-14-2011, 10:35 AM
Take notes Bautista.

kstater
07-14-2011, 10:35 AM
Just drop it, DOJ. This is just embarrassing.



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-clemens-mistrial-20110714,0,1724711.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
07-14-2011, 10:39 AM
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.

4th and Long
07-14-2011, 10:41 AM
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://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWRuGmjyyf7CQO2QPOxfhAdaUc841adYotaQXFv6TONhHmQNpfrNUaAw
Seriously?

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 10:43 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:45 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:46 AM
I'm sure that only applies if it goes to verdict.

You're wrong

BigCatDaddy
07-14-2011, 10:50 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:51 AM
:facepalm:

lcarus
07-14-2011, 10:51 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:54 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:55 AM
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
07-14-2011, 10:56 AM
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.

4th and Long
07-14-2011, 10:58 AM
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.
He can be retried on the same charges until he has either been found 1) guilty, 2) not guilty, or (3) the judge, or prosecuting attorney decides not to go any further with this, and drops it. You can be retried over and over. It has to be done in a timely manner. You have the right to a speedy trail.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 11:00 AM
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.

4th and Long
07-14-2011, 11:01 AM
Jeopardy is attached once the jury is sworn in.
As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Josef Perez. Cases dismissed because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders. Also, a retrial after a conviction has been set aside following the grant of a motion for new trial, has been reversed on appeal, or has been vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as habeas corpus), does not violate double jeopardy because the judgment in the first trial has been invalidated. In all of these cases, however, the previous trials do not entirely vanish. Testimony from them may be used in later retrials such as to impeach contradictory testimony given at any subsequent proceeding.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 11:02 AM
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
07-14-2011, 11:04 AM
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.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 11:05 AM
You've got this wrong.

Yeah - I don't.

But we'll see soon enough.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 11:10 AM
Oh, even better language from the same case:

Where, on the other hand, a defendant successfully seeks to avoid his trial prior to its conclusion by a motion for mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended by a second prosecution. “[A] motion by the defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant's motion is necessitated by a prosecutorial or judicial error.”

You were saying?

First try being right, then you can go ahead and be a condescending shithead.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 11:10 AM
Yeah - I don't.

But we'll see soon enough.

Yeah, you do. And your cite isn't on point. The Scott case centered around pretrial issues.

As for being a condescending shithead, you've been doing that on multiple legal threads lately, when you don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 11:12 AM
Yeah, you do. And your cite isn't on point. The Scott case centered around pretrial issues.

I'll see you in 3 weeks.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 11:13 AM
I'll see you in 6 weeks.

I doubt it. You'll be skipping the thread at that point. You've ignored the difference between common law and Constitutional law, and the impact it generally has in cases like this. The prosecution no longer has an automatic right to reprosecute.


Edit: to be fair, I think our area of disagreement is less than it seems. I was focusing on this part of your claim:

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

That's not true. It's dependent upon other factors.

We both seem to be in agreement that not all calls for mistrials result in the end of a case.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 11:21 AM
I doubt it. You'll be skipping the thread at that point. You've ignored the difference between common law and Constitutional law, and the impact it generally has in cases like this. The prosecution no longer has an automatic right to reprosecute.

I've not ignored anything.

If the judge applies the DJ clause, it will be because he will have determined that the pre-trial publicity generated by the dismissal and the inadmissible evidence will make it impossible to for Clemens to get a fair jury pool and therefore he will be materially prejudiced.

That's why there's a hearing on it at all. If it were as clear-cut as you're arguing, it would simply be ruled on as a matter of law and they'd be done. No argument would be necessary at that point. There's a hearing because Hardin's going to try to establish that Clemens has been materially damaged by the mistrial and the publicity generated by it.

Absent material prejudice to the defendant, a motion from defendant to create a mistrial does not act as an automatic bar on a re-prosecution.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 11:32 AM
I've not ignored anything.

If the judge applies the DJ clause, it will be because he will have determined that the pre-trial publicity generated by the dismissal and the inadmissible evidence will make it impossible to for Clemens to get a fair jury pool and therefore he will be materially prejudiced.

That's why there's a hearing on it at all. If it were as clear-cut as you're arguing, it would simply be ruled on as a matter of law and they'd be done. No argument would be necessary at that point. There's a hearing because Hardin's going to try to establish that Clemens has been materially damaged by the mistrial and the publicity generated by it.

Absent material prejudice to the defendant, a motion from defendant to create a mistrial does not act as an automatic bar on a re-prosecution.

What we seem to have here is two people misunderstanding one another.
I didn't say that it was clear cut that there'd be no reprosecution. What I wrote was

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
07-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Well, at least column agrees with me: it's likely that Roger will be tried again. As I said from the beginning, it's possible he might not, but certainly not probable

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6769799/hell-just-happened


3. Will Roger Clemens Stand Trial Again?

Now, it's the great question of 2005-07 again: is that all for Roger Clemens? Will Judge Walton decide that it's unfair to Clemens if he has to be retried?

It seems likely that the case can be tried again fairly quickly — the parties are ready and well-financed, the witnesses aren't hard to find. So the arguments will most likely center on whether this was a stunt the prosecution pulled on purpose and whether it gets some unfair advantage from starting over or from having heard the defense's opening arguments. Certainly Rusty Hardin, Clemens' lead lawyer, is likely to make much of the argument that the prosecutors knew full well they were introducing evidence the judge had told them not to use. Judges don't like being disobeyed. But he may have a harder case arguing that there's any real advantage gained by the prosecutors or that they actually wanted a mistrial. After all, the government has already wasted a ridiculous amount of money on this case when the Department of Justice has much bigger fish to fry (people lying on Capitol Hill is the ultimate dog-bites-man story, and usually on subjects that pretend to be more important than baseball), and it won't look good for these prosecutors if possibly the biggest case of their careers gets thrown out for good over this. And it's much harder, if not impossible, for a defendant to argue that the court shouldn't have called a mistrial when the defendant asked for one — as Hardin did here. So the likely outcome is another trial.

As for Clemens, he's learning the hard way that criminal cases, unlike baseball games, sometimes make you wait a long time to find out who won and who lost. But it would be the most ironic ending of all if Judge Walton decides that the prosecution tried to get an unfair advantage and has its case erased from the books.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 03:05 PM
Well, here's a different take:

Walton has scheduled a September 2nd hearing to discuss a possible retrial, but many are expecting him to drop all charges and bring an end to the saga based on the logic that a retrial would constitute double jeopardy, a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges pursuant to a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

http://tv.ibtimes.com/judge-declares-mistrial-in-roger-clemens-perjury-case/1271.html

And it was reportedly the judge, not defense counsel, that got the ball rolling on this.

In the video prosecutors showed the jury, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., referred to Pettitte's conversation with his wife during the questioning of Clemens. Walton quickly cut off the tape and called attorneys to the bench for a private conversation for several minutes. The video remained frozen on the screen in front of jurors with a transcript of what was being said on the bottom.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110714/SPT0401/307140021/Judge-declares-mistrial-Roger-Clemens-case?odyssey=nav|head

As I said earlier, this case will either be over, or Clemens will have an obvious appeal.

DJ's left nut
07-14-2011, 03:45 PM
Well, here's a different take:



http://tv.ibtimes.com/judge-declares-mistrial-in-roger-clemens-perjury-case/1271.html

And it was reportedly the judge, not defense counsel, that got the ball rolling on this.



http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110714/SPT0401/307140021/Judge-declares-mistrial-Roger-Clemens-case?odyssey=nav|head

As I said earlier, this case will either be over, or Clemens will have an obvious appeal.

He'll absolutely have an appeal, but there's no way it goes anywhere. I can't see an Appellate Judge ruling that the trial judge abused his discretion there.

Hardin, seeing a meal ticket, and Clemens, being filthy damn rich, will likely try to make a Constitutional question of it and get it to the SCOTUS, but I don't see it getting cert either.

I think he'll end up in a second trial but I also think he'll likely be acquitted; these are very hard cases to make.

Just Passin' By
07-14-2011, 07:28 PM
He'll absolutely have an appeal, but there's no way it goes anywhere. I can't see an Appellate Judge ruling that the trial judge abused his discretion there.

Hardin, seeing a meal ticket, and Clemens, being filthy damn rich, will likely try to make a Constitutional question of it and get it to the SCOTUS, but I don't see it getting cert either.

I think he'll end up in a second trial but I also think he'll likely be acquitted; these are very hard cases to make.

The trial judge is the one who corralled the prosecution. Given that, I don't see why he'd have any reason to allow the gov't to continue on with the case. But you may be right. He may hold it against the specific prosecutor and not the entire case.

redfan
09-02-2011, 01:35 PM
No mistrial for Rocket

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/us-judge-sets-new-trial-in-clemens-perjury-case/810284.html

Just Passin' By
09-02-2011, 01:56 PM
No mistrial for Rocket

http://mobile.forbes.com/device/article.php?CALL_URL=http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/02/general-us-clemens-steroids_8656886.html?

He has to face another trial, barring appeal. The judge's ruling is a curious one, though, if the ESPN quote is accurate, because he claims that current law doesn't allow him to throw out the indictment.

Gotta figure Clemens will file the expedited appeal.

DJ's left nut
09-02-2011, 03:19 PM
No mistrial for Rocket

http://mobile.forbes.com/device/article.php?CALL_URL=http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/02/general-us-clemens-steroids_8656886.html?

Shocking...

chiefqueen
09-02-2011, 03:24 PM
IMO Clemens is harmless to society as a whole and his punishment will be probably be not getting into the HOF during his lifetime. I think the gov't has better ways to spend money it doesn't have than retrying him.

DJ's left nut
09-02-2011, 03:36 PM
IMO Clemens is harmless to society as a whole and his punishment will be probably be not getting into the HOF during his lifetime. I think the gov't has better ways to spend money it doesn't have than retrying him.

In all honesty, I've always been in favor of absolutely blasting people for provable perjury.

You can't have a functioning legal system if you can't get people to provide truthful testimony. Lying under oath can have the effect of costing people millions of dollars, if not their livelihoods or freedom.

In many cases, actionable perjury is more damaging than outright theft.

In this particular instance, his conduct was likely harmless. However, if the legal system makes it very clear to all that it will hammer your ass for lying under oath, perhaps it will discourage the practice.

Perjury trials, especially public ones, aren't as much about punishing the defendant as they are protecting the legal system by setting an example.