PDA

View Full Version : Mistrial in Clemens case


manders_01
07-14-2011, 12:25 PM
Just got an email indicating the judge declared a mistrial after the jury was shown inadmissible evidence.

stacksedwards
07-14-2011, 12:30 PM
http://www.sportsherniablog.com/blog/2011/07/reacquaint-yourself-with-the-great-rusty-hardin.html

Fenway
07-14-2011, 01:29 PM
A well known Boston defense lawyer expects Rusty to push for 'double jeopardy' now...

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21120296/manion-prosecution-reckless-clemens-case

He has never tested positive - I doubt he is on the infamous list of 103 or it would have leaked by now...

You a presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty...

Wot a farce

DumpJerry
07-14-2011, 02:11 PM
Someone will/should be be losing their job in the U.S. Attorney's Office. That was an easy mistake to avoid. Adam Dunn has a harder time striking out to a lefty than the ease with which this idiot blew the whole trial.

34 Inch Stick
07-14-2011, 02:35 PM
Someone will/should be be losing their job in the U.S. Attorney's Office. That was an easy mistake to avoid. .

of course it was an easy mistake to avoid...which leads one to the conclusion that it was done intentionally. That type of activity would be typical for the Justice Department (irrespective of administrations).

They have every advantage in the world in 99% of their cases and still regularly attempt to skirt rules. That is why, despite the repugnance of most defendants, I rarely find myself siding with the US Attorney.

g0g0
07-14-2011, 08:39 PM
As much as I think these things are a waste of taxpayers money, I like seeing them through as it seems too many times athletes, politicians and other 'celebrities' get let off the hook.

TDog
07-14-2011, 11:59 PM
As much as I think these things are a waste of taxpayers money, I like seeing them through as it seems too many times athletes, politicians and other 'celebrities' get let off the hook.

I understand what you are saying, but often athletes, politicians and other celebrities face charges they would not face if not for their celebrity. Few people without a high profile are charged with perjury, for example.

SoxandtheCityTee
07-15-2011, 12:09 AM
Unless there was a massive misunderstanding of the judge's pre-trial ruling on what was to stay out, the nature of this mistake is stunning. A law student who's taken trial practice would know better. A real head-scratcher.

DumpJerry
07-15-2011, 07:52 AM
I understand what you are saying, but often athletes, politicians and other celebrities face charges they would not face if not for their celebrity. Few people without a high profile are charged with perjury, for example.

Perjury is very, very difficult to prove in court. While it is frequently mentioned/threatened, it is rarely charged.

Unless there was a massive misunderstanding of the judge's pre-trial ruling on what was to stay out, the nature of this mistake is stunning. A law student who's taken trial practice would know better. A real head-scratcher.
The dude had too much coffee that morning and was totally amped up.

DSpivack
07-15-2011, 11:18 AM
Perjury is very, very difficult to prove in court. While it is frequently mentioned/threatened, it is rarely charged.


The dude had too much coffee that morning and was totally amped up.

The one time I served on a jury that happened. It was a civil case involving a family suing a car company after an accident, and the car company's attorney mentioned that the driver was not wearing a seat belt. The judge immediately declared a mistrial, later telling us that he specifically instructed the attorneys not to mention that, as it was considered prejudicial (though I have no idea, or at least do not remember, why).

OGara
07-17-2011, 10:55 AM
So much the better. We all know Clemens likely juiced. His reputation, the currency of posterity, is shot. No need to waste any more money on the trial.

DumpJerry
07-17-2011, 11:54 AM
So much the better. We all know Clemens likely juiced. His reputation, the currency of posterity, is shot. No need to waste any more money on the trial.
So, if someone kills another person and we all "know" he did it, why waste time on a trial?

DumpJerry
07-17-2011, 12:03 PM
The one time I served on a jury that happened. It was a civil case involving a family suing a car company after an accident, and the car company's attorney mentioned that the driver was not wearing a seat belt. The judge immediately declared a mistrial, later telling us that he specifically instructed the attorneys not to mention that, as it was considered prejudicial (though I have no idea, or at least do not remember, why).
It's called a Motion in limine. Which basically means "limitation." It is a pre-trial motion that states that one of the lawyers believes that the other side will want to introduce something that is irrelevant (which is inadmissible), but the mere mention it can cause the jury to take it into consideration anyway (prejudicial). This is different from something that is admissible and will make one of the parties look bad (prejudicial), that evidence in still probative of the truth.

In your trial, I'm guessing the family was suing because they feel there was something about the way the car was designed or built that caused the accident and/or severity of the injuries. The fact that the driver was not wearing a seat belt probably had nothing to do with what happened (making it irrelevant), but certainly can take away from the jury's sympathy for him (prejudicial without any probative value). Even if the Judge told you to disregard the statement, it would have been in the back of your minds. This is most likely why a mistrial was declared.

OGara
07-17-2011, 03:01 PM
So, if someone kills another person and we all "know" he did it, why waste time on a trial?

I'm not sure how you inferred this from what I wrote. My point is that he's already been found guilty in the relevant sense of the case, namely his reputation is in shambles. Whether that is just or not is a matter of dispute, sure. But, going to trial for it is absurd.

DumpJerry
07-17-2011, 05:18 PM
I'm not sure how you inferred this from what I wrote. My point is that he's already been found guilty in the relevant sense of the case, namely his reputation is in shambles. Whether that is just or not is a matter of dispute, sure. But, going to trial for it is absurd.
Same can be said of someone everyone thinks is guilty of murder. What's the difference? Nothing.

OGara
07-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Same can be said of someone everyone thinks is guilty of murder. What's the difference? Nothing.

Come on, Jerry. I expect better from a lawyer. What's the difference? I said that he had been found guilty in the relative sense of the case[I], by which I mean that, with regard to one's reputation, popular opinion is the proper theater to determine innocence or guilt. Right or wrong, in the court of popular opinion, and perhaps posterity, Clemens juiced, or so likely did that the safest bet is to assume that he did.

Unlike when one's reputation is on the line, one's guilt or innocence in a murder trial is decidedly [I]not the court of public opinion.

That's the difference.

OGara
07-17-2011, 05:59 PM
I'm generally agnostic as to whether he did or did not. The point of my original post, one you've missed, but I welcome you to return to, was that Clemens' day in "court" should not have been before an actual judge on the taxpayers' dime.

DumpJerry
07-17-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm generally agnostic as to whether he did or did not. The point of my original post, one you've missed, but I welcome you to return to, was that Clemens' day in "court" should not have been before an actual judge on the taxpayers' dime.
Ah, I see now. After getting indicted, he should have gone straight to jail because he does not have a Constitutional right to a trial.