Bonds And Clemens Trial
April 17, 2012 by staff
Bonds And Clemens Trial, Roger Clemens stood and uttered “Morning” to the 90 potential jurors who had gathered in the ornate, sixth-floor ceremonial courtroom, the one deemed big enough to hold them all. After he sat down, he swiveled his chair, as if trying to make eye contact with as many as possible.
Some of those looking back had no idea who he was. Others, including two who survived the first cut, wondered if it was a waste of taxpayer time and money that got him to this point.
The seven-time Cy Young Award winner was back in court Monday in the government’s second attempt to prove that he misled a House committee at a landmark drugs-and-sports hearing in 2008. The first trial last July ended in a mistrial when prosecutors introduced inadmissible evidence after only two witnesses had been called.
One potential juror said he felt “it was a little bit ridiculous” when Congress held hearings on drug use in sports because he felt the government should have been focusing on bigger problems. Nevertheless, the native of Chile – an investment officer for an international bank – was asked to return, the only male to remain in the jury pool among those who were individually screened on the first day.
Another potential juror recalled the 2008 hearing by saying: “At the time, I remember thinking it didn’t seem to be a great use of taxpayer money,” but she was kept in the pool after she said she could be impartial.
“Even if I don’t agree with the reason that you’re brought before Congress, you still have to tell the truth …. If you perjure yourself before Congress, it’s still illegal,” said the woman, who is an executive for an environmental nonprofit organization.
But another potential juror was excused after she volunteered: “I don’t know if that’s the best use of government tax dollars at this time.” She said her feelings could influence her ability to serve.
Clemens lawyer Rusty Hardin even hinted that perhaps the defense might challenge Congress’ authority to call the hearing in the first place, but U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton was skeptical of that line of questioning. The judge reminded lawyers again that some of the jurors from the first trial felt a retrial would be a waste of taxpayer money, adding that one of the hurdles in the case is that some people think “we have some significant problems in this country that are not being addressed by this Congress.”
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.