1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Potential juror does not know who Roger Clemens is

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by joseephuss, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,876 Messages
    1,478 Likes Received
    "If he were sitting there I would not know who he was," she declared.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...mens-trial-potential-jurors-prospective-juror

    Potential juror in Roger Clemens trial doesn't recognize seven-time Cy Young winner in courtroom

    WASHINGTON - The jury-duty letters came in the mail about six weeks ago. As instructed, the recipients came to the federal courthouse Wednesday. And when they walked into Courtroom 16, their eyes fell on the man whose freedom they might be asked to revoke: Roger Clemens.

    Not that every prospective juror recognized the defendant as a seven-time Cy Young Award winner. One woman, when quizzed about her fitness to sit on the jury in Clemens' perjury trial, promised U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton that she hadn't formed any prejudicial opinions.
  2. Joshmvii

    Joshmvii Cowboys baby!

    2,658 Messages
    35 Likes Received
    I think every woman I know personally would say the same thing. They wouldn't recognize him, and most of them would have no idea who he was if I said "Hey, who's Roger Clemens?" Hell, half the men I know would say the same. Not everybody cares about sports, unfortunate though that may be. :laugh2:
  3. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,576 Messages
    9 Likes Received
  4. RoyTheHammer

    RoyTheHammer Well-Known Member

    13,748 Messages
    669 Likes Received
    Perfect juror then.
  5. Maikeru-sama

    Maikeru-sama Mick Green 58

    14,547 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I could believe that.

    I was and continue to be completely oblivious to the entire Casey Anthony trial. I recognize her name but know very little about the case.
  6. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,876 Messages
    1,478 Likes Received
    I am not surprised. Plenty of people I know are not into sports and would not know Clemens. I don't really get your comparison to the Anthony trial. Anthony is only famous because of the trial. Clemens has been known for decades.
  7. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    51,567 Messages
    5,492 Likes Received
    The TV will be on Entertainment Tonight or some show like that and I am always asking my wife who someone is. I am not in the main stream at all so for someone to tell me they don't know who Roger Clemens is wouldn't shock me in the least.
  8. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    The Judge declared a mistrial today. Apparently, the Government introduced evidence that the judge ruled was inadmissible.
  9. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Really? I certainly am not surprised that a lot of women wouldn't recognize him, but I would think most at least had some idea of who he is, even if they know very little. His name has been in the news for 25 years either because of baseball or steroids. With men i would think the clear majority would recognize him and VERY few wouldn't at least know who he is. Just being around other men at the office or having a drink or at your kids soccer game over the last 25 years most men probably should have heard discussions about Clemens ocassionally. Perhaps those with careers in the theater or hairdressers may be the exception.
  10. Reality

    Reality Administrator Staff Member

    11,862 Messages
    1,675 Likes Received
    You have to wonder why they did that.. It seems rather obvious that if the judge says you cannot admit it, you better not do it or risk a mistrial.

    It would almost lead you to believe they needed a do-over for some reason ..

    -Reality
  11. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,565 Messages
    2,947 Likes Received
    That is absolutely ridiculous. Not on the part of the judge of course, but that after all of this time the government would essentially be unprepared. Mistrial is like...are you kidding me?
  12. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Was this issue ruled on before the trial, or was it something the Government had reason to believe would be acceptible to present?
  13. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,565 Messages
    2,947 Likes Received
    Always decided before unless it's submitted as evidence during the trial, and then it's ruled on then according to the rules of evidence...in this instance it was before. Government allowed some inadmissible testimony to be displayed on a screen. It was inadvertent but that's still inexcusable.
  14. Faerluna

    Faerluna I'm Complicated

    5,144 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    I know his name and I know he's a baseball player, but I haven't followed baseball since I was a kid.

    I'd never know him if I saw him.
  15. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    I'm sure the defense got a ruling on their Limines about this subject. The testimony in question came from Andy Pettite's wife's affidavit. Not sure if it was ruled inadmissible or if the defense just got a limine on it. I kind of wonder if these articles give correct info sometimes.

    Long story short, the government played some video or audio recording that had her testimony on it. Her testimony effectively bolstered Pettite's testimony... and of course with this jury, they wouldn't know Andy Pettite either. The defense asked for a mistrial, and the judge had to grant it because it was bolstering the credibility of Pettite.
  16. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I understand it is either ruled on before the trial or submitted as evidence during the trial and decided on at that time - the question I had was which was it in this case?

    Since you have told me that the issue had been decided in advance, it would appear the Government did screw up as some on here have suggested. Like you said, even if it was an inadvertant mistake, it was a blunder nonetheless.
  17. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Interesting point. Sad thing is I'm not sure Petitte's testimony really needs a lot of bolstering to be credible, so it may be that for the possibiliyty of very little gain the prosecution is going to have to spend more time and money starting it all over again with a new jury.
  18. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Well I don't know what his wife's affidavit said, so it's hard to lay judgment. And of course, we all know Pettite, so we know he's a credible guy. The jury has to learn that all on their own if they don't know who he is. Which is why you can't bolster witnesses.
  19. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Yep - seems like the prosecution screwed the pooch.
  20. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received

Share This Page