Mistrial in Clemens case

What a bitch, when the prosecution has to follow the rules:

(quoting Yahoo News)
Prosecutors had wanted to call Laura Pettitte as a witness to back up
her husband's account, but Walton had said he wasn't inclined to have
her testify since she didn't speak directly to Clemens.
Walton was angered that in the video prosecutors showed the jury,
congressman Elijah Cummings referred to Pettitte's conversation with
his wife.
"I think that a first-year law student would know that you can't
bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible
evidence," Walton said.
He said it was the second time that prosecutors had gone against his
orders — the other being an incident that happened during opening
arguments on Wednesday when assistant U.S. attorney Steven Durham said
that Pettite and two other of Clemens' New York teammates, Chuck
Knoblauch and Mike Stanton, had used human growth hormone.
Walton said in pre-trial hearings that such testimony could lead
jurors to consider Clemens guilty by association. (end quote)

NICE TRY (not)

So, the prosecutors get to try again? Do they have any liability for
all the money they wasted, repeatedly trying to CHEAT?

Strike two in front of this judge?

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...
--D-y

On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

--

On 7/14/2011 2:11 PM, atriage wrote:
On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

No.

On Jul 14, 5:41*pm, BL wrote:
On 7/14/2011 2:11 PM, atriage wrote: On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

No.

Hi Brian.

I'll agree that with Novitsky on a short leash, "his" cases might
stand a better chance of not being an embarrassment, but here we went
again with Clemens, like with Novitsky violating terms of search and
seizure in the Bonds case, they've really shot themselves in the foot
since so many people read about these sensational cases and "first
year law students" has a well-deserved sting to it.

I've noticed how many writers and editors have climbed up on the stump
of "moral outrage" (AKA "pulling my panties up now") IRT Lance and
"cheating". The effect of all that kinda depends on a wave of
consciousness. Clemens is, IMHO, definitely benefitting from being
ancient history. Even if he would probably not like being thought of
as ancient history, of course.
--D-y

On Jul 14, 7:21*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:41*pm, BL wrote:

On 7/14/2011 2:11 PM, atriage wrote: On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

No.

Hi Brian.

I'll agree that with Novitsky on a short leash, "his" cases might
stand a better chance of not being an embarrassment, but here we went
again with Clemens, like with Novitsky violating terms of search and
seizure in the Bonds case, they've really shot themselves in the foot
since so many people read about these sensational cases and "first
year law students" has a well-deserved sting to it.

I've noticed how many writers and editors have climbed up on the stump
of "moral outrage" (AKA "pulling my panties up now") IRT Lance and
"cheating". The effect of all that kinda depends on a wave of
consciousness. Clemens is, IMHO, definitely benefitting from being
ancient history. Even if he would probably not like being thought of
as ancient history, of course.

Why do you have such problems with someone making a name for
themselves by using taxpayer dollars and flaunting the law when
they're going after people accused of using taxpayer dollars and
flaunting the law? Don't you see the symmetry in that? The beauty?
It's a fookin' work of existential art and you're a Philistine for not
seeing that.

R

On 7/14/2011 7:21 PM, --D-y wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:41 pm, wrote:
On 7/14/2011 2:11 PM, atriage wrote: On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

No.

Hi Brian.

I'll agree that with Novitsky on a short leash, "his" cases might
stand a better chance of not being an embarrassment, but here we went
again with Clemens, like with Novitsky violating terms of search and
seizure in the Bonds case, they've really shot themselves in the foot
since so many people read about these sensational cases and "first
year law students" has a well-deserved sting to it.

I've noticed how many writers and editors have climbed up on the stump
of "moral outrage" (AKA "pulling my panties up now") IRT Lance and
"cheating". The effect of all that kinda depends on a wave of
consciousness. Clemens is, IMHO, definitely benefitting from being
ancient history. Even if he would probably not like being thought of
as ancient history, of course.
--D-y
I am frankly amazed that the AUSA on the case is such a putz. The judge
was right with his first year law student comment.

On Jul 14, 8:10*pm, BL wrote:
On 7/14/2011 7:21 PM, --D-y wrote:



On Jul 14, 5:41 pm, *wrote:
On 7/14/2011 2:11 PM, atriage wrote: *On 14/07/2011 19:03, --D-y wrote:

Seems the prosecutors are just plain ate up with "We knew he was
doping". Well, maybe they won't trip over their law degrees next
time...

Shape of things to come?

No.

Hi Brian.

I'll agree that with Novitsky on a short leash, "his" cases might
stand a better chance of not being an embarrassment, but here we went
again with Clemens, like with Novitsky violating terms of search and
seizure in the Bonds case, they've really shot themselves in the foot
since so many people read about these sensational cases and "first
year law students" has a well-deserved sting to it.

I've noticed how many writers and editors have climbed up on the stump
of "moral outrage" (AKA "pulling my panties up now") IRT Lance and
"cheating". The effect of all that kinda depends on a wave of
consciousness. Clemens is, IMHO, definitely benefitting from being
ancient history. Even if he would probably not like being thought of
as ancient history, of course.
--D-y

I am frankly amazed that the AUSA on the case is such a putz. *The judge
was right with his first year law student comment.

Stinky, dirtbag maneuver. CHEATING! Is the AUSA on drugs or something?
Test them!
--D-y

On 15/07/2011 02:00, RicodJour wrote:
Why do you have such problems with someone making a name for
themselves by using taxpayer dollars and flaunting the law when
they're going after people accused of using taxpayer dollars and
flaunting the law? Don't you see the symmetry in that?

He might but no immortal hand or eye could have framed it...I'll get my coat,
I'm going out for a ride before it starts raining here anyway.
--

On Jul 15, 4:05*am, atriage wrote:
On 15/07/2011 02:00, RicodJour wrote:

Why do you have such problems with someone making a name for
themselves by using taxpayer dollars and flaunting the law when
they're going after people accused of using taxpayer dollars and
flaunting the law? *Don't you see the symmetry in that?

He might but no immortal hand or eye could have framed it...I'll get my coat,
I'm going out for a ride before it starts raining here anyway.
--

Well, when the irony part is snipped off and the question seems
"serious", my problem is that one "someone" is charged with enforcing
the law, which is supposed to be informed by a sense of morality, i.e.
right and wrong. You know, like "two wrongs don't make a right", etc.
etc.
--D-y

On 15/07/2011 13:50, --D-y wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:05 am, wrote:
On 15/07/2011 02:00, RicodJour wrote:

Why do you have such problems with someone making a name for
themselves by using taxpayer dollars and flaunting the law when
they're going after people accused of using taxpayer dollars and
flaunting the law? Don't you see the symmetry in that?

He might but no immortal hand or eye could have framed it...I'll get my coat,
I'm going out for a ride before it starts raining here anyway.
--

Well, when the irony part is snipped off and the question seems
"serious", my problem is that one "someone" is charged with enforcing
the law, which is supposed to be informed by a sense of morality,

The lawmakers and law enforcers in the US (and the UK for that matter) wouldn't
recognise morality if it jumped out and bit them on the nose.
--