|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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? -- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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. -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mistrial in Clemens case
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. -- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vandeman Trial/Mistrial Report Link | SMS | Techniques | 12 | February 11th 11 09:35 PM |
Prosecution collapses; mistrial called | LONNIE Verrill | Mountain Biking | 9 | February 10th 11 05:39 AM |
Prosecution collapses; mistrial called | LONNIE Verrill | Techniques | 7 | February 10th 11 05:39 AM |
Bush to pardon Clemens | [email protected] | Racing | 10 | February 16th 08 02:46 AM |
What airline bike case to buy? (Trico Iron Case or XPORT Cargo Case?) | Robert Hayden | General | 2 | July 14th 06 04:26 PM |