Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Monday, June 18, 2012
 
Roger Clemens: Not Guilty

Here's my column for SI.com on the verdict. Should he even have been prosecuted?





5 Comments:

Very well written, MM!

Anonymous Anonymous -- 6/19/2012 9:39 AM  


Since I have no access to the decision process that brought this matter to a trial, I have no idea if the Clemens Case was politically motivated or publicity motivated or based on cold, hard legal reasoning. However, I have a generic reason to say the prosecution had a real reason to take this to a jury.

If a prosecutor has evidence of perjury that he/she believes should be punished, that prosecutor must make the effort to convince a jury. Perjury undermines the entire US system of law; if witnesses in trials lie under oath even "some of the time" then the idea of a fair trial becomes a sham. Under a system where perjury is tolerated even a little bit, the winner of a trial will be the side with the more convincing liars.

That is not a "slippery slope"; that is a trap door that opened under the feet of Lady Justice.

Anonymous The Sports Curmudgeon -- 6/19/2012 11:54 AM  


I agree TSC, and appreciate the comment too.

If the Justice Department didn't prosecute after the whole nation watched Clemens testify and mostly didn't believe him, plus after Congress openly doubted him, people would say he received preferential treatment. The DOJ was really in a no-win position.

The mistake, in my view, in Congress giving Clemens an a public forum though which he could be charged with perjury.

Blogger Michael McCann -- 6/19/2012 1:56 PM  


Mike:

Good piece. My sentiments exactly. The DOJ was on the block on this, and I think the government knew it was a problematic case.

Maybe Congress should attempt to concentrate on more pressing concerns and permit sports organizations, players' associations, and most important, and the court of public opinion to regulate this kind of conduct.

Mark

Blogger Mark Conrad -- 6/20/2012 11:39 AM  


Thanks, Mark. You're right too - how about Congress considers the legal merits of current players in a union negotiating on behalf of prospective and past players?

Blogger Michael McCann -- 6/20/2012 8:40 PM  


Post a Comment