Former Yankees Pitcher Roger Clemens Granted Mistrial in Prosecution for False Statements, Perjury and Obstruction
.jpg)
As reported by ESPN (and virtually every other media outlet), United States District Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted former New York Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens' request for a mistrial in his prosecution on three counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury, and one count of obstruction for his testimony relating to steroid use before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in February of 2008.
The defense request for a mistrial came after prosecutors showed the jury alleged video evidence of Maryland Representative and Committee member Elijah Cummings referencing statements by former Yankees pitcher and Clemens' friend Andy Pettitte that he had told his wife, Laura Pettitte, that Clements had allegedly confessed in 1999 or 2000 to using human growth hormone. The Court had ruled before trial that this evidence was to be excluded from the trial on the ground that Pettitte's wife's statement did not involve direct knowledge of what Clemens had said.
In granting the mistrial, Judge Walton opined that Clemens could not get a fair trial as a result of the introduction of the alleged statements, and apologized to the jury for the waste of their time. The Judge had earlier criticized the prosecution for stating, during opening statements, that Pettitte and former Yankee second baseman, Chuck Knoblauch, and relief pitcher, Mike Stanton, had also allegedly used human growth hormone.
Judge Walton has scheduled a hearing on September 2nd to determine if there will be a new trial of Clemens. It appears, however, that a second trial of Clemens will not be barred by double jeopardy. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and other courts have held, "when a mistrial is declared with the consent of the defendant or upon his motion, it is 'ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant's motion is necessitated by prosecutorial or judicial error.'” Lee-Thomas v. U.S., 921 A.2d 773, 775-76 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Carter v. U.S., 497 A.2d 438, 441 n. 4 (D.C. 1985); citing Anderson v. U.S., 481 A.2d 1299, 1300 (D.C. 1984)); U.S. v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485, 91 S.Ct. 547 (1971)).
