Federal Prosecutors, Not Roger Clemens, Must Pay the Price

Roger Clemens reared back and fired a split-fingered fast ball. Barry Bonds swung and hit one of his prodigious home runs over the right-field wall.

Clemens’s manager ran right at the home-plate umpire, screaming at the top of his lungs.

“Bonds’s bat was corked. That’s illegal. Declare a misplay.”

The home-plate umpire confiscated Bonds’s bat, after which he conferred with his colleagues for almost half an hour. Then, he summoned both managers and explained that Bonds had violated the rules.

The umpire ejected Bonds, explaining that he had his chance to hit a home run using legal methods, but he failed to do so. It would be wrong to force Clemens to face Bonds again.

Bonds’s manager claimed that Bonds’s at-bat had been going well, that it was only the first inning, and that Bonds was ready for a strong performance. He should be given another chance to get Clemens.

“There was so much going on that Bonds was distracted, and he brought a bat into the game that the umpires had told him not to use. It was an honest mistake. Barry didn’t intentionally disobey the umpires’ orders."

The above never happened, but it is similar to much more serious situation.

Yesterday, prosecutors carrying out a vendetta asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to rule that Roger Clemens must face double jeopardy.

Of course, the erstwhile prosecutors didn’t quite phrase it that way.

It’s really quite simple: The prosecutors admitted for the first time that they made a critical error in Clemens’s perjury trial when they showed jurors evidence that Judge Walton had ruled inadmissible.

The disingenuous prosecutors argued that the mistake was due to the fact that other trial matters affected their concentration and was not intentional.

Yeah, I used a corked bat, but the reason was that the crowd was so noisy that I picked up the wrong one.

The government prosecutors had their chance. They were incompetent or worse. If there is any integrity left in the system (can there be degrees of integrity?), Clemens cannot be tried again.

According to the law, the key is whether the prosecutors intentionally presented evidence that they knew couldn’t be used. If they did, there cannot be a second trial.

Is it possible that the prosecutors attempted to influence the jury by suggesting that there is more going on when they presented the evidence in an attempt to bait the defense into rebutting it?

The issue of Laura Pettitte’s disallowed testimony would be brought up in open court, thus circumventing Judge Walton’s ruling.

Nah, prosecutors would never do that, would they?

The prosecutor’s filing explained that the reference to Laura Pettitte "would have been removed had government counsel adequately focused on it."

Well, that’s too bad. The government had its chance. It messed it up. End of the story.

Wait a minute. Let’s get really conspiratorial.

Roger Clemens wasn’t forced to testify before Congress. He wanted to ensure that his legacy would be untarnished.

Is it possible that Clemens will agree to being put into double jeopardy in order to clear his name?

Did Roger Clemens ever start a game he didn’t think he’d win?