Will this great event be televised live? A perp walk in handcuffs perhaps?

Given how deep his pockets are, I think Clemens has a decent chance of being acquitted.

#2 Unless they have more than McNamee I'm not sure that Clemens' pockets enter into it. But then I'd assume the prosecutors would not hang everything on him.

If I'm the prosecutor I try to taunt Clemens into taking the stand. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could easily pull a Col. Jessup.

If I'm the prosecutor I try to taunt Clemens into taking the stand. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could easily pull a Col. Jessup.

Reminded me of this

Given how deep his pockets are, I think Clemens has a decent chance of being acquitted.

That, and it's possible he's innocent.

He strikes me as the kind of guy who could easily pull a Col. Jessup.

You can't handle the truth.

Any of the lawyers care to chime in one how this should play out? Anything interesting likely to happen, or is it just a cursory pro-forma Law & Order type proceeding?

Unless they have more than McNamee I'm not sure that Clemens' pockets enter into it.

They go through some effort in the indictment to specify the form and color, preparation, and type of needle used for each of anabolic steroids, HgH, B12, and Lidocaine. IIRC they also went through some detail on the chain of control of the latter two among team medical staff.

If they have (a) testimony from Clemens describing what McNamee gave him that aligns with the form/color, prep, and needle used for steroids/HgH, and (b) testimony from medical staff from Toronto and NY about Clemens' use - and therefore awareness of form/color, prep, and needle - of B12 and Lidocaine they (not McNamee) commonly administered to players including Clemens, the case could be made without McNamee. It'd be a relatively weak case - (a) suggests that he used, (b) suggests that he was aware - but they could make the case.

Add testimony of Pettitte (and others?), a needle that tests positive for Clemens' blood and steroids/HgH without sign of tampering, testimony from someone who, as a boy, took a picture of Clemens at the Canseco party Clemens claimed he didn't attend... The case (for perjury) becomes stronger. Not necessarily strong, but stronger. And we still haven't added McNamee yet.

These are a lot of ifs, so there might ultimately be nothing there. We'll see.

(a) testimony from Clemens describing what McNamee gave him that aligns with the form/color, prep, and needle used for steroids/HgH

Since they go into so much detail, it is worth noting that B12 and steroids are generally injected in the same way using the same kind of needle, while hGH is injected in a different place using a smaller needle. And although I don't think this is mentioned in the indictment, Lidocaine is often mixed with all sorts of injections to make them less painful (duh!).

a needle that tests positive for Clemens' blood and steroids/HgH without sign of tampering

Chain of custody? Does it ever get in?

That, and it's possible he's innocent.

Well, that's unlikely. But, it's possible he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given how deep his pockets are, I think Clemens has a decent chance of being acquitted.

I think there's close to a zero percent chance that he will be fully acquitted on all the charges, though I think there is a substantial chance of a hung jury on some or possibly even all the charges.

Convicting people of making false statements to federal investigators isn't nearly as hard as some people seem to think it is. The feds have successfully convicted many people of this in recent years, including a bunch of wealthy, high-profile defendants.

Reminded me of this

A Smitty sighting! Do you suppose he's got a Google Alerts set up so he can jump into any pants-related thread?

Chain of custody? Does it ever get in?

IANAL, but possibly. The chain of custody is McNamee to the feds, so I'd think that's pretty simple. Prior to turning it over, McNamee kept it where nobody would think to look for it. If they tend to throw out any evidence that was sitting unattended I'd think nobody would ever be found guilty of anything unless they turn themselves in.

I think "chain of custody" arguments would suggest that, between the time McNamee stored it and retrieved it, someone else could have taken the syringe without McNamee's knowledge and doctored it up. But (under this hypothetical) it shows what he said it would show. How would he know what it showed if the chain of custody had been broken in this way?

Fox Sports:

If there is a Roger Clemens trial, it could be a family affair for Andy Pettitte, the New York Post reported Saturday. The Yankees pitcher is considered to be a key witness against Clemens, but he should expect to be joined by his wife, Laura, on the witness stand.

According to a source deeply involved with the 2008 congressional hearing, Laura Pettitte’s memory of Andy Pettitte telling her about two separate conversations with Clemens regarding HGH use were a key to the case against Clemens.

“We had two people telling two different stories,” the source said of Clemens and his former trainer Brian McNamee. “Then you had Pettitte — who you would think might lie for his friend — back up McNamee’s story. Clemens said Pettitte 'misremembered,’ but that didn’t add up when Pettitte’s wife remembered the conversation in 1999.”

Yeah I know Fox and the N.Y. Post are not the most reliable of sources.

If they have (a) testimony from Clemens describing what McNamee gave him that aligns with the form/color, prep, and needle used for steroids/HgH, and (b) testimony from medical staff from Toronto and NY about Clemens' use - and therefore awareness of form/color, prep, and needle - of B12 and Lidocaine they (not McNamee) commonly administered to players including Clemens, the case could be made without McNamee. It'd be a relatively weak case - (a) suggests that he used, (b) suggests that he was aware - but they could make the case.

I don't understand how you think that's even a prima facie case, let alone b.a.r.d.

Add testimony of Pettitte (and others?),

Well, once you start assuming additional evidence, you've changed the scenario. Pettitte's testimony is weak, but it does tend to corroborate McNamee -- but that still requires McNamee.

a needle that tests positive for Clemens' blood and steroids/HgH without sign of tampering,

Can't get in without McNamee.

testimony from someone who, as a boy, took a picture of Clemens at the Canseco party Clemens claimed he didn't attend... The case (for perjury) becomes stronger. Not necessarily strong, but stronger. And we still haven't added McNamee yet.

As I say above, you have. The only thing out of what you've said that doesn't depend on McNamee is the Canseco party -- and if the prosecutors can only convict on that issue, they're the ones who will be a laughingstock. As to whether the boy's pictures prove perjury, it seems odd that it would overcome the various pieces of evidence Clemens can bring in, including Canseco himself and the Blue Jays announcers.

Chain of custody? Does it ever get in?

Assuming McNamee testifies, absolutely. What it's worth as evidence is an issue of credibility for the jury.

Any of the lawyers care to chime in one how this should play out? Anything interesting likely to happen, or is it just a cursory pro-forma Law & Order type proceeding?

As many have mentioned, everyone is assuming there must be more evidence with which we are currently unfamiliar. If not- and that seems unimaginable to me- I think McNamee's credibility (to the extent he has any) could be so completely destroyed under cross that Clemens comes out of this with a huge victory of sorts. McNamee is as bad a witness as you could possibly rely on at trial. If he's all they got- Clemens is a lucky man IMO. But again, I can't believe that's all they got.

For the Feds, the Pettite stuff is helpful to a point, but it's not nearly enough to get a conviction. And that assumes that Pettite, and his Mrs., don't flip at trial and help Clemens out. Which is a very real possibility.

I don't understand how you think that's even a prima facie case, let alone b.a.r.d.

Well, then, reread what I said about what kind of case it would be.

Well, once you start assuming additional evidence, you've changed the scenario.

The scenario I was discussing was one where they had evidence beyond strictly the words of Brian McNamee vs. strictly the words of Roger Clemens. In short the scenario assumes additional evidence. Maybe it changes whatever scenario you wanted me to discuss. That's fine; don't participate.

The only thing out of what you've said that doesn't depend on McNamee is the Canseco party

And (a) and (b).

What it's worth as evidence is an issue of credibility for the jury.

I agree.

Well, then, reread what I said about what kind of case it would be.

You said "relatively weak," but you also said, "the case could be made without McNamee," implying to me that you thought there would be a chance of conviction. I'm saying that I don't see how it even survives a directed verdict without McNamee.

You said "relatively weak," but you also said, "the case could be made without McNamee," implying to me that you thought there would be a chance of conviction. I'm saying that I don't see how it even survives a directed verdict without McNamee.

You might be right. I was envisioning what they would do if McNamee were hit by a beer truck today, and figured they'd do more than just say, "See? He injected something yellowish! It wasn't red or pink! I rest my case." That would only set the stage that he didn't take B12. They'd need a bunch of other expert testimony on what the substance could have been - the list would be long, but finite - and how likely it was that Clemens would have used any of them, given their intended purpose and side effects. They'll have testimony from Radomski on what he supplied McNamee; they'll have others' testimony on what McNamee gave them. It's a relatively weak case, and it's nothing unless they can get (b), too.