Braun may be called as witness in Clemens perjury trial

[pebadger]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/148316725.html

 

Mods, if you want to move this to the post-verdict thread please do. From my perspective this is a whole different ball of wax, but it's your call.

 

In any event, the plot thickens. There appears, from my vantage point, that there is some seriously dirty pool being played here by somebody.

[JackNicholson1974]

how is anything related to Ryan Braun relevant to the Clemens case?

[pebadger]

"Objection! Relevance?" would be among the first words out of my mouth with every single question at trial, provided you couldn't head off his testimony before it was even offered (at trial or otherwise).

 

From what I've read about the Clemens thing and the presiding judge, I don't know why he'd let the thing go that far afield. Perjury cases can be tried with almost ZERO background on the broader subject matter of the statement made in most cases. The subject matter is usually irrelevant to the primary issue of whether perjury was committed. If you have to get extraordinarily specific about the subject matter in order to have an opinion about whether the statement is false in the sense necessary for a perjury conviction, you probably shouldn't be prosecuting the case in most instances.

 

The really interesting question, as somebody noted in the JSO comments, is which side put him on the witness list?

[bani1717]

I agree pebadger. I had a business law professor comment a couple years ago that perjury is the second-most underprosecuted crime in our legal system (behind tax evasion). I'd have to imagine that it would have to be a VERY solid and straightforward case for Clemens to get charged, unless they're just trying to make an example out of him. In any case, it very well could be Clemens' team just grasping at straws now that Braun found a way to "beat the system."

[MadScientist]

I'm guessing that Braun would be used to call into question the validity of the tests. If the test showing Clemens juiced is not reliable then there is reasonable doubt that he committed perjury. MLB arbitration does not allow for the test itself to be challenged, but this trial would.

[pebadger]

I'm guessing that Braun would be used to call into question the validity of the tests. If the test showing Clemens juiced is not reliable then there is reasonable doubt that he committed perjury. MLB arbitration does not allow for the test itself to be challenged, but this trial would.

 

I'm not sure if Clemens has ever submitted a sample that has been subjected to testing which subsequently indicated a positive test. I'm virtually certain he never tested positive within the confines of the MLB system, but I'm unsure if there was anything outside that system being used as evidence. To the best of my knowledge the only forensic evidence here involves the needles McNamee held onto for years and which he claims he used to inject Clemens. If I'm correct about that, I don't know how Braun's testimony would be relevant with respect to the specifics of the forensic methods at issue.

 

To the extent that somebody might want to call him to testify on broader issues, if I were the judge I don't know that I'd be amenable to much of that sort of testimony and would be highly disposed to sustain objections to a great many questions on the basis of relevance barring a very strong showing by the offering party.