Yes.
What a disgusting waste of tax payer money. The prosecution of Clemens for perjury was dubious at best. The expenditure of resources in investigating and readying this case for trial was unspeakable. Well not for Rusty Hardin who made it the focus of his opening statement. It's almost as if the government intended to throw the ball away.
While not an expert on this issue, the government's mistrial would seem to bar further prosecution based on the principle of Double Jeopardy.
You might want to take a look at U.S. v. Perez before speaking out on double jeopardy. You got part of it right. You are not an expert on the issue.
ReplyDeleteUh, gee...thanks. My friend Scott Greenfield who is a whole lot closer to an expert agrees on the application of double jeopardy to this case. Go straighten Scott out too. I guarantee you that you'll find someone, there who will give a damn.
ReplyDeleteBL
Fortunately, the issue will be decided on the basis of the case law and not the comments of your "friends." I take it you and Scott don't know how to do research, or even use Google. Just about every criminal law blog in the Country has been all over this issue, and all agree that Perez is controlling. Even Wikipedia could have told you that.
ReplyDeleteBTW - you don't need a comma between "someone" and "there" in your last line. I can see how research might be fairly far down your "to do" list, with proofreading still not mastered.
Uh, gee . . . your friend Scott Greenfield was wrong again. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/09/02/clemens.steroids.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a11&eref=sihp Why don't you tell him? That way maybe he'll think you know something. For your next line of work try something a little less intellectually demanding. Maybe you can become a bartender.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are overreacting with the tax related issue. We want a efficient government but we complain about the tax. Those two thing are quite different and we should complain less.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate this blog poost
ReplyDelete