WEEI>On Demand>>Michael McCann breaks down the Roger Clemens trial and the NFL Lockout

Michael McCann breaks down the Roger Clemens trial and the NFL Lockout

Jul 15, 2011|

SI.com's Michael McCann breaks down the Roger Clemens trial and the NFL Lockout

Transcript - will not be 100% accurate

Steve Buckley pundit Boston Herald sitting at Gerry -- Bobby how Lauren non pundit -- funded by a writer of great boxing books sitting in for John Dennis this morning. A Greg Murphy -- going to be in the eighteenth annual old time baseball game August 11 CPUs field. Knowing you for joining me to Perot I think we -- credentials in order and Michael McCann. In addition to being a law professor and sports lower altitude directorate somewhat law school in the distinguished visiting Oliphant professor. Oh -- Mississippi College school law. That's that's pretty good stuff there yeah. Also restaurant that the new ER I usually should be is also a writer of great leads because -- go to Mike McCann SI dot com this morning. And I'll -- it's like the fifth time. If you able wanted to see that courtroom equivalent of the ball going under the -- the bill but in the 1986 World Series you start today. The man who wrote that -- joins us on the eighteenth -- hotline find out with possible the nation's fastest mobile branded network AT&T. Rethink possible and Mike before he gets an illegal stuff writing. Hey Steve I appreciate that thanks because gain much in ignorance -- and brought out. I watched that -- that it just stood there dispersing the popular had. I -- with the Joseph Kerrigan reference that the prosecution with -- joke here argument in the Red Sox in 2001 I was Allen. That's pretty good. -- are if you coach become the manager and I'm really capable of getting it done. So so what's your take on -- -- average apiece I enjoyed it you seem to have all the bases covered here so to speak. Oh where is this thing headed. I think the government gonna try to get a retrial and the government can argue that what made a mistake. He didn't go to the heart of the case and therefore her retrial should be permitted the judgment though was really upset and just. Completely disappointed in what the government did. Whether the government was intentional or not I don't think they tended to do what happened was they allowed the church's history to comment -- -- remember congress. But talked about the credibility of Andy Petit and his life. And that's important because -- it was gonna testified. That Clemens told him that he used. The perform the reforms and so. Well I did my -- to -- that the government will go for retrial they'll probably get it but I think -- judges is right now. It is at least at this point and whether he took a look at September -- have a hearing on pretrial misusing their religious feel like the government really messed up. And they waste a lot of time and money. And so do you think that the judges upset on the legal grounds. Com or that he was personally upset that he was disobeyed. You know while I think it's a little bit of both because. Legally it's bad -- because now the jury has seeking. Comment that go to the credibility of one of the key witnesses for the government. And that would mean that security inclined to believe the key witness over the descending on -- but I also think part of it is he just at the the idea that while the church is made this order. And then you go up there initial screen tech completely contradicts what the -- wanted at pretty bad and that's inappropriate. What intentionally you know it probably will not a suspect it was a a lower level person. Who -- despite together forgot to redact certain comments. And it supervisor didn't catch it and then disaster happens. I guess it doesn't matter. If my -- to this question is accurate and -- once the judge makes his ruling makes his ruling but. I want and I and I -- a better understanding as to why. With Laura -- heard or said. Isn't admissible because as we go through this it was Roger who said that -- patted on this remembered what he told them. And I would think their wallets. If hearsay is they're ready refers to it that -- panic could confirm. What her husband. Told her that he didn't miss remember it -- minutes hours after the fact that he went home and told her. I would think that she would have something valuable to say. And I think you would I think eventually. That would have gotten and what did you want it to deter one's comments that went to the credibility of the witnesses at least this point in the trial. That's some of what he would deny it could have been admitted later particularly its. Clemens had gone after Brian McNamee which look which is -- entity is -- because then edit comments. Would have been more -- to agree with you work with McNamee and also is quite common but at this point of the trial just didn't want that. -- you and -- in the courtroom right. The have you been able to track down any of your -- year you're contemporaries who were in the courtroom. Let me ask you this and this is something that's been no Miami lost 24 hours. Win. Of economic base for Portland is a good when you go back 2003 game seven ALCS. And and and Jim Capel we have been dot com to back me up on this when Pedro when the Red Sox batting. In the top of the sixth inning I turn it looked to the bullpen and I said why is nobody warming up. He said in an adhesive what do you mean it's it is anybody warming up -- Pedro can come back out he's done. And Capel said on the -- warming up in other -- I could see what was gonna happen. Were there of people -- and knowledge in the courtroom yesterday as this even even before the judge went what oh this is done. -- the people as this evidence is being present it's having a -- all big trouble. I don't think so ST I don't think people saw that. How important quality you do it slide it wasn't smart and -- traumatic thing -- was -- there on the street and Clinton lawyers currently detect I don't know -- resting heart or -- was some and ultimately looking in but they noticed it and in the judge sought. So I think it was more just it's up on the street not a I want it needs is a dramatic moment or say but it was dramatic when the -- Detected. When the defense -- technically I don't I wouldn't that I think the courtroom happens -- I'm -- some people in the courtroom. New -- that statute up there. That gets a one in my earlier questions as to whether or not. This was a Bill Buckner moment where the government just totally blew it in didn't know. -- might -- suggestion is that if did they intentionally. Tried to circumvent the judge's order knowing what is being shown. Or did they not see it did they not know was on there was going to be -- damaging. So Bob -- Believe that the agents. Literally it's almost like a ball complexity. Thought it was not a big deal and they didn't they weren't able to. You know figure out what was on the slide apparently export it put them up there or did they get -- on the and it didn't double check them yet I think at the careless mistakes I think it's it's not doing their due diligence. This supply and product put together by someone who it was it was responsibility to get it slide introductory tax certain words. And nobody checked to make sure that the -- happened and you know a couple people etc. carpet they are trying to sneak in. Eight people in Howell that's that's a bad idea because I agree that you know Clement has that -- team and not many descendants. Have a team of lawyers representing some one can see it. And the lawyers in the courtroom were buried at certain -- -- so I don't think you're trying to sneak into that our first. Mike I give you credit from getting away from some of the legalese and speaking of this trial in language that people like me can and a stamp is on my train in the law. But let me take you back the beginning of this trial will we -- going in dynasty in the -- the loopholes in the mistakes in the gaps that was Korea right now. But if the prosecution is up to -- that plays its game properly. They do win this correct. And I hate to use the tower of wind because. -- Mac and he really was was gonna -- Actor if you went up there and -- as well before the courtroom etiquette before congress. Yet you the government wins but it's going to be harder -- so -- been harder at McNamee testified having defense lawyers. Question him on cross examination that that the members of congress to that they can make. McNamee into just an unbelievable person. Disreputable all of those things. I increments that it decent chance but but if McNamee really good and -- altered by -- -- yeah I think Clement would want down. Mike I listen I I don't know in terms of what McNamee is is truthful what he's what he's saying it's accurate with the -- and so forth. What I do know is that I interviewed him provide our couple years ago he. They it wasn't too long after the oh wait thing of Washington. He spoke at a vitamin supplements store never casinos one of the owners in and I was invited. Two gold interviews in it was the only reportedly allowed in there on the globally TO locked up for some reason they invited me -- I got to spend an hour this guy alone. And again I can't sit here and tell you he's honest he's a -- what I do know is he comes across to me. As. I don't wanna say believable but that is that there's a -- thing Hammond and her to him. That I think might work in a courtroom and again I'm speaking not so what he says but how he says. That counts doesn't it. It is absolutely count Stephen that was the reason why not Clement would never testified speakers Hewitt the opposite the position are you well there. Kind of arrogant defiant. All of these things that might work really well -- post would have. But for McNamee in from what I've heard him talking -- all that he seem serious and genuine in his style is much more enduring. And much more credible based on the surface. Then Clemens I think if you -- contrast to the idea I think McNamee would have done -- you always should McNamee has just Hollywood responded to. Extremely hard questions that people who would make a living at it during cross examination that that would have him. Question that any of us would would struggle -- and you really winner and Stan. But he got that he got that no wait -- burden any any didn't back down. If anything what we -- -- I too wondered clemens' lawyers would -- little more adapt and some of the members of congress but you know. He is he he could have done very well. Regarding the issue of of another trial. Does it. Factor into it at all that word that this is a case about lying to congress as opposed to a murder trial. Does the judge. Let that play any part in his decision making. Well thought tactically. She shouldn't because -- you pretrial authorities started it it was a meritorious trial in the sense that. There's an indictment the government chose to prosecute. And the question of whether distribution reach throw relieves and narrow question. It goes to double jeopardy in the limited double jeopardy having sent that -- -- and sort that let the world all the fact this is not. And are chattering case that it Roger Clemens is ultimately not convicted. For lying to congress to world will go on as opposed to a murder. Or something far more serious I no doubt that plays factor although technically they're really just goes to that didn't narrow legal issue whether early child is more not. Is they was Michelman camp from SI dot com he breaks it all down if you go to SI dot com on this trial Mike it's a it's a pleasure having on the program this morning. All right they carry itself. Point 0850 AT&T text line is up and running if you -- text us. A lot wanna go. -- around he's gonna join us later on this morning so stay with us.

Weei Writers