Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Former all-star baseball pitcher Roger Clemens (C) becomes emotional while talking to the news media after he was found not guilty on 13 counts of perjury and obstruction outside the Prettyman U.S. Court House June 18, 2012 in Washington, DC. The former Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees pitcher's original trial in 2011 was declared a mistrial after the judge said the prosecution presented inadmissible testimony that prejudiced the jury. A seven-time Cy Young Award winner, Clemens is on trial for making false statements, perjury and obstructing Congress when he testified about steroid use during a February 2008 inquiry by the House Oversight and Government Affairs.
Barry Bonds was convicted on one of four counts of obstruction of justice last year. John Edwards was recently acquitted on one count and the jury could not reach a verdict on the other five counts related to his campaign finance fraud case. And now Roger Clemens walks after he was tried for obstruction and lying to Congress. These cases have reignited concerns that the Department of Justice is wasting its resources on unsubstantiated witch hunts instead of focusing on more grounded and clear-cut matters of justice.
Is the Clemens case an example of federal prosecutors going after high profile people to gain public approval? Are these trials an effective use of taxpayer dollars? Should matters that involve major league baseball be settled by MLB?
Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
Rick Dunham, DC bureau chief, Houston Chronicle