Commentary

Attorneys sought juror connections

It seemed Clemens-trial lawyers sought fairness in jurors, but that's not the case

Updated: July 12, 2011, 7:37 PM ET
By Lester Munson | ESPN.com

If you listened to the language and the rhetoric of the lawyers over the past several days in court as they selected the jury that will decide the Roger Clemens perjury case, it sounded as if they were searching diligently for fair and impartial jurors.

That's the last thing they wanted.

The prosecutors, Daniel Butler and Steven Durham, and Clemens' lead lawyer agreed on one thing -- they looked for jurors who were leaning in their respective directions.

If attorneys couldn't be sure potential jurors were leaning in their direction (and they couldn't be), they used the questions to connect with the jurors on some personal level and to lay the foundation for the evidence and the arguments they will present during the trial.

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, one of America's great trial lawyers, demonstrated his prowess in the final phase of the jury selection Tuesday.

When a prospective juror mentioned he was a Redskins fan, for example, Hardin quickly said, "I know what you think of the Cowboys."

When the juror replied that he "didn't care much for the Cowboys," Hardin was ready. Pointing to Clemens sitting at the trial table, he told the juror, "Don't forget that we are from Houston."

The same juror, who now is a member of the panel that will decide whether Clemens is guilty, hesitated and looked puzzled when Hardin asked him for the ages of his four children. Reacting instantly to the juror's distress, Hardin assured the juror: "Don't worry -- if you're incorrect, they will never know it."

When Hardin noticed another prospective juror carrying a cyclist's helmet, he asked whether the juror had ridden a bike to the courthouse. The juror replied, "Yes, I left it outside the building, and I hope it is still there when I leave."

Hardin then asked him, "Have you ever been a victim of a crime?" When the juror said he had not been a victim of a crime, Hardin assured him, "You're on a roll. Your bike will be there."

Prosecutors Durham and Butler, like prosecutors everywhere, relied less on personal charm and more on the dignity and the importance of their roles as representative of the U.S. government. They were nearly robotic in their approaches but did probe each potential juror about whether he or she was a sports fan, finding that almost all were not interested in sports and did not have favorite teams.

Hardin also used the jury selection process to set up issues that he will pursue as the trial continues.

As he interviewed the prospective jurors, he repeatedly asked them to agree with him that the "U.S. government can be wrong." The jurors always agreed, including several who work for government agencies.

He reminded the potential jurors that Clemens, as he sat in the courtroom during the jury selection process, was not guilty, telling the jurors that "you cannot change your mind on that until the government proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

It also was apparent from Hardin's questions to jurors that he will attack the congressional investigation into performance-enhancing drug use in Major League Baseball.

"We want to keep Congress out of everything, but we really want to keep Congress out of sports, don't we?" he asked a juror, who quickly agreed with Hardin.

It appears that as Clemens faces powerful evidence that he lied to Congress, Hardin will try to turn the jury's attention to the House committee that investigated MLB.

If Congress did not pass any legislation, Hardin will argue, why was it conducting the hearing?

It's a legal technique known as jury nullification, persuading the jury that even though there is evidence of guilt, it is of no consequence. It's a tricky maneuver that frequently backfires, but Hardin and Clemens face a situation in which they must try anything and everything.

With both Hardin and the prosecutors performing at high levels, the jury selection process offered a preview of the trial. Despite the apparently powerful evidence against Clemens, Hardin's defense will make it a close call.

Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Great AP roundup of complicated #Clemens testimony friday. Note use of "quintillion." Even more than a gazillion. http://t.co/39s0RcqP
    about 6 hours ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    So have a wonderful weekend, everyone. Going to hop a train back to Jersey. Adios until Tuesday morning.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    And that's it. Anthony Corso, here to testify that McNamee told him about evidence and #Clemens' HGH use, will return to NY for the weekend.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Juror 16, truly sorry for your loss.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    That means the trial would continue with only one alternate.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Judge says juror 16's mother just died. Court is over for the day. He'll revisit the subject Tues, but trial might have to continue w/o her.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    That's it for DNA expert Alan Keel. 5-min break for jury. We're going to 5 pm today.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    After folo Q from Saleski, Keel says didn't expect to find much DNA on needle.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    In response to Q, Keel says US Atty's office in NoCal used his lab at least five times.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    RT @jimbaumbach: The record for juror questions for a witness in this case was 29, set by Brian McNamee. But the DNA expert is coming cl ...
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Explains contamination would be if he accidentally got his own DNA in the sample, in which case he would have said "oh crap." His words.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    @Buster_ESPN indeed. the beer can expert seemed to get a lot less scrutiny from the jurors.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Keel tries to explain that contamination isn't what that juror (and possibly other jurors) seems to think it is.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Juror Q: How can you be sure bio material didn't contaminate something if you didn't test everything? Bad Q for the govt.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    In response to Q, Keel says didn't know stuff was in can and he didn't test can.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    One wants to know if popping blood blister on needle could produce result. (Does that really seem likely to someone?)
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Two Qs about when evidence was collected. He can't say from the evidence.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Similar Q from another juror. A: You don't call it a "match" until you eliminate "all the people who ever lived on the planet."
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Q: How common to conclude "match" w 6-12 cells? A: That's the rub. There's no "match." Just likely it's #Clemens. He can't be eliminated.
    1 day ago     
  • TJQuinnESPN T.J. Quinn
    Q's show the jury continues to take testimony very seriously.
    1 day ago