Prosecutors Say Clemens Should Face Another Trial

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Prosecutors in the Roger Clemens perjury case said Friday they had made an honest mistake in showing jurors inadmissible evidence and that shouldn't save the baseball star from facing a new trial.

The prosecutors filed arguments disputing Clemens' position that a second trial would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy by making him face the same charges twice.

Clemens had argued the showing of the evidence was a deliberate ploy to invoke a mistrial because the prosecutors' case was going badly.

But the prosecutors say their case remains strong and Clemens wants to "gain an unwarranted windfall from this inadvertent error."

The prosecutors said it was an oversight when they showed jurors a video clip that mentioned that Clemens' teammate told his wife that Clemens admitted using performance-enhancing drugs -- evidence the judge had ruled inadmissible.

Read: Guards Under Investigation For Accepting Baseballs From Clemens

The filing is the prosecutors' first public admission of wrongdoing in the case and first explanation of what went wrong.

"Appropriate redaction was the government's duty," the prosecutors wrote. "The government accepts responsibility for its oversight, and regrets the burdens that error has placed on this court and defendant." But they argued the mistake was due to the press of other trial matters and was not intentional.

That's an important point for the prosecutors to make to the judge. Normally when a defendant requests a mistrial, a second trial is not considered double jeopardy. The exception would be when the judge finds prosecutors intentionally provoked a mistrial.

The sudden ending to Clemens' trial came only on the second day of evidence in what was supposed to be a four- to six-week case.

Prosecutors were showing jurors a video of Clemens' 2008 testimony before Congress in which he denied ever using performance-enhancing drugs during his 24-season career. Clemens is charged with lying under oath when he made that denial.

In the video, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., pointed out that Clemens' good friend and teammate, Andy Pettitte, says Clemens admitted using human growth hormone in a private conversation in 1999 or 2000. Clemens responded that Pettitte "misheard" or "misremembered" their conversation.

But Cummings said Pettitte's wife, Laura, has given lawmakers an affidavit saying that her husband told her about the conversation with Clemens at the time it happened.

Walton had ruled before the trial began that Laura Pettitte's comments were inadmissible hearsay because she didn't speak to Clemens directly. He scolded the prosecutors for a move that a "first-year law student" would have known to avoid and said Clemens couldn't get a fair trial with a jury that had seen the video.

Prosecutors pointed out that Walton's ruling on Laura Pettitte's statement came on the day before the trial was set to begin and long after their exhibits had been prepared. The prosecutors said while they should have redacted their exhibits to comply with Walton's ruling, they were preoccupied with jury selection, opening statements and other trial matters.

"Unfortunately, neither government counsel additionally focused on whether the substance of Laura Pettitte's testimony might be embedded in a question of one of defendant's congressional interlocutors," said the filing.

The prosecutors said the reference to Laura Pettitte "would have been removed had government counsel adequately focused on it."

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)