Regards from the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. 

18 prospective jurors  have now been questioned in court in the voir dire (jury selectio)n phase of the Roger Clemens perjury trial.   7 were dismissed for “cause.”  11 others answered questions to the satisfaction of the judge and were instructed to return at 9am on Tuesday 7/12.  (Judge Reggie Walton wants 36 before both sides use their peremptory strikes… insuring there will be at least 16 jurors at the end of this process.  (12 jurors/4 alternates.)  It’s worth noting that opening arguments in this case, if they happen on Tuesday, would come just hours before Major League Baseball’s “All-Star Game.”  Talk about timing.

 A few highlights from today’s voir dire:   One member of the jury pool was quickly dismissed this morning because she “thought this was a one day trial” and had serious work conflicts if it wasn’t.   Another jury pool member, with a thick Chinese accent, was removed when it became clear that he could barely speak and/or understand English.  (Anybody know how the phrase ”human growth hormone” would translate into Chinese?)  And a young woman was dismissed after one question when she broke down in tears and wept to the judge about her “difficult pregnancy.”  Bravo to each of these citizens for respecting the process and showing up. While the questioning this morning revolved around whether jurors have conflicts, can be fair in their judgments, and are willing to presume Clemens innocent until proven guilty… the hearing was most remarkable when testimony tumbled out about the state of potential jurors’ marriages and sports fanaticism.  One woman said she “doesn’t watch sports” but acknowledged that her husband “can’t go to sleep at night until he knows whether the Nationals have won or lost.”   She said, “if I’m sitting with my husband and want to be with him, I’ll watch the sports highlights.”  I wondered what she meant by the phrase ”be with him…” but the lawyers didn’t follow up.  In any case, the woman made it clear she is not a baseball fan.  She said, “the last time I went to a game was because it was opera night.”  The prosecutor asked, “you didn’t go to see baseball?”  She said, “No, I went to watch the opera at the stadium.”  La Boheme at a baseball stadium?  Anybody in tumblr or twitter land know which franchise she may have been talking about?  Several prospective jurors, when asked about their knowledge/interest in sports as expressed on their written questionnaire, spoke about the obsession with Redskins.  An elderly, blunt speaking woman who grew up in South Carolina and worked in DC for 40 + years doing H.R. for the marines said, “I’m a redskins fan, it’s something I have to do.”  She said she “never watches baseball.”  But when the Redskins are playing, “I don’t think anybody can find me.”  She then explained, however, that her love of the team “doesn’t keep me from doing other things I have to do.”  She prompted widespread laughter in court when she blurted out, ”it’s important to have a DVR or VCR.”  The woman was asked if she ever bets or gambles on her sports passion.  She responded, again to more laughter, ”just because I’m a die hard redskins fan don’t mean I have to gamble and lose my money.”  Indeed. One prospective juror, who made it through the questioning and was instructed to return on Tuesday, initially seemed to know a fair amount about baseball in general and about Clemens in particular.  She said she “often attends games,” and even “watched Clemens pitch on several occasions.”  She then noted that Clemens had “played for the Red Sox, Astros, and other teams.”  Under questioning by the prosecutor, her baseball knowledge came a bit unraveled.  She said, “I know that Mr. Clemens is a member of the baseball hall of fame,” (he isn’t) and ”remembered when he was nominated.” (He has not been nominated.)  While members of Clemens family appeared to wince, Clemens himself sat at the defense table expressionless. One interesting development about trial strategy:   There are already some strong indications that Roger Clemens will not take the witness stand in this trial.   With each prospective juror, Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin has been spending several minutes probing whether they understand that the defense has “no obligation” to put on a case or have Mr. Clemens testify.  Hardin has repeatedly asked, “if Mr. Clemens does not testify, and you believe the prosecution did not meet every element listed by the judge to get beyond reasonable doubt, would you have any reluctance finding Mr. Clemens not guilty?” One personal observation.  The Clemens trial is certainly intriguing.  Furthermore, lying under oath to Congress or anybody else is a big deal.  Still, if the DOJ felt it was necessary to pursue perjury charges against Clemens for allegedly lying to Congress about steroid use… shouldn’t the DOJ have brought charges against Bush AG Alberto Gonzales for allegedly lying about the politically motivated firings of federal prosecutors?