SI.com's Michael McCann talks Roger Clemens

Back on WEEI Eric freedom Bob Bryan along with telling Malone and Ford DNC and meter today the Roger Clemens case will pick up some steam. This weekend joining us on the line is Mike McCann writes for SI dot com a professor at the University of Vermont Bob Bryan that it took a veiled shot at stole earlier in the -- why Michael is. -- is all I praise Luke -- what I raced go to keep let me take it to even mention. And a stole Vermont in the same breath as one of those Alpine of one of those beautiful French villages is an enormous compliment. To Mike Mike you step into that you're our second Vermont reference to that but you're here to talk about. I I think I'm going to turn out but I don't think that's displayed at Vermont it it's. But he context. Cut Bob Bob -- -- while we -- we're asking you to put this clemens' case -- the context of what is happening at this week because were expecting to. Yet there are the first week probably won't have a lot of fireworks it's going to be curious selection which can redistricting process the utility is gonna. And a -- pick news story. In addition what about opening statements by the party and there will get a sense that toward. Each side is gonna arguing the case going forward we're gonna hear them say he if priests. Outline cure RIQ points in essence. The look as dark as to what the government is gonna focus on it I think we'll -- learn how Clemens will defend themselves and I suspect it's gonna be a mix of going after Brian McNamee and saying this guy's not trustworthy. Going after -- edit and saying he's trustworthy but he missed remembering what happened. And going after the physical evidence this -- it's -- Brian McNamee how can you trust and so it goes are going to be key arguments for hundreds. You. Made allusion to I'll admit -- discussed Rusty Hardin mrs. primary -- and also Michael -- -- not -- I when I was in Texas. During the season. I was told by guys claimed he -- rusty gardens is that the guy he's the guy you want I mean although duke duke went out. It just for some questions about the strategy has been implemented in now Roger has Roger but ignoring Rusty -- advice to do some of the things he's done or investigate control do you think yes controller Roger enough. They did did get the job done properly. -- -- I don't know if you fundamentally it's hard to know what what -- dynamic between the two of them I've heard that. Clemens really likes. As a lawyer either sort of it'll kick ball in the courtroom very very aggressive. Kinda has got a certain level of arrogance that can help you in trials and inter Clement -- happened at this position on the mountainside -- like that an ardent. Well it's it's. Heartened that by being ignored at every step -- replicate I don't think are gonna be represented in so I know some has sent welcomed into your own thing but if that's true. I -- have a heart and matching -- would go along. Which attacked her interpretation because that is not the trial not helped. Rescue part interpretation record and number mistake there was going on sixty minutes. They're -- urging congress to invite him and then to go to congress before the hearing and and try to charm and -- totally backfired. There's the civil case in Brian McNamee that it only let other revelations about climate and hasn't helped in part actually is very unlikely the work so. So far the strategy at work you're right -- Rusty -- reputation as a trial court system that limited context is very good he represented Calvin -- to send him. He represented other celebrities and also regular people. He's in trial that worries had a lot of success so this may -- is moments redeemed himself I think. It's gonna it's gonna come down really hard and performance in court. And we'll find out soon. -- Michael McCann is our guest talked about the Roger Clemens trial -- I I think. I'm not alone in this feeling that YA is this continuing on we know we can just kind of look at Clemens and say well my gosh. You know he's he's a guy who's just in denial and wire we going through the expense and all these. This whole process of following through the federal government following through on this trial in this perjury case. Has there been any thought on in your part Michael that well you know they should just kind of let this go or is this something that should be followed through. And it's. The government's doing the right thing by sticking with this case. There are a miracle worker I actually think the government should prosecute but I think if the government believes that -- -- went to congress. He just repeated the lie tellingly. And he really tried percent of the situation which he he would use congress. Ally. To redeem his baseball career and reputation -- a legacy. I I think that's ground. For being prosecuted -- that this is it's a very flagrant way but pretty perjury perjury is that generally. But the manner in which he allegedly did I think is worse I think. It also sent the message generally that you can't do these -- thing that you there will be held accountable. If congress and the Justice Department believes equipment knowingly lied repeatedly it is very. Sort of confident way boastful way. And then they did not -- I think eligible what we're having -- law and -- and you spoke. I understand people are frustrated with the steroids era in the amount of money that the federal government has spent. On prosecuting Clemens and Barry Bonds and that money could be used elsewhere in tax breaks -- -- used to pay. For all sorts of paper and in our country certainly. You know need money and where in the wreck but. He should take that away and say -- Clinton really the issue to the prosecution has cracked inclement did what they claim. It's pretty egregious and I think it doesn't -- prostitution. Let's back up second because the news his trial and the Barry Bonds recently into the trial perjury trials and I think everyone. Understands. On the concept that this it's certainly long to lie under oath capital await TH under oath that -- in and that's circumstance. And yet the the the the transgressions -- use of performance enhancing drugs. Do you think that the public is tired of that though that would they differentiate. Is if Roger is convicted will they tickets because he used drugs or because of that it is -- -- -- don't understand it's about perjury and not about actually would -- he did the cause perjury. You know I think because the hearing the public because they are so much attention. Because we saw repeated news that that I I think public with Clemens will lead a better job associating. Is alleged criminal action -- perjury whereas with -- I think. We never saw the grand jury is done and pride that it's. It seemed like -- is really just about steroids I think cure because you're hearing was so public and reported on there's a better chance but I'll say that's what about committing perjury. As a post -- but I do agree that. It's hard to separate two things. Photographer Michael McCann about the Roger Clemens case starts Wednesday the United States vs Roger Clemens and who has the tougher case here is it. The prosecution for the defense because you've heard the term reasonable doubt is certainly in play here right Michael. Yeah definitely I think the -- is really gonna come down Brian McNamee I execute the most important person in the trial. It's. Clemens -- lawyers can basically portray him as an opportunist liar. Near two -- all of these these negative associations and fruit he's done some questionable things in the past Brian McNamee is not. By any means ideal witness he -- telling the truth now but in the past he. Apparently what its -- interest. So I think it's really gonna come down to how well he testifies. To cross examination of Brian McNamee could be the most pivotal moment in the trial. I think you brought it it directly if the problems reveal him to be inconsistent. Questionable. Sort of what would dubious ethics. I think Clemens has an excellent chance of winning it though Brian McNamee performs as he did before congress which is very good. I think there's a very good chance and will be convicted because of the jury believes -- With help from Andy Pettitte who will say that. I'm told them that he used steroids. Or HGH the it's gonna be tough for Clinton to win and I think those two witnesses in particular Mac it means that it. They're going to be the deciding factors. Yeah Michael -- on -- its role in all this. You mention about McNamee and there's a maybe a little bit of a shady past and and that's were hard and and and his team will attack but. You know here's Andy -- who has admitted suited his role and in steroid use but I I would imagine is. Would that be considered the star witness for the prosecution. I think edited and -- is he noted Kirk had no package right here on this is well respected. There's nothing negative about -- that we knows. As to what some things are built in this case -- -- -- -- the possibility that the it would seem like and it will be very believable so I think what the defense has to do repetitive to say. He's telling the truth as he remembers that the problem that he doesn't remember correctly that the conversation which control for eleven or twelve years ago. It was a one time conversation. Can you really convict Roger Clemens based on one conversation from twelve years ago. That edited out trying to remember. Couldn't Clinton to comment to make it into context during the conversation. Maybe it was just joking all of these things to say there's gonna be reasonable doubt so that -- -- -- with that it will not be character it will be his memory and the idea that conversation happened so long ago can really -- -- like a -- general question about juries. As is it's evolved in the last twenty years -- so. Have a system Menendez trial I think a lot of people myself included have become and an OJ in the OJ trial become very skeptical about juries. Has the legal community had a radical shift in the way that it in views juries in regards jury empowerment and so forth. Or is it and if so is it restricted -- should get very more serious crimes murder and and things as opposed to something like this. Yep I think there has been an evolution particularly in the jury selection process that. Firms will hire experts to people who work site. People were with background psychology. In the -- sciences that they can go in there and -- jury selection. And and understand what you're thinking can come up where it. Different formulas basically for picking jurors or at least project for any side getting the jurors they want -- -- could become much worse scientific process. Much more involved in and I think that. Has helped some attorneys. Her cases so that they know what will work that your and they can. They can shake their argument to appeal to the particulars that that's also the people who happen to be on the giving jury shall. Civil and much more scientific much upper site and there's no question that Clinton and is going to be spending a lot of money on -- -- process. The question is will Roger Clemens spent a lot of time in jail and say everything goes the way the prosecution. Wants to in his perjury trial what is Clemens looking at as far as jail time. Eric if he's convicted on all counts it's facing about fifteen to 21 months that the sentencing guidelines that the recommendation from the guidelines. That judge Walton could deviate from that he could say I -- it really is on the politics. I don't like him let's give them a stronger sentence that you would send a message or he could find Clinton's. More appealing for whatever reason he gave him a shorter sentence but. The targeted -- fifteen to twenty months now he's only convicted on Warner two counts then what will likely impose a much shorter sentence. It possibly can sign home confinement which is what Eric on. Physically so that's what he'll get ultimately. So it really will depend on the extent to which is convicted. And -- also be fines involved as well or he used to be found not guilty to walk street if it's on jury to be tried. One thing we know for sure it seems rusty and Roger are digging their heels in on this that they're gonna they're gonna -- -- -- to the bitter end right. Yeah I can't see any apoplectic. Happening that this I think at moment has passed that you never know maybe. Maybe they do some soul searching the night before the trial and the prospect of being sent to prison but. I just I don't see to plea deal happening I think this goes to trial I think I'm still popular and that they can go after McNamee technical after at its memory stick and -- the physical evidence. And not true necessarily that is not that their input but show it is not guilty which is a different standard. Wallace -- his change of heart that trial begins this week we jury selection Michael McCann we appreciate your time this morning. Certainly our thanks guys Mike McCann from University of Vermont also -- writing for SI dot com we'll get your thoughts on -- 6177790850. Toll free 888525. Zurich fifty on sports rated.