Why DNA evidence doesn't sink Clemens

6 Comments

In response to my post regarding the problems the prosecution may have convicting Clemens, reader Anthony E. emailed me and basically asked why does anyone care about McNamee’s credibility if the feds have DNA evidence related to Clemens and PEDs (which they do).

Good question! And, as I noted over a year ago, it actually renders the McNamee credibility thing more problematic for prosecutors, not less.

You’ll recall that the blood and DNA evidence came from drug paraphernalia.  You’ll also recall that the drug paraphernalia came from . . . Brian McNamee. Who had kept it. In his house. For years.  This is a bit of a problem.

Sure, it would be better for Clemens if PEDs and his blood weren’t found on those syringes, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to be familiar with the concept of chain of custody. As in, what happened to those syringes in between the time McNamee allegedly injected Clemens and the time — years later — he turned them over to federal investigators.

Clemens’ defense lawyers will be able to attack the reliability of this evidence on the basis
that it wasn’t preserved properly and was always at risk of
contamination. They’ll be able to establish that Brian McNamee had access to PEDs. They’ll be able to establish that Brian McNamee had
access to Clemens blood via the vitamin shots or whatever Clemens says
McNamee gave him. They’ll be able to establish that Brian
McNamee’s apartment is no lab and, if I had to guess, probably looks
like the kind of place in which you used to wake up still drunk and
covered in beer cans and pizza boxes when you were in college.  Most importantly, they’ll be able — as I said earlier today — that Brian McNamee is a demonstrated liar, thereby discounting any explanation he has for what happened to this evidence over the years.  As he must for it to be admissible.

In other words, any presumption that the syringe evidence is pure and
true would be pretty hard to take. This is especially true in a world
where half of the potential jurors watch CSI three times a week and thus
have elevated expectations as to the quality of forensic evidence.

Again: this doesn’t mean that Clemens is going to skate. But it does mean that the presence of DNA evidence may not be nearly as damning in this case as it is in other criminal prosecutions.

Derek Jeter wants to get rid of the Marlins’ home run sculpture

Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Derek Jeter, part-owner of the Marlins, met with Miami-Dade County mayor Carlos Gimenez on Tuesday afternoon at Marlins Park, Douglas Hanks of the Miami Herald reports. They discussed potentially removing the home run sculpture from the ballpark, something that has been on Jeter’s to-do list since he took over.

Gimenez said of the sculpture, “I just don’t think they’re all that crazy about it. I’m not a fan. We’re looking at it. … We’ll see if anything can be done.”

According to Hanks, the sculpture is public property because it was purchased as part of the Art in Public Places program, which requires art to be installed for the public in county-owned buildings. Michael Spring, the cultural chief for Miami-Dade who was present with Jeter and Gimenez on Tuesday, had previously said that the sculpture was “not moveable” and was “permanently installed” because it was designed “specifically” for Marlins Park. On Tuesday, Spring said, “Anything is possible. But it is pretty complicated. And I wanted the mayor and the Marlins to understand how complicated it really was. We got a good look at it today, and they saw how big it was. There’s hydraulics, there’s plumbing, there’s electricity.”

With Jeter having traded Giancarlo Stanton, Marcell Ozuna, and Dee Gordon this offseason, the home run sculpture is arguably one of the last remaining interesting things about the Marlins in 2018. Naturally, he wants to get rid of it.