I think Andy Pettitte’s testimony actually helped Roger Clemens’ case rather than hurt it in that it introduced uncertainty and uncertainty is bad when you have the burden of proof. Despite this, the defense moved to strike Pettitte’s testimony last week, arguing that it was contradictory, inconclusive and therefore useless. The judge ruled on that today and Clemens’ side lost:
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected a defense motion Monday to strike Pettitte’s testimony about a contested conversation a dozen years ago about human growth hormone. Pettitte testified two weeks ago that Clemens said he had used HGH – only to say under cross-examination he might have misunderstood their conversation.
Basically, the judge is going to allow the jury to infer what they may from the testimony. They could infer that Pettitte had no real knowledge of anything Clemens did. On the other hand they could infer that Clemens did in fact tell Pettitte that he used HGH and that he later lied about or Pettitte was covering for him or whatever (which is why the defense wanted to strike it, even if it wasn’t want the prosecution wanted Pettitte to say). It stands on its own for whatever it’s worth.
The judge also struck down the defense’s attempt to try to get Brian McNamee’s divorce records, calling it a “fishing expedition.” Which is an insult to the certainty one usually finds in fishing expeditions. Besides, this trial is now in week number five. Anything that gets it to the end quicker is a good thing, so hooray for the ruling.