Opinion: Feds squander prosecutorial resources

Editorial

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The New York Post on Roger Clemens being acquitted of charges he lied to Congress about banned substances:

Former New York Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens shut out Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department, winning acquittals on all six lying-to-Congress counts brought against him.

So here's a thought: Maybe the feds should take a little more care with the cases they bring against high-profile defendants.

Clemens' verdict came just weeks after a jury failed to convict former Sen. John Edwards of campaign-finance violations, prompting prosecutors to drop what many believed from the outset to be a shaky case.

Clemens just simply refused to believe that he'd perjured himself by telling a congressional inquiry that he'd never used steroids or human growth hormone during his Major League career.

An earlier case against Clemens ended in a mistrial on only its second day because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The feds certainly might better have let matters lie back then. Instead, they followed through on a case that had lasted nearly four years and cost taxpayers millions.

Clemens, of course, isn't the only superstar targeted — vainly — by the Justice Department. Home-run slugger Barry Bonds was convicted on just one count last year in a case involving performance-enhancing drugs. That one ended in a sentence of 30 days of house arrest.

And a two-year criminal investigation of champion cyclist Lance Armstrong ended without charges — or public explanation.

Armstrong, of course, was back in the news recently when new — noncriminal — substance-abuse allegations were leveled.

And neither Bonds nor Clemens is likely ever to escape suspicions of steroid use.

Not that we're suggesting that celebrities deserve special protection from the law.

But prosecutors have a responsibility to allocate their limited time and (taxpayer-funded) resources wisely. And the Clemens case in particular — like the Edwards prosecution — was a waste of both.

Both may be reprehensible human beings — but that's not against the law.

Their respective juries appear to have performed responsibly. Which is more than can be said for the Justice Department.

Online:

http://www.nypost.com

More like this story

tonto_goldberg 11 months ago

My wife used to work for someone who would come into the staff area occasionally and tell everyone they were working on the wrong stuff. I believe he could have written this article. Does the writer seriously believe that federal prosecutors should only pursue obvious cases, like the one against the amazingly muscular Barry Bonds? They won - one count - in that case. I think winning any conviction is a big deal in our celebrity-worshiping culture.

Does the truth matter? Have we all got stuck in the Richard Nixon mode, where there are no moral standards and we substitute winning and losing?

kentheco 11 months ago

Maybe if they prosecuted and exported the illegal aliens they could accomplish something. Oh wait, Obama won't let them enforce immigration laws currently on the books. I know, let's go after those dangerous athletes who may be ruining their lives using performance-enhancing drugs, no need to go after those in the government that sent weapons to Mexico, or the TSA employees who, while hired to protect us, have been involved in drug smuggling or aren’t even US citizens. No publicity there.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune