I was watching CNN yesterday waiting to see Roger Clemens testify. I was stunned when Committee Chairman Henry Waxman stated in his opening statement that he intended to conclude the hearings without the testimony of Roger Clemens. Chairman Waxman said that he agreed to continue the hearings only because Roger Clemens’ lawyers begged for him to have a chance to make a statement.
If subpoenaed, Roger Clemens should have decided to take the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Even if innocent of a charge of taking a banned substance or drug, Roger Clemens could be convicted of perjury for lying. Roger Clemens maybe experienced on the ball field, but not in this arena. Even if innocent, it’s very easy for him to fall into a trap. Don’t forget that Martha Stewart went to prison for perjury because she lied to federal investigators about facts which were not even a crime.
Why would his lawyers be so determined to request an appearance? They probably were not. It was probably Roger Clemens who demanded that his lawyers request that he be allowed to testify. Roger Clemens probably thought that he needed to defend his reputation in this very important in public forum. Only a client could believe that some good could come out of his testimony. A client like Roger Clemens, used to intimidating players and being in control on the baseball field, probably thought that he could control the direction of the hearing and opinions of the public. His lawyers must have advised him of all of the reasons he should not request an appearance, but he most likely insisted.
Roger Clemens’ lawyers would have to either comply or withdraw from representation. I can not criticize a lawyer for refusing to withdraw when a client does not comply. Every lawyer, including myself, has had cases which we have declined to take; cases we have withdrawn from; and cases which we have considered withdrawing from but did not. After all, why should I fire myself because my client does not agree with me?
Roger Clemens had absolutely nothing to benefit by testifying, either legally or or with regards to public relations. If Roger Clemens had not appeared, he could continue to maintain that he did not take illegal steroid drugs and claim that it was unfair for the hearings to take place without his chance to make a statement. Most people will want to believe him. Now, he cannot say that.
By appearing today at the hearings, he opened up himself to a severe, detailed and condemning opening statement by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on national TV for everyone to see. The opening statement alone, brought up facts and details which many people were probably not aware of, including myself. Before, he was a star who was accused of something which he denied. After listening to Chairman Henry Waxman, he sounded very guilty.
Besides the publicity nightmare that surely did not go the way Roger Clemens thought it would, there are the legal implications although that might actually be his smallest problem. There has been talk that even if he is convicted of perjury, he could be pardoned by President Bush because he is a friend of the president.
If Roger Clemens is found to have lied and convicted of perjury, that would just lead to worsening publicity further damaging his reputation. In summary, nothing good could have come of his testimony. Roger Clemens had everything to lose and nothing to gain by testifying.
Thoughts of a drug crime lawyer
Philip L. Franckel, Esq.
Tags: Chairman Henry Waxman, Clemens, committee hearings, Henry Waxman, Roger Clemens, Roger Clemens testified