The prosecution seems to have introduced inadmissible evidence, despite being warned by the judge. A jury is to be impartial - so ways Amendment #6.. Evidence that might jeopardize this is excluded from being introduced. The judge is supposed to oversee this guarantee. This one apparently did.
Story in the Washington Post:
One important piece of evidence was Andy Pettitte’s testimony that Clemens had told him he had taken human growth hormone. In previous proceedings, Pettitte’s wife Laura signed an affidavit affirming that her husband told her of the conversation the day it occurred.
But in pretrial decisions, Walton ruled that, because Laura Pettitte hadn’t heard the conversation directly, her testimony would be inadmissible.
So, what did the prosecution do? They apparently tried to go through a backdoor by showing the jury a video of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) at the 2008 congressional hearings in which Clemens referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife. Laura Pettitte’s affidavit appeared on the courtroom monitor. And there it stayed in full view.
