Published on:

Court Discusses Williams Roger Clemens Case


The plaintiff and appellant in this case is William Roger Clemens. The defendant and appellee in the case is Brian BcNamee.


The plaintiff in the case is appealing a ruling from the district court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this court will determine whether or not the defamatory statements that were made elsewhere caused damages to the plaintiff and are sufficient in granting personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Original Case

Roger Clemens, the plaintiff, moved to Texas when he was 15 during the year 1977. He played baseball in college for the University of Texas and then was drafted to the major leagues by the Boston Red Sox. He played for the Red Sox until the year 1996 when he then signed with the Toronto Blue Jays. It was during his time playing for the Blue Jays where he met Brian McNamee, the defendant. McNamee worked as an athletic trainer for the team. In the year 1999, Clemens left Toronto and went to play for the New York Yankees and in 2000 the Yankees hired McNamee to be an assistant trainer. The two trained together until around 2007.

McNamee was summoned by federal authorities in the summer of 2007. This summons was in regard to the federal investigation of BALCO, a laboratory located in the Bay area that was being investigated for their involvement in the development and the sale of performance enhancing drugs. During his interview, McNamee was told that the Government had enough evidence to convict him of delivering illegal performance enhancement drugs to athletes (drug possession). McNamee was offered immunity for information and during his interview he stated that he had given Clemens performance enhancing drugs in the years 2001, 2000, and 1998. After this interview, McNamee was contacted by the federal authorities again and they requested that he cooperate with the investigation being done by Major League Baseball. In December of 2007 the “Mitchell Report” was released and it included statements from McNamee.

Clemens filed a defamation suit against McNamee in January of 2008 in a Texas State Court. The action was removed to the United States District Court by McNamee and he made the motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there was lack of personal jurisdiction and the failure to state the claim. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that the defamation action was dismissed from the district court because the focus of the statements made by McNamee about Clemens did not take place in Texas. In addition, the district court also found that if there was personal jurisdiction over McNamee, the statements that he made to the Mitchell Commission were made with absolute immunity in place.

Case Discussion and Verdict

In order for personal jurisdiction against the defendant to be claimed, there must be sufficient evidence provided by the story that maintains the state as the focal point of the issue. While it is agreed that the defendant did have contact with the plaintiff in Texas on numerous occasions, the alleged defamatory statements were not made about the time in Texas.

After reviewing the facts of the case and the initial verdict in the case the plaintiff has not shown enough evidence to provide for personal jurisdiction in the case. For this reason, we rule in favor of the defendant and the initial ruling made by the district court will stand.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices located conveniently throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. We offer free consultations to help you through any legal situation that you may find yourself in, whether it involves sex crimes, drug possession or theft. Call us to set up your consultation and let us help you through this somewhat difficult situation.

Contact Information