How not to practice law (during the Roger Clemens trial): show the jury the evidence the judge had excluded

Almost a year ago, I posted a story in my on-going "how not to practice law" series on a case in which the Washington Court of Appeals upheld sanctions against a criminal defense counsel for suggesting to the jury what they might have heard if the judge hadn't excluded certain lines of questioning. See here.

Now comes news that the judge presiding over the Roger Clemens trial declared it a mistrial after prosecutors presented evidence the judge had earlier ruled was inadmissible.

For more on the story you can go to the Wall Street Journal law blog, Prof. Jonathan Turley's blog, the blog of the Legal Times and the Legal Ethics Forum.