Government couldn’t convince jury that Roger Clemens lied before Congress

Names of twelve individuals (4 men and 8 women) that served as jury at the governmental case against the former baseball player Roger Clemens were released by the judge Reggie Walton.
The government desired the jury to be convinced that Roger Clemens had lied before the Congress about application of steroids and HGH. But since the jury acquitted Roger Clemens, the government criticized the persons that acted as the jury. Some individuals that acted as the jury were interviewed.
A political activist, an art historian, a teacher of deaf kids, an official of Treasury Department and an employee of the Canadian Embassy were belonged to the jury.
Joyce Robinson-Paul, a political activist, was interviewed by the New York Daily News several days after the verdict. She noticed that the jurors knew that they had to be fair to both the federal prosecutors and the athlete. But they didn’t find anything that had to be pursued.  Later she also noted that the  federal prosecutors were not able to prove their accusations.
Bradford Weaver, an employee of the Canadian Embassy claimed that the government was wrong. This person noticed that such cases should not occur again. This person also noted that there was nothing to be pursued. This person was interviewed by the Associated Press. This person also noted that each juror knew from the very beginning that Clemens was not proven guilty of any charge. This person reminded that every juror was unanimous.
The employee of the Canadian Embassy was also asked whether he thought that Roger Clemens really administered steroids. The Associated Press also asked him whether he thought that the governmental case against Roger Clemens represented only the waste of taxpayers’ funds. But Bradford Weaver didn’t answer the questions.
Another juror who preferred not to be named noted that the jurors didn’t comprehend how the government could spend essential sums of money during 5 years in order to pursue the athlete. This person noticed that it was impossible to comprehend why the prosecution took place five years.
Other jurors didn’t provide any information.
As for federal prosecutors, they seemed to be totally disappointed. They refused to respond to the affirmations presented by the jurors.