With all of the talk swirling around Ray Rice and Michael Phelps these days, it got me thinking that, sadly, this isn’t the first time a professional sports figure has been in trouble with the law. So I took a look at some of these cases and realized there were some nice nuggets of information lawyers can learn from.

Black Sox trial

The Chicago White Sox lost the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds and eight White Sox players were subsequently accused of intentionally losing games in exchange for money from gamblers, including mob boss Arnold Rothstein. All eight players were acquitted in court but banned for life from baseball.

Lesson Learned – Don’t over-promise in your opening statement to the jury.

Prosecutor George Gorman, in his opening statement, described the 1919 Series fix as a disorganized chess game between players and gamblers.

“The gamblers and ball players started double-crossing each other until neither side knew what the other intended to do,” he said.

When he began to quote from a copy of pitcher Ed Cicotte’s confession, defense attorney Michael Ahearn objected, and the judge ultimately forbid any mention of the confessions at trial.

If you are a defense attorney it may not be wise to say, “my client is innocent” in an opening statement. You do not have to prove innocence. You just have to show that the State did not meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. Don’t oversell your case in the opening statement.

Roger Clemens trial

Roger Clemens was accused of lying to Congress about taking steroids to improve his baseball performance. His first trial ended in a mistrial but he was acquitted of all charges after a second trial in 2012. One of the key witnesses for the prosecution was Brian McNamee, who was allegedly providing steroids to Clemens.

Lesson Learned: Prepare and research opposing witnesses

Investigators for Clemens found — and managed to convey through witnesses during the trial — that McNamee had been involved in a legal matter in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 2001 and had lied to criminal investigators. The testimony appeared to damage McNamee’s credibility and ultimately won the case for Clemens.

Mike Tyson rape trial

Tyson was arrested in July 1991 for the rape of 18-year-old Desiree Washington, Miss Black Rhode Island, in an Indianapolis hotel room.

Lesson Learned – Make your witnesses likeable

When Tyson was cross-examined by the prosecution, Tyson denied claims that he had misled Washington and insisted that she wanted to have sex with him. Tyson was hostile and defensive to the questions during cross-examination. Some commentators speculated that his behavior made him unlikable to the jurors, who saw him as a brutish and arrogant prizefighter. Tyson was convicted on the rape charge Feb. 10, 1992 after nearly 10 hours of deliberations.

O.J. Simpson trial

You know the details of the “Trial of the Century” by now. I want to focus on Simpson’s lawyer, F. Lee Bailey, and his cross-examination of Det. Mark Fuhrman, whom the defense accused of planting evidence.

At one point, Bailey is on the attack about Furham’s investigation in the back of the house. Bailey presses Furham with an accusatory, “How is that possible?” regarding the killer not leaving any bloody footprints in the back of the house.

“If they didn’t get blood on their feet, they wouldn’t leave tracks,” Fuhrman coolly responds.

Lesson Learned – Use leading questions in cross examination

Although Bailey ultimately won the trial, this cross examination was criticized widely at the time. Open-ended questions can backfire if the witness has a reasonable answer. These kinds of questions can also backfire because you can lose control of your witness and, in doing so, lose control of the story you are presenting to the jury.

Oscar Pistorius trial

The famous “blade runner” at the 2012 Summer Olympics was convicted of culpable homicide of his girlfriend in a South African court. He has repeatedly said that he thought his girlfriend was an intruder in his home. Pistorius was found not guilty on the charge of murder.

Lesson Learned – Make your client sympathetic to the jury in the closing

In the closing argument, Pistorius’ lawyer emphasized the general fear of a violent home invasion, a fear exacerbated because Pistorius was a vulnerable, disabled person prone to anxiety but also trained as an athlete to react in an instant.

Please leave a comment if I missed a good sports case example or follow me on Twitter.