Andy Pettitte’s testimony related to Roger Clemens caused confusion among federal prosecutors

The desire of the federal government connected with the case of Roger Clemens was following: they desired to prove that this sportsperson had lied before the Congress about application of anabolic steroids and HGH. But the government couldn’t achieve this goal. It was expected that Andy Pettitte would confirm that Roger Clemens had told him that he had taken the prohibited drugs during a conversation in 1999 or in 2000. But Pettitte shocked the prosecutors. He claimed that he couldn’t affirm that Roger Clemens had used steroids and HGH because he was not sure.
Actually, did the testimony of Andy Pettittte shock the prosecutors of Roger Clemens? This man swore for the 2008 Congressional hearings on intake of steroids in the Major League Baseball that Roger Clemens admitted to administration of HGH. But he presented opposite testimony at the Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington.
Michael Attanasio, a defense attorney for Roger Clemens, asked Andy Pettitte whether he can affirm that he is 50-50 that he has understood wrongly Roger Clemens about HGH. Andy Pettitte answered that he is actually 50-50 about this factor.
When the prosecutors heard Pettitte’s answer, they didn’t know what to do. They confirmed that Pettitte never said this way, when he was asked several times.
The judge Reggie Walton noted that he understood that Andy Pettitte’s answer has been conflicted. In fact, his testimony was following: “I don’t know”.
The attorneys for Roger Clemens used the moment of the federal prosecutors’ embarrassment. They requested the judge to brush aside Andy Pettitte’s testimony because he was 50-50. The attorneys claimed that he probably misunderstood the athlete Roger Clemens or he can’t remember the details of the conversation.  
The government has responded that the jury still allows taking into account the testimony of Andy Pettitte. ASUSA Dunham has pointed out that under federal rules jury is allowed to choose which affirmation to believe. This person hopes that the jury will disregard the testimony which doesn’t support the government.
Thus, the testimony provided by Andy Pettitte and his wife caused problems. Testimonies of his wife during the first trial resulted in the declaration of a mistrial by the judge Walton.
Pettitte affirms that he is Roger Clemens’ friend. Clemens must also confirm that they are friends after Andy  Pettitte’s last testimony.