Who served as jurors at case against Roger Clemens?

Names of twelve persons (four men and eight women) that acted as jury at the governmental case against the athlete Roger Clemens were released by the judge Reggie Walton.
The government wanted the jury to be convinced that the baseball player had lied before the Congress about administration of steroids and HGH. But since the jury acquitted Roger Clemens, the government criticized the individuals who composed the jury. Several individuals who acted as the jury were interviewed.
A political activist, an art historian, a teacher of deaf children, an official of Treasury Department and an employee of the Canadian Embassy composed the jury.
Joyce Robinson-Paul, a political activist, was interviewed by the New York Daily News some days after the verdict. She claimed that the jurors knew that they had to be fair to both the federal prosecutors and the sportsman. But they didn’t find anything that had to be pursued.  Later she also claimed that the  federal prosecutors were not able to prove their accusations.
The employee of the Canadian Embassy Bradford Weaver claimed that the government was wrong. He noticed that such cases should not occur again. He also claimed that there was nothing to be prosecuted. He was interviewed by the Associated Press. Bradford Weaver also affirmed that every juror understood from the very beginning that Clemens was not guilty of any charge. Bradford Weaver reminded that each juror was unanimous.
Bradford Weaver was also asked whether he considered that Roger Clemens really applied steroids. The Associated Press also asked him whether he believed that the governmental case against the athlete represented just the waste of taxpayers’ funds. But the employee of the Canadian Embassy didn’t answer the questions.
Another juror that chose not to be identified confirmed that the jurors were wondering how the government made the decision to waste significant sums of money during five years in order to pursue the baseball player. This person claimed that it was impossible to understand why the prosecution lasted for five years.
Other jurors didn’t present any information.
As for federal prosecutors, they seemed to be totally disappointed. They declined to respond to the statements presented by the jurors.