WASHINGTON – Say it isn’t so, Rambo!

Sylvester Stallone says he used HGH to bulk up for his latest Rambo movie.

But alas, it is. Just as Congressional investigators on Capitol Hill are cranking up preparations for a hearing to dramatize the evils of steroid use by Major League baseball stars, Sylvester Stallone says he used another performance enhancer, human growth hormone (HGH), to get in muscle-rippling shape for his latest “Rambo” movie.

What’s more, the 61-year-old actor is an unapologetic advocate of chemistry as a comfort to the aging male. Read all about it

“Testosterone to me is so important for a sense of well-being when you get older,” Stallone tells Time magazine in its February 4 issue. “Everyone over 40 years old would be wise to investigate it because it increases the quality of your life. Mark my words. In 10 years it will be over the counter.”

Stallone says he gained 41 pounds to play the famously-muscled Rambo by using prescription testosterone.

This revelation comes as Congressional aides are preparing for a high-profile face-off, under oath, between pitching ace Roger Clemens, who says he has never used steroids, and his former trainer, who claims he injected The Rocket with performance-enhancing substances. The hearing is currently set for February 13.

While admitting the steroid matter is not a crucial legislative issue, Congressional spokesmen have defended the investigation as a way to discourage young people from taking up steroid use.

Now comes Stallone, upstaging the upcoming hearing by disclosing that Rambo developed those muscles through chemistry. Which could, despite the Congressional hearings, persuade many young athletes to get buff through HGH—and might also touch off a new wave of substance abuse among the Viagra generation.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

NEW YORK – I’m not sure how closely you’ve followed this Wesley Snipes trial, but it got real good in that courtroom there toward the end.

Jami Floyd almost always has the Last Word.

The defense rested its case without calling a single witness to the stand. Not Mr. Snipes, not anyone.

It’s a bold strategy, but always a gamble. And it’s a huge one for Snipes, because the case against him isn’t that weak. And in the end, Snipes and his lawyers allowed the government’s case to stand unchallenged.

That says a lot to this defense attorney about Snipes’ defense. Now it’s a “reasonable doubt” case, entirely, and Snipes’ only hope for acquittal is that the jury will decide the government failed to meet its burden. Read: The jury’s out

Since he decided not to take the stand in a case that is all about what he knew and when he knew it, that’s a long shot indeed.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – The jurors in the antifreeze poisoning case of Wisconsin v Mark Jensen can take notes but I didn’t realize how many notes they were taking until I started counting notebooks.

Julie Jensen documented her suspicions in a letter weeks before her death.

Although I can only see the front row, one juror is on her fourth notebook, another on her third. Now, don’t think the testimony has gotten so boring that I’m counting notebooks! It is still riveting.

Detective Paul Ratzburg, the lead investigator, has taken the stand. He questioned Mark Jensen for more than seven hours in April 1999. During that interrogation the widowed husband denied that he had an affair with Kelly LaBonte before wife Julie passed away.

We now know from Kelly’s own testimony that Mark’s statement is false.

When Jensen was questioned in ’99, the detective testified, toxicology results had come up negative for antifreeze.

But the detective did have that letter from Julie written by her own hand several weeks before her death. Julie wrote she believed her husband was trying to poison her. If she was found dead, Julie wrote, Mark should be their suspect. (I saw that letter up close after court. It was hand-written on loose leaf 3-hole punched notebook paper.)

Detective Ratzburg showed the jury a blue bowl and a pink bowl he took from the nightstand next to Julie’s bed. The blue bowl contained macaroni and cheese and the pink bowl had crackers. The jury had some chuckles when he testified that although the food was preserved as evidence, mice had gotten to it through the years and had eaten the evidence. He made sure, however, to point out that the testing had already been done for ethylene glycol, the key ingredient in antifreeze.

The result? Negative for any type of poison.

Coming up: About 2 hours of Mark Jensen’s interrogation with the detective. It was all videotaped, although Mark didn’t know it at the time. I believe some of the tape will help the prosecution and some will help the defense. See who you think benefits the most.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – Our satellite dish may be frozen but my blackberry isn’t, so here is the latest in Wisconsin v Mark Jensen, the man accused of murder in the antifreeze poisoning of his wife.

Jean Casarez is covering the Jensen trial.

Inmate Bernard Bush is on the stand. Bush has testified he overheard his cell mate, David Thompson, discussing a plan with Jensen to abduct another trial witness and “sit on him.”

Bush said he heard a total figure of $100,000 being discussed with $50,000 up front and $50,000 at the completion of the abduction. Watch what this trial is all about

The would-be abductee? Ed Klug, who testified earlier in the trial about a conversation he had with Jensen at a convention. During a night of drinking in November 1998, Klug said, Jensen told him he was researching how to kill his wife.

The defense just won a victory in argument outside of the jury’s presence. They will be allowed to question Bush about a first-degree murder charge that was pleaded down to harboring a felon.

The importance to the defense? Bush knows fully well what it means to cooperate with law enforcement.

Earlier, witness Quinn Yorton seemed to back Klug’s story. Yorton, a former co-worker of Jensen’s, said he spoke with Klug shortly after Jensen was charged with murder in 2002. Klug related the alcohol-fueled conversation he had with Jensen about “doing away with spouses,” Yorton testified. He recalled Klug being astonished by Jensen’s arrest.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Craig Albee made sure the jury heard that Quinn Yorton didn’t come forward to law enforcement until 2007, well after Jensen had been charged.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – The multimillionaire movie star paid no taxes – none at all, didn’t even file returns – from 1999-2004. Now on trial for tax fraud, his lawyers concede he must pay millions of dollars in back taxes, penalties and fees, but they claim no fraud took place because he was open in his refusal to pay.

Huh?

The jury is out as I write. He could face up to 16 years in prison if convicted, and his lawyers say even if acquitted, he’ll have to work for the next 20 years to repay his civil debt to the IRS. Read about the trial

Reminds me of Michael Vick. A man at the top of his game, who had it all, and who threw it all away for illegal behavior that is incomprehensible to most of us. He risked losing his high-flying NFL career over . . . dog fighting?

Wesley Snipes. Riding high as a worldwide film star, who risked his reputation, wealth and freedom to . . . join a merry band of tax avoiders? Guys who claim the IRS has no jurisdiction over wages earned in the U.S.?

Huh?

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – With the wind chill it is minus 30 degrees out there today. That’s right, NEGATIVE 30. You may wonder how I do my live shots in weather like this.

Jean Casarez is reporting on the Jensen trial in Arctic conditions.

We have an enclosed studio right outside the courthouse here. The studio is used for blustery situations just like this.

Another issue here in Elkhorn recently has been the wind. Gusts of up to 50 miles per hour have been registered in the area.

Maybe that’s why I stepped out of our satellite truck, felt a push (which I guess was the wind) and landed flat on my back at the bottom of the stairs.

Now I can laugh but at the time I was just trying to get to my live shot. Watch the trial update

Not wanting anyone to see me like that I picked myself up rather quickly and minutes later you saw me on the air!

(Producers’ note: The frigid, windy weather in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, is disrupting In Session’s live feed, and daily trial coverage has been interrupted on CNN.com on Wednesday.)

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – “She’s asleep.” … “She’s going to be asleep for a long time.” … “He laughed.”

Joseph Mangi tells the jury about an odd phone conversation.

So said the man who picked up the phone, testified prosecution witness Joseph Mangi. He told the jury Monday about his December 1998 conversation with the man he believes was Mark Jensen, who is on trial for the antifreeze murder of his wife, Julie Jensen.

Mangi said the conversation took place when he called the Jensen household during the week of Julie Jensen’s death. He was a high school principal at the time and was calling to offer Julie Jensen a job as a part-time secretary.

She had interviewed for the position on Friday, November 20, but the job offer was delayed because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Julie died in her bed on Thursday, December 3.

I have never seen all of the jurors taking notes in unison like they were with this witness. When he recited what the man he believes to be Jensen said on the other end of the phone line jurors wrote down every word.

The defense got Mangi to testify the man never formally introduced himself during the phone call.

The rest of the day’s testimony was filled with medical examiner Dr. Mary Mainland, former co-workers of Mark Jensen from the mid-90’s and 12th grader Eric Schoor.

A hush fell over the courtroom when Schoor testified that his close school friend David Jensen, Julie and Mark’s son, told him at school the day before Julie died: “Mom’s sick and dad won’t take her to the hospital.”

The defense tried to diffuse the statement by quizzing the boy on his memory from nine years ago, as well as the fact he and his mother had gone over the statement numerous times.

Now one big question remains: is the prosecution going to put the defendant’s teenage son on the stand? We have heard his alleged words through Eric Schoor…and the defendant does have a right to confront his witnesses even if it is his own son who he has raised with his current wife Kelly.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK — Eighteen years after her husband was shot execution-style in the head by her 16-year-old lover, Pamela Smart, now 40 and serving a life sentence, continues to proclaim her innocence.

Smart’s one-time lover, William Flynn, has served 17 years of a 28 year-to-life sentence for his role in the shooting death of Gregory Smart. As of now, he is eligible for parole on June 4, 2018.

Flynn, now 33, has never denied his role in shooting Greg Smart in the head as Smart pleaded for his life on May 1, 1990. But in the past 17 years, Flynn says, he has worked hard to rehabilitate himself and is remorseful every single day.

He says he is not the person he was when he committed the crime at the request of his lover and he’d like to get out of prison sooner than the decade more he must serve before he can appear before the parole board.

Pamela Smart issued a statement through a spokesperson reacting to Flynn’s recent motion in Rockingham County Superior Court, New Hampshire, for a sentence reduction.

In part, she said:

“…Bill Flynn has more to answer for than the sin and crime of killing Greg Smart. He also took Pamela Smart’s life. The guilt and shame he says he feels, the huge weight strapped permanently across his shoulders, refers to two people, not one. He murdered Greg with a gun and Pamela Smart with perjured testimony. Both weapons were effective; both weapons were lethal…”

Judge Kenneth McHugh held a hearing last week at which Flynn, Greg Smart’s father, William, and brother, Dean, spoke. Judge McHugh has taken the matter under advisement and will issue a decision at some yet-to-be-determined future date.

Among the factors Judge McHugh will consider are not only the dozens of letters of support for Flynn, his various charitable acts in prison and his remorse for the crime but the vicious nature of the murder and the Smart family’s adamant opposition to a sentence reduction until Flynn is 40 years old.

Rest assured that Judge McHugh is unlikely to give much, if any, consideration to Pamela Smart’s recent statement that she is innocent and that perjured testimony “took her life.”

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin — Aaron Dillard. He’s the jailhouse informant who claims Mark Jensen confessed that he smothered wife Julie Jensen to death when she just wouldn’t die from antifreeze poisoning.

Aaron Dillard testified about conversations he said he had with Mark Jensen.

Could Aaron Dillard really have cracked this case? Something law enforcement couldn’t do for 10 long years?

Medical Examiner Dr. Mary Mainland has taken the stand to testify that she originally determined the sole cause of Julie Jensen’s death was ethylene glycol poisoning. But there were other forensic observations she testified to — such as injury to the tissue of the upper chest.

Aaron Dillard testified that Jensen said he sat on Julie’s back and pushed her face into the pillow. Crime scene photos show Julie’s nose and mouth pushed over to the left side. Julie’s face was found deep into that pillow.

The defense is now cross-examining Dr. Mainland and aggressively pursuing the theory of suicide. The defense is trying to show that by Julie herself could have taken one fatal dose of ethylene glycol. By mixing it with Paxil, Librium and Ambien, the defense maintains, she could have committed the suicide the defense says she so desired.

But Aaron Dillard’s testimony still resonates in this courtroom, and the medical examiner has edited her initial cause of death. She announced to the jury, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Julie Jensen died from “Ethylene Glycol poisoning with probable terminal asphyxia.”

To believe that, the jury will have to believe an inmate who has spent his life deceiving others. For once could Aaron Dillard be telling the truth?

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – I don’t take kindly to racists, skinheads or David Duke. But I do appreciate the Constitution of the United States. While waiting to be fingerprinted by Homeland Security a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to browse through the sample questions for my upcoming citizenship test.

Ashleigh Banfield

Question 74 asked about the Bill of Rights, and explained that as a new citizen, I would be guaranteed freedom of expression.

Nice perk.

At the same time, a TV in the waiting room announced details of some criminal charges being levied against Jeremiah Munsen in Louisiana. Seems that on September 20, 2007, Mr. Munsen woke up, brushed his tooth, had one too many beers, tied a pair of nooses to his truck and trolled a civil rights rally. Full story

For this offending behavior, he’s been charged with a federal hate crime and civil rights conspiracy. It turns out “it is a violation of federal law to intimidate, oppress, injure, or threaten people because of their race,” as quoted by the U.S. attorney involved in the case.

Now, I’m no expert, but the last time I checked, Americans have always been allowed their freedom of expression, no matter how foolish or offensive. The U.S Supreme Court even told us so.

Back in the 70’s the Skokie affair taught us all that the First Amendment supports a “marketplace of ideas,” however unpopular. In that case, Nazi supporters in Illinois wanted to wave their swastikas and goose step through a predominantly Jewish part of town, and the High Court supported their right to do it.

Flash forward to 2008. Did Mr. Munsen’s behavior really intimidate, oppress, injure, or threaten the roughly 20,000 marchers he was up against? That standard is very tough to meet — that is if the case even gets heard. One thing we do know is that stupid people say and do stupid things all the time. They have just as many rights to free expression as the most sage among us. After all, this is America, where all men are created equal, even the ones missing a chromosome or two.

– Ashleigh Banfield, In Session anchor