WASHINGTON– Film actor Wesley Snipes and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee have one thing in common. They both believe that the federal income tax laws have become so incomprehensible that the frustrated public may be ready to do something drastic about it.

Huckabee is hoping the voters will favor his radical proposal to abolish the income tax and the IRS in favor of a simple federal sales tax.

Snipes, who went on trial this week in Florida on charges of income tax fraud and conspiracy, hopes the jury will accept his story that the tax laws were so bewildering to him that he didn’t understand he was obligated to pay taxes. It’s a stretch, because Snipes was smart enough to earn $38 million dollars, yet his defense is that he couldn’t get himself together to file tax returns or pay any taxes.

At the time, Snipes was a member of a tax protest group that maintained that Americans are not legally obligated to pay income taxes. Generally, ignorance of the law is no defense, but the Supreme Court has ruled that in situations such as this, the defendant can argue to the jury that he sincerely believed he did not have to pay taxes.

Defendants have usually found this argument a tough sell. Jurors tend to believe everybody knows they have to pay taxes. Snipes has an additional problem because he gave the IRS three bad checks to cover $14 million in taxes—suggesting he realized he was required to pay.

On the face of it, Snipes’ defense (and, perhaps, Huckabee’s problematic sales tax scheme) face uphill going based on cold logic. But there’s always the chance that the public’s distaste for the convoluted tax system could strike a chord of sympathy in the jury (it only takes one to hang a jury) for Snipes’ claim that it was all more than he could understand.

The outcome would be a devastating blow to the tax system–and food for thought about the need to simplify the tax code.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

NEW YORK — Well, the cable news biz is all abuzz again about O.J. Simpson. And let’s face it – most of us (especially those of us who are lawyers on television) owe our careers to O.J.

More than a few have gained celebrity status as victims’ rights advocates on the bloody backs of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. They rage for the victims. They ooze compassion for their families. Watch the Last Word video

But, do we really honor the victims with our coverage? Of course not. Because real compassion would require the very thing we can’t bear in cable: silence.

So rather than refrain from the feeding frenzy that erupts anytime O.J. does anything, we instead jump at the slightest opportunity to revisit the awful events of June 12, 1994. We relive every minute of O.J.’s year-long odyssey through the criminal justice system.

We don’t honor Ron and Nicole by jumping into the fray every time O.J. feeds the frenzy. Let’s remember that.

And that’s the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – O.J. Simpson’s bail revocation hearing just ended. Judge Jackie Glass increased his bail to $250,000 and ordered that he will not be a free man until 15 percent — $37,500 — is paid in cash and his home is put up for collateral.  Full story

O.J. was a diferent person in that courtroom just minutes ago. He was so serious and concerned, no longer the joking jovial defendant we have seen.

He appeared to make no eye contact with his bail bondsman, Miguel Pereira (the one who took OJ’s voicemail to the D.A.). O.J. didn’t have any family in the courtroom. He was in shackles as well as his jailhouse blues.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – OJ Simpson is in a Las Vegas courtroom where both sides will address the issue at the heart of the prosecution’s motion: Did the former Heisman trophy winner violate the provisions of his bail?

The first witness: Bail bondsman Miguel Pereira.

As I arrived at the courthouse I observed a sea of satellite trucks. This is getting international coverage so everyone is here.

The defense filed its written response to all of this right before the courthouse closed last night. The team is going to fight hard to help OJ regain his freedom.

I just finished my first live shot. I wish I could tell you how cold it is here. My heater went out during the hour I was on air. There is so much electricity being used by all the networks that the demand tripped one of our breakers!

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – Today The New York Times is calling for cameras in the Supreme Court. And they’re right: The highest court in the land, more than any other, should “allow coverage of oral arguments similar to C-Span’s valuable coverage of the house and senate.”

But The Times is late to the game. For years Court TV argued for cameras in all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Now, as In Session, we will continue that fight.

Our Senior Editor, Fred Graham, who for many years covered the Supreme Court, has traveled the country arguing for increased access in state courts. As he points out, no trial in the U.S. has been overturned in more than 40 years because a TV camera was present. The fight to open the federal courts is even more daunting.

Across the board, the federal courts simply do not allow cameras. Period. William Rehnquist, who in is capacity as Chief Justice also headed up the federal courts, was notoriously opposed to cameras.

One can only hope that a new generation of justices will come to understand that the right to a “public” trial includes the right to have that trial televised.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

WASHINGTON — After spending the morning in the House hearing into steroid use in Major League baseball, I have a modest suggestion.

Call it the “Mister Universe” test. If an athlete who used to have a normal body develops a physique reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, that should be enough to justify an investigation—or at least a pop urine test—of that player.

When Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire grew from normal proportions into Superman look-alikes, most observers concluded they were cheating in some fashion. Yet that apparently was not enough to trigger an investigation.

Just this week, the baseball league created a new investigations unit staffed by veteran law enforcement officials and authorized to check out all allegations of drug use (including anonymous tips to a new hot line). The investigators should also be authorized to look into evidence in plain sight—such as an athlete who somehow develops into an Adonis, and seems headed for the Hall of Fame.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

NEW YORK — Before you start throwing peanuts at your screen, let me tell you why I, for one, am NOT sick of O.J. Simpson.

Ashleigh Banfield

Sure, he makes for good ratings. Sure, there’s an element of Schadenfreude that’s associated with him. But every move he makes delivers one more ounce of justice to the people who have suffered the most by his actions.

For the last 13 years, the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson have lived with pictures of a carefree O.J. Simpson golfing his way around America, while hundreds of thousands of people applaud him, pay for autographs, and buy into his innocence.

Thanks to one of the worst examples of American jurisprudence in history, Simpson was found not guilty of murder. But with every miss-step caught by the press, with every chapter penned about How He Would Have Done It Had He Actually Done It, with every sordid character he befriends, and with every snub to the bail system, public support for OJ Simpson has been hemorrhaging.

Back in October of 1995, a survey reported in the NY Times showed just 12 percent of black people said they believed Simpson was guilty of murder.

Fast forward to this past September, post book deal and post arrest. The Washington Post conducted a poll showing that disdain for O.J, Simpson had ballooned within the black community A whopping 45 percent of black respondents now said they believe OJ was guilty of murder.

Is hindsight 20/20? Or has the spotlight on a reckless criminal revealed his lack of contrition, his propensity for violence, and his sordid lifestyle?

Thanks to relentless coverage of Simpson’s travails, a window has been provided into this man’s true soul. You might call it a little clarity for those who were once blinded by his Heisman.

– Ashleigh Banfield, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am so sick and tired of O.J. Simpson, I could scream. But at whom?

Even O.J. Simpson seems bored by the endless litigation.

I mean obviously there’s Simpson himself. Just can’t stay out of trouble. But O.J. doesn’t only have himself to blame because law enforcement just can’t leave it alone either. Even the O.J. haters admit there would be no case in Las Vegas if there was no O.J .Simpson in the mix.

Which brings it back to us, the media. I blame us most of all for giving him so much air time. We pretend to hate O.J., but we love him. We love his mug shot. We love his perp walk. We love to see the bump in the ratings every time we flash his face on screen. Watch a video of the Last Word

And that’s the worst of it. Cause if you’re gonna spend all this time and money on a single man, it should be a man of substance. A man with power. A man who really matters in this world. And I think we all know: OJ Simpson does not.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — Now, I don’t know if O.J. Simpson did intend to send some type of message to a co-defendant, or if he is guilty or innocent of the charges against him. But a couple of questions come immediately to mind.

First, why is O.J. even bothering to leave messages about a co-defendant that could expose him to these types of problems? You would think he would know by now to just keep his mouth shut and let his very talented lawyers do the talking for him Second, and perhaps more troubling, who is out there monitoring Simpson’s conversations and ultimately assuring that this one got into the hands of the prosecution?

It doesn’t appear to have been done by any agent of the prosecution, so who was it? And why? Even if you don’t like O.J. Simpson and even if you believe he got away with murder, it should concern you—and all of us—that somebody, without any court approval, could be out there listening in.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

LAS VEGAS, Nevada — OJ Simpson is in jail again. The DA is saying Simpson violated terms of his bail by trying to relay a message to a co-defendant by way of his bail bondsman, Miguel Pereira. The defense says OJ never tried to relay a message to anyone.

I spoke with the bail bondsman last night. He told me that it was true Simpson had left a lengthy voice message on his cell phone two days after the preliminary hearing ended in November.

What is still so mysterious, though, is that Pereira told me an unknown person thereafter contacted him saying he had been monitoring Simpson’s phone calls. Pereira says the person told him that he knew Simpson had left the bail bondsman a voice message, violating the conditions of his bail.

Who is this unknown person listening to (if not recording) Simpson’s calls? That’s illegal activity in and of itself without a court order. Stay tuned for Wednesday’s hearing. We will carry it live and may get some answers. For OJ Simpson, it may mean the difference between his freedom or a jail cell.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent