NEW YORK – "Had the Citrus County sheriff and the department done its job, it's clear to us that Jessica would, in all likelihood, be alive today.

Jessica Lunsford

Those are powerful words from an attorney for Mark Lunsford, whose 9-year-old daughter Jessica was abducted, raped and murdered by convicted child molester John Couey.

The killer has been sentenced to death for the crime, but Lunsford feels critical mistakes were made in the investigation and has filed notice of intent to sue authorities. To make a statute of limitations deadline, the notice had to be given up to a year after Couey claimed at his sentencing hearing that he kept Jessica in a closet while police searched for her. Read more

The child’s body was found buried near the Homosassa, Florida, mobile home where Couey lived in March 2005, after weeks of searching. While forensic evidence suggests Jessica died within hours of the abduction, Couey claimed Jessica was alive for several days. The critical discrepancy lies at the center of Mark Lunsford's potential case.

Deputies went to Couey's trailer four times during the first two days of the search, but according to attorneys for Lunsford, they never asked to look inside.

Lunsford’s attorneys claim the sheriff's office further botched the early stages of the investigation by not immediately calling in experts on child abductions and focusing wrongly on Mark Lunsford’s father. Neighbors were also not warned that Couey was a convicted sex offender when he moved in, the lawyers charge.

Lunsford says the suit has nothing to do with financial gain. His lawyer adds that the matter would be dropped if policy changes were made and notes any financial judgment brought from a lawsuit would be limited to $100,000, based on state law.

But Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy, who recently attended Mark Lunsford's charity motorcycle ride to benefit child advocacy centers, has blasted back, calling the suit "haphazard," "baseless" and "absurd." He claims the lawsuit is not about seeking change, but instead about seeking damages.

He points out that it does not take a legal challenge to make effective changes. But, Dawsy added, defending the case would be expensive for taxpayers, and the blame for that would rest with Lunsford.

As to the quality of investigators’ work, the sheriff maintains that detectives were conducting five separate investigations into Jessica's disappearance. Addressing the claim that Jessica was still alive in Couey's home, Dawsy says Lunsford and his attorneys are ignoring evidence presented during Couey's trial.

Dawsy also cited his work with Lunsford and legislators in getting the Jessica Lunsford Act passed - providing more stringent tracking of released sex offenders.

So three years after this tragic death, wounds have yet to heal and the controversy continues.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

CANTON, Ohio – Jurors in Bobby Cutts’s murder case have spared his life, and he’s been sentenced to 57 years to life in prison for the killing his girlfriend and their unborn child.

In court, victim Jessie Davis’s mother, father, sisters and cousin directed tearful statements at Cutts, who remained stoic even as he made occasional eye contact with them. Read more

Davis’s mother, Patricia Porter, told us afterwards that she has forgiven Cutts and did not want a death verdict. Porter is raising Blake, the other child Davis had with Cutts.

The defense team also held a press conference after Cutts was sentenced. They said they will handle the appeal.

One issue will be the failure of the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser crime of manslaughter. Another will be the inconsistent verdicts.

The jury found Cutts guilty of the lesser charge of murder for killing Jessie Davis but the higher charge of aggravated murder for the killing of the nine-month fetus inside her. The only difference between the two crimes is that one death apparently occurred during a burglary and the other did not.

Cutts will be turned over to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction within a week. He will be 87 years old before he is eligible for parole.

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – It will soon be up to a judge to determine whether the so-called “50 shots” cops should be found guilty in a case that could also have nationwide ramifications on law enforcement. Three New York City police officers are charged in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell outside a Queens, New York, strip club on the night before his wedding.

Detectives Gescard Isnora and Michael Oliver, the two officers who fired the most rounds, are charged with manslaughter. Detective Marc Cooper is charged with reckless endangerment.

It may seem like an open-and-shut case: officers unloading a barrage of bullets on an unarmed Bell, who was inside a vehicle with two other men who also were wounded in the early morning hours of November 26, 2006. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “It seemed like excessive force was used.”

The district attorney in his opening statement Monday said that one of the three undercover officers failed to display his badge in a clearly visible manner and wait for backup before confronting the three men and then gave contradictory orders to Bell and his friends.

The prosecutor went on to say, “It will be clear that what happened cannot be explained away as a mere accident or mistake.”

Lawyers for the officers, who were working an undercover investigation of drugs and prostitution, have said their clients believed Bell and his friends were going to retrieve a gun from the vehicle to settle a dispute. One of the officers approached the car and Bell tried to flee, driving into an officer, then twice rammed into an unmarked police van as the bullets flew.

While the prosecutor said one officer who fired 31 shots would have found there was no threat if he had “paused to reassess,” a defense attorney estimated that it took as few as nine seconds to fire all those bullets from the officer’s semiautomatic pistol, leaving no time to reassess the situation. Another defense attorney said later in the week that Bell was drunk and “out of control” at the time.

Right now, the general rule in police training is that officers must use deadly force when they perceive a threat of imminent death or bodily harm. While officers are told when to shoot, it’s not always as clear when they should stop. Law enforcement may have to reassess how it handles such situations.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – It is not the least bit surprising that Roger Clemens may now be investigated by the Justice Department.

His sworn deposition testimony and his statement under oath to the House Oversight Committee always seemed to me to be a setup, a slow pitch, for this obvious end result: legal action against him. If they can't get him for the steroids, they can try to get him for perjury.

Martha Stewart.

Scooter Libby.

Why on earth would Clemens, represented by competent counsel who surely advised against it, fall into this trap? Why do prominent people testify under oath when they don't have to, knowing this will give hostile authorities new ammunition?

Must be a combination of ego and denial that scientists have not yet cracked.

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor

KENOSHA, Wisconsin – Mark Jensen has been sentenced by to life in prison with no chance of parole. Judge Bruce Schroeder said he has sentenced scores of people for murder and has to sentence Mark Jensen to the maximum.

The judge noted, "Mark tortured Julie for years, planned and executed this crime and that speaks to your character."

Defense attorney Craig Albee asked the judge on behalf of Jensen's children to set the minimum parole by statute. "They know what kind of person their father is.”

Albee told the court these children should be able to see their father again. Jensen only became emotional at one point in today's hearing, when the letter written by his two sons was read on his behalf to the court.

David and Douglas Jensen begged for mercy for their father and merely called antifreeze poisoning victim, Julie Jensen, their "birth mother."

I was in court and watched David, who just hung his head. As Julie's four brothers read their victim impact statements David continued to look down, but he clenched his jaw continually while words of condemnation regarding his father and the crime his was convicted of were spoken by his four maternal uncles.

Kelly Jensen, Mark Jensen's current wife, left the courtroom with David without looking at or speaking to anyone.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

KENOSHA, Wisconsin – The sentencing of Mark Jensen is getting close and you wouldn't believe how many people have come today to the Kenosha County courthouse.

Mark Jensen awaits sentencing in court Wednesday.

Mark and Julie Jensen’s eldest son, David, is sitting on the defense side, next to Kelly Jensen, Mark's current wife.

This is the first time we have seen David, who is now 18. He is tall and slim like his father with glasses and blonde shaggy hair. David's mother is the victim in this case, Julie Jensen.

His father will be sentenced today to life in prison after being convicted of the 1998 antifreeze poisoning murder his mother.

Four of the jurors who found Jensen guilty are here in court, along with one alternate and a handful of people who testified for the prosecution.

People are continuing to arrive.

– Jean Casarez, In Session anchor

KENOSHA, Wisconsin – I'm back to Wisconsin, this time for the sentencing of Mark Jensen.
Usually, sentencing hearings don’t come so soon after a jury finds someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in this case the defense waived any presentence report and both sides wanted it sooner than later.

Why would the defense want a fast sentencing? They have other things on their minds, namely an appeal on many of the evidentiary and constitutional issues presented at trial. For the defense attorneys, this case is yet to be resolved and they are anxious for an appellate court to hear the issues.

But for all practical purposes, Wednesday is sentencing day and we will be live so you can watch this emotion-packed hearing.

The prosecution will have those closest to Julie Jensen speak to the court as to the impact of her death. The defense can also have family members speak on the redeeming qualities of Mark Jensen.

There will be argument by the prosecution as to why the judge should sentence Jensen to the maximum penalty possible. The defense should counter with any mitigating factors that show Mark Jensen can still be a viable part of society one day and be reunited with his family.

Judge Bruce Schroeder must sentence Jensen to life in prison, but has the discretion to determine a minimum parole eligibility date, if any, when Jensen can appear before the Wisconsin parole board.

Last but not least, Mark Jensen himself can address the court. It is his constitutional right. Will we hear Mark Jensen speak for the first time in court on the issue of Julie Jensen's death?

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

CANTON, Ohio – The same jurors who found Bobby Cutts Jr. guilty of the murders of his girlfriend and unborn daughter today are deliberating his fate. They have four choices: death, life without parole, 30 years to life or 25 years to life. Their verdict must be unanimous.

Cutts took the stand Monday in his own defense for the second time in two weeks. This time, it was a tearful plea to spare his life. Our producer and other court observers counted four jurors - men and women – crying as well. Watch Cutts' tearful plea

Ten defense witnesses testified on Cutts’ behalf. Renee Jones, Cutts’ mother was the first; Cutts, himself, the last. In between mother and son were Cutts’ sister, father, cousin, ex-wife, a Canton police officer/friend, another friend, his elementary school teacher and a psychologist, known as a mitigation expert. Watch a mother's pain

Jurors heard that Cutts, who has two daughters and one son from three women, was an excellent father. But these jurors have already convicted Cutts of the crime of endangering children for leaving his two year old son, Blake, alone for 26 hours after murdering Blake’s mother, Jessie Davis, and soon-to-be-born sister, Chloe, last June.

Jurors heard that, as a police officer, Cutts saved the life of a man who was about to jump off a bridge but these jurors have already convicted Cutts of taking the lives of two people. Jurors also heard that Cutts was a gifted student in elementary school and did well through high school and some years of college; that he is an athlete; and that he has no mental illnesses or major psychological disorders. In fact, the psychologist opined that Cutts is unlikely to be violent in the future.

At the end of the day, Cutts made a statement. He apologized to the Davis family and to his own family, especially his mother, father and ex-wife, Kelly. He thanked Jessie Davis’s mother for taking such good care of Blake since last June.

Choking up, he told jurors that he can never forgive himself for leaving little Blake alone for so many hours because of his own selfishness and he thanked God for watching over Blake during that time. At the end, he apologized to his high school friend, Myisha Ferrell, for bringing her into his nightmare. Ferrell is currently serving two years in prison for her role in accompanying Cutts to dispose of the bodies and then lying to police about it. His final statement to the jury was to spare his life.

Yes, there were tears in that courtroom when Cutts spoke, not only from Cutts but from his family and, most significantly, from several jurors. But there were few tears on the Davis side of the courtroom. They have shed plenty of tears since June 15, 2007, when Jessie was reported missing and will surely shed more. But their tears are not for Cutts and his plea for mercy.

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – Yesterday, I mentioned that Charles Manson didn’t get the death penalty. To which, a couple of you pointed out that Manson’s jury did recommend death.

Jami Floyd gets the Last Word again.

And you're right. But before Manson could be executed the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty in California and everywhere else, sending the state legislators back to the drawing board to fashion capital punishment laws consistent with the Constitution.

So like I said, Charles Manson did not ultimately get the death penalty. And this semantic distinction misses the point, anyway. The point is that capital punishment is constitutionally problematic. That's why, this term, the U.S. Supreme Court is yet again considering whether we can kill people, this time by lethal injection.

The three-drug cocktail is preferred in most states and the only option for Bobby Cutts if he's sentenced to death. We've tried hanging, firing squad, and of course, “Old Sparky,” the electric chair. Lethal injection is supposed to be more humane. But maybe, after all this trial and error, we should ask ourselves whether there's any way to kill a person that is consistent with our values as Americans. That's the real question.

And the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – A jury in Ohio, as I write, is faced with the agonizing decision of whether to recommend the death penalty for convicted double murderer Bobby Cutts, Jr.

The single most determining factor, proved by study after study, as to whether an American murderer is sentenced to death or life imprisonment is surely something that will never be breathed aloud during those deliberations: Race. An African-American defendant who kills a white victim is far more likely to be sentenced to death than other murderers.

Racial bias in administration of the death penalty has led to its ban in New Jersey and a moratorium in Maryland. The U.S. General Accounting Office and Amnesty International have expressed grave concerns about the significantly enhanced likelihood of African-American defendants, or killers of white victims, receiving death sentences.

This case presents both to an all-white jury.

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor