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

NEW YORK – In Session continues coverage this week of the penalty phase in the case of Bobby Cutts, convicted of double murder in the death of Jessie Davis and her unborn daughter, Chloe. Correspondent Beth Karas is bringing you all the details from inside the Canton, Ohio, courtroom.

Bobby Cutts tears up as his mother tells the jury about his childhood.

Cutts’ defense team is trying to persuade the jury to spare the former police officer’s life. Read more

On Wednesday, correspondent Jean Casarez returns Wisconsin to continue our gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Wisconsin v. Mark Jensen. A jury found the 48-year-old Jensen guilty last week of intentional homicide for poisoning his wife, Julie, with ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in antifreeze.

Both sides can present evidence before Jensen is sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison. Judge Bruce Schroeder has the discretion to decide when and if he will be eligible for parole.

Our producer in Colorado continues to cover the trial of Shawna Nelson, the wife of a sheriff’s investigator, who is accused of first-degree murder in the killing of a fellow cop’s wife. Prosecutors say Nelson was angry when Ignacio Garraus ended their affair, and allegedly shot his wife, Heather. Look for that case to air on In Session in the future.

– Carolyn Purcell, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – “I thought that case was over?”

Parents of players on the 2006 Duke lacrosse team embrace as a new lawsuit is announced.

That is the question I was asked repeatedly following the news that 38 present and former members of the Duke lacrosse team have filed a new lawsuit against Duke University, members of the Duke administration, the City of Durham, North Carolina, and others involved in the criminal investigation that resulted in the indictments of three players. Read more

Following the dismissal of the charges and the complete exoneration of the three players, a number of claims by those players — and the former Duke coach — were settled. Claims by those players against former District Attorney Mike Nifong were potentially sidelined by his bankruptcy filing.

So what now are these claims by the other team members about? That’s a good question.

First, some full disclosure: (1) The president of Duke, Richard Brodhead, is a friend of mine, and (2) My son is a college lacrosse player at Yale. That being said, I think it’s fair to wonder what the point of the litigation is.

These players were never charged, nor were they ever suspended from school. They were undoubtedly placed in an unpleasant situation, especially in the early stages of the investigation when the notion of “presumed innocent” seemed to escape many in the media and the general public, but they were also, for the most part, the young men who had participated in the entirely inappropriate “party” that triggered this sad episode.

It’s too early in this litigation to conclude what value it may have — whether there are real losses that need to be addressed or whether this suit is just an unseemly punctuation to and unseemly episode — but I suspect that the lawyers behind the suit may have an uphill battle as they try to persuade a trial court, and the court of public opinion, that the various defendants should be writing a check to these young men.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t much like Bobby Cutts.

Jami Floyd has the Last Word on Bobby Cutts and the death penalty.

But let’s cut to the chase — is this the kind of crime we’re talking about when we contemplate the death penalty? Because, Charles Manson didn’t get the death penalty. Neither did Jeffrey Dahmer. Or the BTK Killer.

And as awful as the facts of this case are, Bobby Cutts has admitted his mistake. He said it was an accident. Expressed remorse. Isn’t that what we ask of convicted killers before we show them some mercy? Watch what’s at stake

I know — some of you right now firing off those emails about the lack of compassion Cutts showed his victims - one of them an unborn baby. Perhaps that’s true. But we’re supposed to be better than he is.

And when we’re not, our Constitution should keep us honest. That means, if we are going to have a death penalty, we apply it only in the worst cases. And this, like it or not, is just not that kind of case.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – Before she died, Julie Jensen left that letter with the neighbor saying that if anything bad happened, her husband would be to blame. And nearly a decade after she passed, a jury decided he was.

As usual, Jami Floyd has the Last Word.

Mark Jensen was found guilty Thursday of first-degree intentional homicide, a crime that carries a sentence of life. Now the judge will decide if he is eligible for parole.

The now famous letter reads in part: “I pray that I am wrong and nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark’s behaviors and fears for my early demise.”

Powerful words from the grave but using evidence like this letter against a defendant violates his right to confront his accuser.

What the Wisconsin Supreme Court did in this case was create new evidence rules, and while they cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision, the state court has misread the law.

And that’s why Mark Jensen may get a new trial. That would be justice, if not for Julie — justice for all of us.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – Jurors talked with the media after they found Mark Jensen guilty of first-degree murder in the 1998 poisoning death of his wife, Julie. They took us behind the jury room doors for a look at their nearly 32 hours of deliberations.

Jurors Wanita Erickson, left, and Cynthia Zuehlke, hug Julie Jensen’s brothers, Michael (left) and Paul Griffin.

Their initial vote was five for guilty, two for not guilty and five undecided. Reasonable doubt, they said, came from evidence the defense presented on Julie’s mental state. Several jurors believed she was depressed and possibly could have wanted to end her own life. Watch what swayed the jury

Some jurors also believed Julie had to have some computer skills.

But as they kept going through the evidence, several things stood out. First was Julie’s letter. They determined she was trying to say she would never voluntarily leave this earth.

They then determined that it was Mark who did the computer searches, based the time they were done and the time “between” searches. Online Internet searches, along with brokerage telecom searches, were too close in time, jurors concluded, for Mark to sign off and Julie to then begin searching for ways to kill her.

Jurors didn’t believe jailhouse snitch Aaron Dillard. In fact, they didn’t believe any of the prosecution’s jailhouse informants.

They also did not believe Julie Jensen was suffocated at the end of her life. In unison they said that she died of “ethylene glycol poisoning.” Ethylene glycol is the main ingredient of antifreeze.

Jurors said they didn’t rely on the science. The experts’ differing theories basically cancelled each other out, jurors said.

Finally they said they came to their final verdict at 4 30 p.m. — the very same time in the afternoon that Julie’s body was found more than nine years ago.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – Mark Jensen has been found guilty of first degree murder in the 1998 antifreeze poisoning of his wife, Julie.

Mark Jensen was found guilty of murdering wife Julie.

The defendant walked into the courtroom in handcuffs. His attorney, Craig Albee,  successfully argued that they should be taken off so that jurors would not see the cuffs when they came into to deliver their verdict. Watch the courtroom drama

The jurors filed in a little before 6 p.m. ET on this Thursday evening. They were serious, looking straight ahead.

The room was silent when the verdict was announced. Julie’s brothers struggled with their emotions but remained silent. Mark’s family didn’t make a move. Read more

Word began to spread a little after 4:30 pm. that there was a verdict. The defendant’s family, including his sister Laura, nervously came into the courtroom and took their seats. Mark’s parents claimed their spot in the front row, where they have sat for the entire trial. His sister sat in the back row.

Julie’s brothers were across the street and were immediately called to come to the courthouse.

Sherrif’s deputies lined the courtroom and security was tight.
The judge was overcome with emotion as he thanked the jurors for so six weeks of loyal service.

– Jean Casarez, In Session corresponent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – It is 5:45 p..m. ET and we have a verdict in the Jensen case. I’m in the courtroom and we are waiting for everyone to assemble.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – Every first year law student learns the Exclusionary Rule. The century-old constitutional doctrine forbids the use of evidence obtained by police as the result of an improper search.

Chief Justice John Roberts is following in the footsteps of his mentor.

The rule was bolstered in the 1960s, during the Warren Court, with Chief Justice Earl Warren and his brethren working mightily to clarify this important Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials.

Not so the more recent Rehnquist Court, which has been no friend to the Exclusionary Rule. During his many years as chief justice, William Rehnquist and his fellow justices carved out exceptions that began to swallow the rule: Evidence obtained through “good faith” reliance on a bad warrant; evidence seized under “exigent circumstances”; even evidence that would have been discovered anyway (the so-called inevitable discovery doctrine).

Now Chief Justice John Roberts, who follows in the footsteps of his mentor, has signaled his desire to further limit the rule. In 2006, the Roberts Court allowed for evidence found by police officers after they stormed a Detroit apartment without knocking. (Knocking was previously a requirement).

That opinion, Hudson v. Michigan, can be read as a call for additional challenges to the Exclusionary Rule. And, just this week, the Court accepted a new case that will give it yet another opportunity to roll back the rule: Herring v. US, in which the Court will decide whether the list of exceptions should be expanded to include evidence obtained from a search by officers relying on a careless record–keeping error.

The officers in Herring arrested a man after being informed that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. But the warrant had expired. Despite this, Herring was tried and convicted.

Most often the Supreme Court takes a case like Herring’s to reverse the underlying conviction; indeed, Herring’s appeal, brought by students at my alma mater, Stanford Law School, is an effort to secure just that – a reversal of fortune for Herring.

I’m betting, however, that the Court is going to side with police on this one.

In rolling back the Exclusionary Rule, the Supreme Court has, time and again, cited the “heavy toll” the suppression of reliable evidence takes on the criminal justice system. Perhaps suppression of evidence for violation of basic constitutional rights does place a burden on the system.

But it is precisely the burden of justice our Founders intended. The Constitution is not about the efficiency; it is about our fundamental freedoms.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

ELKHORN, Wisconsin — After a total of 24 hours of deliberation, the jury in Wisconsin v. Jensen sent a note at the relatively early hour of 8 p.m. ET on Wednesday, saying they had made much progress but was ready to call it a night.

I watched the jurors as they entered the courtroom and they seemed to be in better moods. In fact, I saw a couple of smiles from female jurors toward the prosecutor’s table.

Those same jurors looked into the gallery and they appeared to me to be looking for Julie Jensen’s brothers, who always sit in the front row closest to the jury. The four brothers were still at the courthouse, but not in the courtroom at the moment.

I didn’t see any jurors look toward the defense table where Mark Jensen was sitting next to his attorney Craig Albee. Those are my objective observations and I won’t speculate on what they mean. We will see what happens today.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent