NEW YORK – The jury has spoken – in fact, it has yelled loud and clear in the civil case involving convicted killer Darren Mack. An eight-person jury in Reno, Nevada, awarded $590 million to the estate of victim Charla Mack, which includes her only daughter, Erika.

Darren Mack was convicted of murdering his wife, Charla.

You probably remember the Mack case, which we covered here on In Session. I was the correspondent for our live coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, where Darren Mack’s murder trial had been moved.

On June 12, 2006, Darren Mack repeatedly stabbed wife Charla to death, went to the Reno courthouse and fired a shot, sniper-style, which hit the couple’s divorce judge Chuck Weller. When Mack fled to Mexico, he became the lead story on almost every news outlet.

The Reno community was so ingrained with this case centering on one of its richest businessmen that a very rare change of venue was granted. Minutes before he was to take the witness stand, Mack agreed to a plea deal.

The case moved on to the civil courts, in the community where it all started. The Washoe County jury heard from about 10 witnesses, including a county medical examiner who testified about Charla Mack’s multiple wounds, all delivered by her husband’s hand.

Jurors also watched a video presentation of Charla Mack with daughter Erika.

In the end, the jurors decided that Mack must pay $375 million in punitive damages to Erika. Jurors also awarded $185 million in compensatory damages which included grief and sorrow, loss of companionship and society and damages for Charla’s pain, suffering and disfigurement before death. The Estate of Charla Mack was awarded $30 million in punitive damages.

As for the defense, well, there was no defense case presented. The lawyers informed the judge there was no money to pay them.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – One of the pivotal prosecution witnesses against Shawna Nelson during her first-degree murder trial, featured this week on In Session, was Nelson’s husband, Ken.

Kenneth Nelson testifies at his wife’s murder trial.

A sheriff’s deputy assigned to the Weld County Drug Task Force, Ken Nelson knew of his wife’s long-term affair with Ignacio Garraus, but agreed to raise the child the affair produced as his own.

Several months after the murder of Heather Garraus, Ken Nelson was himself arrested, charged with tampering with evidence.

Authorities believed that Nelson had tried to help his wife by removing evidence from the Ford F-250 truck Shawna Nelson was driving when she was stopped shortly after the shooting.

In particular, prosecutors suspected that Ken Nelson may have disposed of the gun used in the murder, as well as the black robe or cloak witnesses described the shooter as wearing.

From the time of his arrest, Ken Nelson denied that he had removed or destroyed any evidence relating to the Heather Garraus shooting. When he testified at his wife’s trial, Nelson was given use immunity, which meant that nothing he said during Shawna Nelson’s trial could later be used against him in his own case.

Finally, on March 13 – ten days after his wife’s trial ended – prosecutors dropped all charges against Ken Nelson. A statement issued by the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office explained, “The People believe the status of the admissible evidence currently available against Mr. Nelson has changed from what had existed at the time the charges were filed . . . therefore, the People are ethically bound to seek the dismissal of the charges against Kenneth D. Nelson.”

– Michael Christian, In Session senior field producer

NEW YORK — Back to guns, one of the most contentious issues in America. Today is the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court takes up the Second Amendment and whether Washington, D.C., has the right to regulate guns.

Jami Floyd has the Last Word on guns.

The question is clear: What does the “right to bear arms” mean?

Until now, the Court has said that the Second Amendment is a general right related to the keeping of militias.

But for so many people it is personal. And I’m gonna be honest. This is a tough one for me. Cause I know I would like to have a gun if, like the folks in this case, I lived in a neighborhood overrun by gangs and gun violence. But I also know that guns are responsible for 81 percent of homicides in D.C.

So here’s what I think. The keeping of a militia? That’s congressional business. But public safety? That’s for the states.

So if D.C. needs to ban some guns to protect folks, that’s okay by me. I’m sure glad that the real Last Word though, on this, lies with the Supreme Court.

And that is my Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – One of the most interesting things about the Shawna Nelson case, now airing on In Session, is how the people who were once closest to the defendant are distancing themselves from her.

Shawna Nelson stood trial for killing her lover’s wife.

Nelson, a former police dispatcher, was tried for the execution-style slaying of her lover’s wife. The trial took place last month in Fort Collins, Colorado, and you’ll see highlights all week, with the verdict on Friday.

Ignacio Garraus, her lover and the father of her youngest child; Ken Nelson, her estranged husband; and Michelle Moore, her former best friend; all took the stand.

Each one of them made it a point to never look directly at the defendant. They didn’t even look in her direction from the moment they walked into the courtroom until the moment they stepped down from the witness stand.

In contrast, Shawna Nelson stared intently at each of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Once Ken Nelson and Michelle Moore finished their testimony, they left the courtroom, never to return.

Ignacio Garraus, on the other hand, returned to court at the end of the trial to listen to the closing arguments from each side. But once again, Garraus never looked directly at the woman with whom he had a three-year extramarital affair – who was now his wife’s accused killer.

– Michael Christian, In Session senior field producer

NEW YORK – We’re In Session this week for a love triangle murder trial — the state of Colorado v. Shawna Nelson, a former police dispatcher. Watch for posts from our producer detailing this fascinating case, and tune in to watch the five-day trial.

The Supreme Court takes up D.C.’s gun ban this week.

We’re also looking into guns and the right to own them. The issue is on the docket at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, when the justices hear arguments on whether a 1976 handgun ban by the District of Columbia violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

In Session Senior Editor Fred Graham reports from outside the court. At issue: Does the U.S. Capitol’s virtual handgun ban violate the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights? It’s the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court has taken on the issue.

Finally, we also have a producer in Bonifay, Florida, wrapping up the case of Amanda Lewis, accused of drowning her daughter. Watch for that case in the coming weeks on In Session.

– Carolyn Purcell, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – In Session turns this week to Colorado v. Shawna Nelson, a high profile murder trial from Fort Collins featuring a classic love triangle among people in law enforcement. Although the jury already has spoken in this case, we won’t spoil it for viewers who want to follow this murder mystery on In Session.

Shawna Nelson’s murder trial is featured on In Session.

We’ll set the stage: On a cold, dark winter evening, a Colorado woman is gunned down in a parking lot as she leaves her job at a local credit union. The shooting was precise, merciless, an execution.

Was the shadowy figure that fired the shots a woman involved in a lengthy extramarital affair with the victim’s husband? Or is the defendant completely innocent, as she claims – perhaps even the victim of someone else who wanted to frame her for the killing?

Those are the questions at the heart of the case.

The Nelson case was big news in Colorado. First, Kenneth Nelson, the defendant’s estranged husband, was charged with evidence tampering; authorities believed he helped his wife dispose of the murder weapon.

Then Michelle Moore, Shawna Nelson’s best friend, was also arrested: Moore was charged with conspiring to help the defendant commit the murder. It seemed as if every time things settled down, some new piece of information shocked the public.

Stay tuned as we stay In Session.

– Michael Christian, In Session senior field producer

NEW YORK – Here we go again. Jury selection has been set for July 10 in the trial of Brian Nichols, charged in the Atlanta, Georgia, courthouse shootings.

FBI agents take Brian Nichols into custody in March 2005.

It’s been three years of delays in which a judge was forced to resign from the case after calls for impeachment, a defense team has nearly emptied the treasury of the Georgia Public Defender’s system, initial jury selection halted over the cost of the defense and even an alleged plot by the defendant to break out of jail.

It could have all been over one year ago when Nichols agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole, but prosecutors wanted to pursue a death sentence. The Fulton County D.A. has been quoted as saying the question of punishment should be decided by the community and not the defendant.

The crime took place March 11, 2005, when Nichols allegedly killed a judge, a federal agent and two others before surrendering the next day after taking a woman hostage in her suburban Atlanta home.

The case now involves 54 counts, a total of 11 crime scenes, 2 hostage incidents in two counties, as well as several car-jacking victims and as many as 400 prosecution witnesses.

Recent projections of cost fall somewhere around $4 million spent by state prosecutors and by some estimates nearly $2 million shelled out by the attorneys for Nichols, who now is using a mental illness defense.

The debate continues over whether it is worth the taxpayer expense if Nichols has already agreed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Relatives of some victims previously said they would support a plea deal for a life sentence, but one victim’s family member opposed a deal.

There are still other issues that need to be dealt with before the July trial date, including a change of venue motion. In the end, whether the case is tried or not, authorities must refocus their efforts on maintaining the integrity of the judicial system concerning indigent murder defendants.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – And So Eliot Spitzer is out. He’ll be long gone by Monday and I’m fine with that, but here’s what I’m not fine with: the reaction on Wall Street because the traders and the bankers and the hedge fund mangers I’ve talked to are positively giddy about Spitzer’s downfall. And that’s not right.

Jami Floyd has the Last Word on Wall Street’s gleeful reaction to Eliot Spitzer’s downfall.

First of all there are his wife and children to think about, no one should be happy to see them suffer. But second, and most offensive, is the reason these money men are tap dancing on Spitzer’s political grave.

It’s because he went after Wall Street with a vengeance, he vowed to root out white-collar crime, to clean up the corruption down there and he did. And that’s a good thing because greed is not always good.

So yes, it’s shocking to see the anti-crime crusader caught up in an FBI vice sting, but whatever Spitzer’s bad acts turn out to be it won’t excuse the corruption on Wall Street he sought to cure.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – By now you’ve heard that Eliot Spitzer has stepped down as Governor of New York. But he still could face serious criminal charges, and that got me thinking about prostitution.

Jami Floyd gets the Last Word on Eliot Spitzer.

I’ve tried a lot of those cases. And here’s what you learn right away: as much as the sex trade is about sex, it’s also about trade. Business. Supply and demand.

Where I practiced law in California, the criminal code is gender neutral. It targets anyone engaged in the commercial sex trade. The girls, their johns, even the pimps when you can catch them.

Not so here in New York where the women involved in prostitution have long been treated more harshly than the men. But Eliot Spitzer changed all that, with a new law that increases penalties for the men who solicit sex.

The thinking? Cut off demand and supply will dry up. And that’s the tragic irony. Now, it seems, Governor Spitzer may be one of the very johns his new law seeks to punish.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – He made his career as a hard-charging prosecutor, targeting the rich and powerful of Wall Street as he championed the struggle for ethics and morality in business and government.

Gov.Eliot Spitzer offered an apology but admitted no wrongdoing.

Now, Eliot Spitzer finds himself squarely within the crosshairs of his own ethics and morality scandal. Not surprisingly, there has been no shortage of opinion concerning the precarious position of Spitzer’s political career. Read more about the political fallout

The richer irony, according to many who don’t count themselves as fans of the New York governor, is the real possibility of criminal charges arising out of this scandal.

Although it is true that so-called “johns” are not generally charged (and certainly not in federal court), this is not a simple case of soliciting a prostitute on some street corner.

Reports suggest that Spitzer had engaged in a number of transactions with the high-priced prostitution ring and that, in at least one instance, the transaction had required a prostitute to travel from New York to Washington for the assignation.

In addition, the situation had apparently come to the attention of federal authorities because of banking irregularities related to the governor’s attempts to disguise the transfer of funds for the services provided.

If what is being reported is true, authorities may well be looking at charges focusing on the violation of a statute dealing with the interstate transportation of a woman for purposes of prostitution. And they could be looking the possible violation of a number of banking laws related to Spitzer’s apparent scheme for making payments to the prostitution ring.

It seems, then, that Spitzer’s widely anticipated resignation will not necessarily signal the end of this story. The moral? If you choose to anoint yourself “The Sheriff,” you better be sure your badge isn’t tarnished.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor