NEW YORK – The news about Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s possible link to a prostitution ring left me speechless. Which, as you know, is pretty much unheard of. I mean, really.

Jami Floyd gets the Last Word again.

I am old enough to know that the mighty do fall. But with Spitzer, everyone, from his supporters to his detractors, will tell you this was a big surprise. No rumors buzzing about. No longstanding denials.

But here’s the thing: You never really know a person. Not your governor, not your neighbor. Sometimes not even your spouse. If the cases we cover here on Best Defense have taught us anything, they’ve taught us that.

So, now that I’ve recovered from the news, it’s time to look ahead. The governor may have apologized. But he hasn’t been charged with anything. Not yet.

So for now Eliot Spitzer is like any other suspect, presumed innocent until proven otherwise. And anyone who predicts the outcome of this mess is just spitting into the wind.

And that’s the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – When are politicians and public figures going to wake up and smell the headlines? America’s favorite stories don’t just occur when juicy crimes are committed. They occur when juicy indiscretions are coupled with sexy hypocrisy and dazzling double-speak.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer faces reporters on Monday with wife Silda by his side.

Elliot Spitzer, the Harvard educated former top cop in New York, and, perhaps for now, the governor here, is learning this the hard way. That’s a $4,300 understatement. Watch Spitzer’s apology

Spitzer, if ANYONE, should know that the cover-up is always bigger than the crime, and that any criminal who precedes his crime by pontificating against it, falls hardest.

It’s not that allegedly paying a hooker is so difficult for Americans to digest. Next to farming, prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. But no one likes a no-good, double talking hypocrite who once locked people up for getting their jollies, then allegedly ascended to the quiet confines of an expensive hotel suite to, well, get his jollies.

This is not a debate about prostitution, or even pimping. It’s a debate about two-faced men like Spitzer, Mark Foley, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Jim McGreevy, Gary Hart, Jim Bakker, and the Reverend Ted Haggard not practicing what they preach.

Why is this so tough to process? It seems fairly simple. It’s wrong to say one thing, bust people for it, and then do another. It’s wrong to fight for the protection of kids, and then act as a sexual predator. It’s wrong to lead the nation, and then lie, even about sex. It’s wrong to condemn gay people for their lifestyle and then get caught allegedly engaging in the same behavior that is part of that lifestyle you condemn. It’s wrong to preach about family values, while getting down and dirty with hookers. And it’s wrong to dope up on methamphetamine while rubbing up next to a male prostitute, especially if you’re preaching against that.

Where’s the debate in any of this? Mr. Spitzer says he needs time alone with his family now, and that this is a “private matter.” I’m not sure where in his law degree he figures this is private. Perhaps he means “personal.” Because, yes, Mr. Spitzer, it is personal. It’s very personal to many of us who trusted in your good work only to see it revealed as hypocritical self-righteousness. It’s personal to publicly see your family suffer for your foolish indiscretions. And while it may be personal, Mr. Spitzer should be well aware that it is NOT private.

He saw to that when he ascended to his position of power and busted two sophisticated prostitution rings, decrying those involved as common criminals. Now that he could be facing a similar prosecution his newest crisis may be an identity crisis. Will his name forever be Mudd… or just Client #9?

– Ashleigh Banfield, In Session anchor

Like Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger died young and left behind a will that failed to provide for his baby daughter. Both of them drafted their wills before their little girls were conceived or even contemplated.

Matila Ledger’s name and foot imprints outside the Ledger residence in New York.

Anna Nicole’s will, inexplicably, specifically excluded any future children she might have, leaving everything to her son Daniel. Daniel died before Anna Nicole, and she never updated her will, leaving her legal affairs in chaos at her death.

Heath Ledger’s will was drafted in Australia, but at least parts of it will be administered in New York, which frowns upon cutting children out of a parent’s estate unless it’s done explicitly. Ledger’s will was written in 2003, before he met Michelle Williams and had a baby with her, Matilda. Matilda will now need to contest the will, arguing that his failure to update his will was an oversight.

This is a good reminder to all of us to update our wills after a major life event – marriage, divorce, death of a loved one, birth of a child, even moving or buying or selling significant assets.

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor

Last night was the last episode of “The Wire” on our sister station HBO, but not the last word on the war on drugs. If you’ve been watching, and even if you haven’t you probably know that “The Wire” is all about drugs. The supply, the distribution, the corruption from city hall on down and the law enforcement effort to stop it.

We’ve been fighting this war on drugs, get this, for a century. And what do we have to show for it? Well we have one in one hundred Americans behind bars, one in nine black men, ages 20 to 34, serving time, one in 36 adult Hispanic men. Too many of these folks are in for non-violent drug related offenses.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We’re losing this war on drugs. And with it we’re losing resources. We’re losing money. And we’re losing lives. We need to wake up to a new day in America. And wage a new war on drugs. One that we can actually win.

And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

It was back in 2002 that 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was taken from the bedroom of her Salt Lake City home at knifepoint and held captive for about nine months.

After all these years there has been no trial for the two defendants, Wanda Barzee and Brian David Mitchell. Last week the couple was indicted on federal charges of interstate kidnapping and one count unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines. The statute of limitations on the federal case would have expired this week.

Barzee and Mitchell already face state charges of aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault and attempted aggravated kidnapping. But the real question now is whether they will ever have to answer for the alleged crimes in state or federal court because of the quandary concerning their mental health.

Both have been found incompetent to stand trial and are currently being held in the Utah State Hospital. Barzee claims she is the mother of Zion and receives messages from God through her television, while Mitchell is a self-proclaimed prophet diagnosed with a delusional disorder. They have refused medical treatment and a legal battle continues over whether they should be subjected to forced medication.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled last year the government can forcibly give antipsychotic medications to Barzee, but her attorneys are fighting the ruling. A judge is still deciding whether forced medication would be justified for Mitchell. It’s an interesting question which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed back in 2003, ruling anti-psychotic drugs can be used only in “limited circumstances.”

Let’s talk about O.J. Simpson and the court of public opinion.

Because if you think celebrities have an advantage, think about this. In the public eye celebrities are guilty, until proven innocent. And maybe even after proven innocent. O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson all prove that. Each was presumed guilty, each was acquitted, but the public dialogue was about the accused as legally innocent but factually guilty. Not guilty but not innocent either.

Now comes O.J. Simpson again. And this time with a couple of co-defendants. All presumed guilty. And the trial hasn’t even started yet. Folks will tell you, I’m not on the jury. I don’t have to presume anyone innocent.

But that’s wrong. Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself.

And that is the Last Word.

–Jami Floyd, InSession anchor 

NEW YORK – O.J. Simpson’s lawyers go back to court on Friday, arguing pre-trial motions before the start of his kidnapping and robbery case, scheduled for trial on April 7 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

O.J. Simpson’s robbery trial begins April 7.

Most of the motions are no real surprise — seeking dismissal of the charges, separate trials for the defendants — and, according to most legal experts, are not likely to be granted.

But here’s one that might surprise you: The O.J. defense team wants the judge to prohibit the prosecution from mentioning anything about the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman murder cases during this robbery trial.

Here’s the problem with that motion: Is there, really, any potential juror in Las Vegas who doesn’t know about that case? And won’t both sides, and the judge, be necessarily spending an extraordinary amount of time asking every possible juror what they know about the earlier case and what impact that knowledge might have on their ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in the new case? The answers are: “No” and “Yes.”

So, why then is the defense seeking to keep any mention of the murder case out of the trial? Well, the answer has to do with the proverbial “elephant in the room.” Everybody knows it’s there but nobody wants to talk about it.

In this instance, that “elephant’ is the slayings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The defense is worried that some juror, believing that O.J. Simpson got away with murder, may see this new case as a chance for a “pay back” verdict.

The prosecution, however, says the jurors need to hear at least about what they claim is O.J. Simpson’s continuing effort to frustrate any attempt to recover any of the $33 million judgment against him. This, says the prosecution, helps to explain O.J.’s actions and the armed robbery in the hotel room in Las Vegas.

So, will the “elephant” move to the front of the room when the trial starts? Stay tuned—we may know the answer to that question by Friday.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – A jury in Colorado found Shawna Nelson, a sheriff’s investigator’s wife, guilty Monday of first-degree murder in a love triangle shooting. Nelson was convicted in the execution-style slaying of the wife of her former lover.

O.J. Simpson is back in court this week.

Prosecutors say Nelson was angry when Greeley, Colorado, police Officer Ignacio Garraus ended their affair, so she shot his wife, Heather, last year. The case will air on In Session in the future.

O.J.’s back in court on Friday. We’ll be In Session in Nevada’s Clark County District Court as lawyers on both sides of the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case address pre-trial motions. Last week, Judge Jackie Glass told both sides to be ready for trial on April 7. In Session correspondent Beth Karas will report live from Las Vegas.

On Monday we wrapped up the case of 81-year-old Marc Benayer, charged with shooting a man outside of a Boca Raton, Florida, synagogue.

On Tuesday, look for coverage of the trial of Edward Smith. Jurors will decide if Smith is guilty of vehicular homicide after his pickup truck careened into the front of a Tennessee home, killing a man inside.

In Session producers are in South Carolina this week, covering the murder trial of Billy Nathan Lee, who prosecutors say shot and killed his estranged girlfriend, 31-year-old Carma Russell. Lee faces the death penalty if convicted.

– Carolyn Purcell, In Session senior executive producer