Orlando – Attorneys for Casey Anthony told an Orlando judge that based on the known facts, the prosecution’s case against Casey Anthony does not qualify as a death penalty case. They're seeking an order which would prevent the prosecution from seeking death. Anthony's defense team is also asking for protective orders, demanding Orange County jail stop videotaping attorney visits.  The defense wants the court to order jail officials to destroy videotaped jailhouse family visits as well as audio taped phone calls with family members.  George and Cindy Anthony along have been subpoenaed by the State to testify in the hearing.

–In Session Staff

NEW YORK – In 1803, when Ohio became a state, executions were carried out by public hanging. In 1897, it was the electric chair known as "Old Sparky" - considered to be more technologically advanced.

A view of the death chamber from the witness room at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

More than 200 years later, the state continues to wrangle with the methods used to carry out the death penalty, now through lethal injection. After two highly publicized, botched executions and a pitched legal battle, Ohio has just put to death Daniel Wilson using a new "set-to-die" procedure.

Under the protocol, a sedative is administered to the inmate. After that, a warden calls out the name of the prisoner and shakes and pinches his or her shoulder. If there is no response, the execution - using the three-drug lethal injection process - can proceed. If the condemned man is still conscious, a second shot of a sedative is dispensed.

Opponents continue to question whether lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

In May of 2006, it took almost 90 minutes to carry out the Ohio execution of Joseph Clark. Prison officials had problems finding a useable vein in Clark’s arm; one vein they did use collapsed; and they tried to administer the drugs through the wrong IV line. At one point, Clark pushed himself up on the gurney and asked, "Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?"

Shuttle forward to May, 2007. A prison team struggled to find veins in another Ohio inmate's arm. The attempt took so long that they had to grant the prisoner, Christopher Newton, a bathroom break during the procedure. Newton died about two hours after the scheduled start of his execution.

The United States halted executions for several months while the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether lethal injection violated the Eighth Amendment, but eventually ruled in April of 2008 that it did not.

Meantime, the Ohio Supreme Court has set execution dates for two additional inmates this year.

-Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – Just as our new live trial, New Mexico v. Brandon Craig got underway yesterday, there was even bigger news breaking in the state. Governor Bill Richardson signed into law a repeal of the state's death penalty. 

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

That makes New Mexico the second state to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.  The repeal, which passed a vote in the state senate Friday and was approved by the house a month earlier, will take effect July 1st and will apply to crimes committed after that date. Once in effect, the most severe punishment will be a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. 

Governor Richardson has long been a proponent of capital punishment.  But he had the courage to face the fact that our system of justice can never be perfect.  He signed the bill because his conscience compelled him to do so.  This was the "most difficult decision" of his political life, Richardson said, but "the potential for ... Execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings."  And he's right. 

If the innocence movement has taught us anything it is that our justice system is not perfect.  We make mistakes.  Without the death penalty, New Mexico can avoid the kind of fatal error that is bound to happen elsewhere - if it hasn't already.

-Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – The U.S. Supreme Court just threw out the death sentence for a black man convicted of murder. And the vote wasn't even close. He gets a new trial because the prosecutor quite plainly used race to stack the jury.

Jami Floyd has the Last Word again.

Then, to add insult to Constitutional injury, the D.A. referred to the case - in front of the all white jury he’d secured - as his O.J. Simpson case. All this just months after that notoriously controversial acquittal. Read more

And that's why the Supreme Court smacked down that D.A. But this particular brand of bad D.A. behavior is not an isolated event. And it’s not limited to the “Deep South,” either. Watch

No, the practice of jury selection based on skin color is widespread, despite the Supreme Court's consistent rulings that to do so is a violation of the very Constitution prosecutors are sworn to protect.

So now rings out the reminder to prosecutors everywhere: use race to pick a jury and you may win the case only to see the conviction thrown out.

That is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

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

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

So, the Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether the use of injected poison to carry out the death penalty is unconstitutional. But this case isn't about capital punishment per se. This is about how we do it, if we're going to do it at all...

WASHINGTON - Seldom has the law of unintended consequences proved as perverse as when 36 states tried to make executions more humane but chose a lethal injection technique that may cause more pain than the shot a veterinarian would use to kill a horse.

On Monday the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the claim by two Kentucky inmates that the lethal injection technique used in executions is undependable and may cause excruciating and unnecessary pain.

The core of the problem is that the 36 state legislatures all adopted a complicated and untested three-shot injection procedure. It calls for a first shot to render the condemned man unconscious, a second one to paralyze the body and a final one to stop the heart.

The Kentucky inmates say the first shot may make the inmate unable to move or cry out, but may fail to spare him the fierce pain of having his breathing and heartbeat stopped by the second two shots.

The purpose of the Supreme Court case is to establish the standards the lower courts should follow in determining if the three-step injection process is, indeed, unnecessarily painful.
 Which raises the question:

Why didn’t the states follow the advice they were given by veterinarians and other experts and adopt the painless one-shot technique used to euthanize animals? That involves a large injection of barbiturates, which quickly puts the animal to sleep and causes fatal cardiac arrest within minutes.

It will be interesting to see how the state’s lawyer answers that in Monday’s Supreme Court hearing. Critics of the three-step approach say one reason the states adopted it was because they didn’t want to be accused of killing an inmate like an animal—but the unintended consequence was to create a method of execution that may be unconstitutionally cruel.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor