NEW YORK — Uma Thurman is starring in a production here today that I’m sure she’d rather not have listed on her credits. She will be the star witness in the trial of a man charged with stalking her for more than a year.

As frightening as the idea of a stalker is, especially to celebrities, the case raises some interesting issues about the boundaries of personal liberties.

The prosecution claims that Jack Jordan became obsessed with Thurman and engaged in a campaign of stalking that included numerous emails sent to the actress’ father, a professor at Columbia University, professing his love for her. It progressed to repeated efforts to contact her directly, including leaving poems and letters at her home and attempting to see her at movie shoot locations.

Sounds pretty scary.

But the defense claims that Jordan is not a deranged and threatening stalker; rather, he is an old-fashioned romantic who has fallen for the beautiful and talented actress and is simply trying, through his poems and letters, to sweep her off her feet. At worst, claims Jordan’s lawyer, he is a man who needs some psychiatric help, but certainly not jail.

We hear celebrities often decrying the loss of their privacy, even though the more thoughtful of that select and entitled breed realize that some loss of privacy represents the wages for their celebrity.

But just how much of that privacy must they give up? And what sort of boundaries should be erected by the law to protect them from the frightening — or the merely over zealous — fans who seek to get up close and personal with the stars?

That’s the question that will be answered, at least for Uma Thurman, in a small courtroom in New York, after her starring role today.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – Here’s the thing about jury verdicts: they almost always result in disagreement. That’s because, by definition, a case only goes to trial because the parties can’t agree on how it should be resolved.

So we certainly shouldn’t be surprised that, even after the trial is concluded, the parties, and their supporters, still disagree. Sometimes that disagreement takes the form of a philosophical divide over the more profound legal issues in a trial. Other times that disagreement can take the form of a deeply felt anger over the verdict and an overwhelming frustration with what they perceive to be the failure of the justice system.

This was the case in the reaction of Sean Bell’s family and friends to the “not guilty” verdicts in the trial of the police officers charged in Bell’s death. Watch some express outrage

But it’s important to remember, whatever you may feel about this verdict, that “not guilty” doesn’t mean that the system failed. Rather, it simply means that after both sides argued their cases, a judge determined that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Read more

And it is also essential that we remember that we can always disagree vehemently with the result in a courtroom, but we shouldn’t automatically assume that a difference of opinion justifies an indictment of the integrity of the justice system that rendered that verdict.

The debate over this case will continue. And it is a testament to the family and friends of Sean Bell that they have encouraged all of their supporters to express their discontent in a peaceful fashion.

As a final note, it is unfortunate that the New York court system has continued to refuse to allow cameras into their courtrooms. This is a case where the public would have benefited enormously from the opportunity to witness this case and assess the arguments of both sides firsthand. Watching and listening could only enhance an understanding of the verdict and better inform the debate that will, and should, follow.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – The verdict in the Sean Bell case is due Friday morning. How do we know exactly when the verdict is coming down? Well, that’s just one of the many intriguing aspects of this case.

Sean Bell was the 23-year-old man who was shot and killed by police outside a New York nightclub just hours before he was to be married. The defendants — three police detectives — are charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment as a result of the shooting death.  Read more

We know the precise time the verdict will be returned because the defendants chose to waive a jury trial and place their fate in the hands of a judge. That’s certainly a unique approach to a criminal defense, but in this case the attorneys and their clients apparently felt a judge might be less influenced than jurors by the emotions of the case.

Their defense is that the detectives were following up on suspicions concerning drug deals and weapons when they encountered Bell and his friends. Two of Bell’s friends were wounded in the shooting and none of them was armed, the investigation later disclosed.

At this point, the stories diverge dramatically. The prosecution says the police opened fire with no provocation, while the defense says the victims refused to respond to commands to exit their car and, in fact, attempted to run the police over.

Judge Arthur Cooperman, a veteran trial judge, heard the testimony and has said he will announce his decision Friday. It’s an unenviable position for any jurist, given the combustible reactions the city has witnessed in past alleged police brutality cases.

Certainly, the fact that two of the detectives are men of color, as was Sean Bell, will hopefully tend to mitigate any allegations of racism in the shooting.

In any event, justice in this case will be offered solely through the findings of one man, rather than 12 members of the community. The city hopes that, whatever is determined by that one man, the legacy of the Sean Bell case will not involve more violence.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — Law enforcement authorities in New York are deep into a criminal investigation of an act that has shocked and angered New Yorkers. A mass murder? A Wall Street trading scandal? An international drug ring? No, something far more sinister.

Construction workers unearth the rival jersey.

The law enforcement folks are deciding whether the construction worker who buried a Red Sox jersey in concrete at the site of the new Yankee Stadium should be prosecuted for his acts.

Really? Whatever happened to the legendary New York sense of humor? How often have we heard about the unfortunate shrinking of law enforcement resources and the resultant difficulties in pursuing real criminal conduct? Does this act (pretty clever, actually) really warrant prosecution?

Look, I’m a Yankee fan and the notion of yet another curse that could possibly have an impact on the Red Sox rivalry is not something that I’d welcome. But the fact is that the fiendish plot was discovered and the offending jersey was dug up and removed. The new stadium is safe!

Maybe Yankee officials and law enforcement people would be better off focusing on minor league development or trades that will enhance the Bombers chances of knocking off the Red Sox this year, rather than trying to figure out some way to prosecute the construction worker. Or better still, maybe they can all get together to figure out a way to bury a Derek Jeter jersey deep within the Green Monster of Fenway.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — It has been more than a decade since the death of Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, following an automobile crash in a Paris tunnel.

Dodi Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, appears for the inquest.

Since that accident in August 1997, authorities on both sides of the English Channel have attempted to resolve the questions that have swirled around her death, many of them fueled by the allegations of Fayed’s father that the accident and death were orchestrated by British forces intent on preventing Diana’s marriage to Fayed.

An extensive inquiry by the French concluded that the accident was the result of negligence and drunk driving by the chauffeur, Henri Paul. A subsequent British police investigation reached the same conclusion. Neither inquiry found any evidence to support the conspiracy theory offered up by Fayed’s father.

Now, a judge overseeing a British inquest, a procedure mandated for any unnatural death of a British citizen, has asked a jury to provide a final verdict as to the cause of Diana’s death. Read more

The jury of six men and five women began deliberating Wednesday after hearing from more than 250 witnesses over a period of six months. Their options include a finding that her death was accidental or that it was an unlawful killing caused by the gross negligence of the driver, or a combination of both of these theories.

The presiding judge has specifically precluded the finding of any conspiracy, ruling that the vast evidence considered did not offer any reasonable evidence to support such a claim.

A decade is an extraordinarily long time to wait for an official cause of death, but then Diana’s was an extraordinary life in so many ways. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised then that it has taken so long to resolve these issues.

But I never would have imagined that weekend morning in August of 1997, when I was the first network anchor to announce the death of Diana while anchoring the Weekend Today Show, that questions about her death would still exist more than ten years later. It is time to finally allow Diana’s soul to rest in peace. Hopefully, this inquest jury will now write the final chapter of Diana’s life.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – We’re learning more each day about the details surrounding the investigation by federal authorities of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

Eliot Spitzer’s downfall was swift, but was it criminal?

And with each revelation comes a series of questions. Just how did this investigation get started? Was the investigation conducted properly? And—perhaps most important—is this a case that truly deserves to be the subject of a federal prosecution?

The facts—at least what we’ve learned so far—do seem troubling. Despite the disgust that most people feel for Spitzer, not just over his conduct but also over his blatant hypocrisy, there’s some real doubt that this should be a federal case.

Once it became clear that the governor’s conduct involved marital infidelity and not official corruption, why continue to invest the time and energy that were utilized? Surveillance teams? Wiretapping? All over a series of paid-for sexual trysts? At a time when our law enforcement resources are so terribly stretched attempting to combat terrorism threats, drug offenses and organized crime?

Although law enforcement is certainly not a democratic process, driven by the vote of the people, it is difficult to imagine that most people would feel a compelling need to prosecute a “john”—even if that “john” is named Spitzer– for trying to hide what were apparently payments using his own money. Or for paying the transportation and hotel costs for a prostitute willingly offering her services, especially given the history of the “Mann Act” which was intended to protect against forced prostitution.

Hypocrisy, infidelity and arrogance may well be political offenses, but should they be prosecuted as federal crimes? We’re still looking for an answer from the Federal authorities for that question.

– Jack Ford, 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

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 – “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 found myself bewildered by the Roger Clemens Congressional hearing on Wednesday, a proceeding which clearly devolved into some form of absurd theater rather than a valid legislative inquiry.

Roger Clemens told his story to a skeptical Congress.

And then I found myself equally bewildered by the reactions afterward of many observers. Although I expected there would be a distinct division between those who believe Clemens and those who don’t, I didn’t expect so many observers (some who should certainly know better) to be so quick to turn the Clemens drama into a racial issue.

They did so by concluding that a failure to subject Clemens to the same perjury prosecution facing Barry Bonds would be evidence of racial bias by the Justice Department.

The argument seems to be: If you’re going to prosecute the black baseball star you should also prosecute the white baseball star.

First of all, let’s not be so quick to indict the Justice Department until there has been a sufficient opportunity to conduct an investigation and determine if a prosecution is appropriate. Perhaps the answer to that question will be “yes” and Roger Clemens’ name will be penciled in, not to a line-up card, but to a criminal docket.

But if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, there are some very valid distinctions between Clemens and Bonds (and other high profile perjury defendants such as Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby) that could explain the decision.

For instance, the lying alleged in Bond’s case–as with Stewart and Libby–came during the course of an active criminal investigation. Clemens’ statements were offered during a voluntary informational session, apparently requested by Clemens, which the chairman of the Committee now agrees should not have taken place.

Given this situation, the Justice Department might conclude that there was no compelling justification to devote the resources to what many would argue is simply a purely personal matter between Clemens and former trainer Brian McNamee.

Additionally, prosecutors believe there is sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the charges against Bonds, as juries also found in convicting both Stewart and Libby. But we don’t yet know if prosecutors will conclude that there is sufficient valid evidence against Clemens, in addition to the testimony of his accuser, that would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And finally, any claim that a decision not to prosecute would somehow be based on race ignores the fairly obvious fact that prosecutors were not the least bit reluctant to go after Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, both of whom were rich, powerful and white. Maybe Roger Clemens will be prosecuted, maybe he won’t. The point is, if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, don’t be so quick to jump on the “It’s all about race” or “It’s all about rich white Republicans” bandwagon. Perhaps it’s just all about the law.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor