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 — 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 – 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 – 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

WASHINGTON — “Solutions cause problems,” Eric Sevareid used to say, and the Supreme Court was confronted with the truth of that today when it heard arguments on the constitutionality of a law designed to deal with the problem of voter fraud.

At issue was an Indiana law which requires voters to present at the polls a government-issued photo ID card. Lawyers for would-be voters who were turned away told the Justices the law was unnecessary, and that it placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

This was one of the laws passed in the national uproar over the chaotic Florida election of the year 2000. Previously, voters in most states were allowed to vote based on minimal identification, or just by giving a signature that matched the one in the registration book. But in the wake of the “hanging chad” hysteria, the Indiana legislature (and several other states) laid on new requirements to certify that imposters were not attempting to vote.

It was illogical, because ID fraud was not an issue in the Florida fiasco — vote-counting was. In the Supreme Court, Indiana’s lawyers were unable to show a single proven instance in the state of “voter impersonation.” Nevertheless, Republican legislators in Indiana (and elsewhere) used the public concern over the Florida situation to add new restrictions or voting.

It is ironic, because the legislatures should be making it easier to vote, not harder. They should be adopting voting by mail and the Internet, weekend voting, and other techniques for making voting easier.

We’ll have to wait and see if the Supreme Court will strike down the Indiana law. The Court is expected to rule before June, in time for the election in November. In the meantime, the county’s legislators would do well to follow the creed of the nations’ doctors, who take an oath to “Do no harm.”

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor