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

DETROIT, Michigan – We are on verdict watch. The jury left at 5 p.m. Tuesday after deliberating for three hours and 40 minutes in the “thrill kill” case of Michigan v. Jean Pierre Orlewicz. There have been several notes from the jury, one of which is very interesting.

The jurors asked if they could learn the sentencing differences between first-degree premeditated murder and second degree murder.

In a polite but firm tone, the judge reminded them they should not be concerned with the years Orlewicz might serve if convicted. The judge expressed her concern that “some of you are considering the penalty here…this is not appropriate.”

Orlewicz is 18 years old and common sense tells me his young age may be on the mind of some of these jurors. Watch his testimony

The jury also asked for the statements of prosecution witness Adam Duwe, the teen Orlewicz said was going to be extorted on November 7, 2007, as well as the statements of Alex Letkemann. Duwe did not give a statement to police and only one statement of Letkemann’s was entered into evidence. The jury has that now. Jurors also asked for and received 10 photos, including two of the body of Dan Sorensen.

The families have been in the courtroom waiting. The Sorensen family seems at ease, talking with close friends. The Orlewicz family seems on edge. Attorneys from both sides are in the well of the courtroom conversing.

The jury resumes deliberations Wednesday at 9 a.m.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

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 – 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

ELKHORN, Wisconsin — After a total of 24 hours of deliberation, the jury in Wisconsin v. Jensen sent a note at the relatively early hour of 8 p.m. ET on Wednesday, saying they had made much progress but was ready to call it a night.

I watched the jurors as they entered the courtroom and they seemed to be in better moods. In fact, I saw a couple of smiles from female jurors toward the prosecutor’s table.

Those same jurors looked into the gallery and they appeared to me to be looking for Julie Jensen’s brothers, who always sit in the front row closest to the jury. The four brothers were still at the courthouse, but not in the courtroom at the moment.

I didn’t see any jurors look toward the defense table where Mark Jensen was sitting next to his attorney Craig Albee. Those are my objective observations and I won’t speculate on what they mean. We will see what happens today.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – At 11:15 p. m. Tuesday, the jury deliberating in Wisconsin v. Jensen sent a note saying they are tired and want to reconvene this morning. The jury deliberated for 14 hours and 20 minutes on its first day with the case. Read more

There weren’t too many of us hanging around late last night. Victim Julie Jensen’s four brothers sat in the courtroom, in the row in front of mine. They remain so loyal to their sister and kept vigil all evening. I have not seen anyone from defendant Mark Jensen’s family.

At one point, defense attorney Craig Albee asked the judge to send the jurors home for the night, saying he believed there was a possibility they might feel they are being coerced to reach a verdict. Judge Schroeder dismissed that argument, saying the jurors have given no indication they want to leave, so let’s leave them alone.

The jurors must be psychic. Their note arrived soon afterward announcing they are tired and want to retire for the night.

The jurors looked look really tired and worn out as they filed into the courtroom. I may also see a bit of frustration. Watch: Are they getting close?

Today is a new day. Deliberations resume at 10:30 a.m.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin – The jury is continuing to deliberate this evening in the poisoning case of Wisconsin v. Mark Jensen. Jurors have told the judge they would like dinner brought in and would like to stay until 9 p.m. ET. Watch an update

Jurors also have just made their fifth request of the day for exhibits. This time, they want medical records of Julie Jensen, as well as Dr. Richard Borman’s typed medical summary.

He is the family physician who saw Julie Jensen two days before she died and prescribed Paxil, an antidepressant. On December 2 1998, the day before Julie died, Mark Jensen went to the doctor’s office unannounced asking, for something to help Julie sleep. Dr Borman gave him a prescription for the sleeping medication Ambien

The jury also is asking for some temporary Internet files showing searches.

I’m staying put in the courtroom. Don’t want to miss anything.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

ELKHORN, Wisconsin –- After six weeks of dramatic testimony, the jury is deciding whether Julie Jensen was murdered with poison slipped to her by her husband or took her own life.

Mark Jensen is accused of poisoning wife Julie with antifreeze.

Closing arguments in Wisconsin v. Mark Jensen were an all-day affair. The jurors intently listened to both sides without showing any emotion or bias toward either the state or the defense.

Special prosecutor Robert Jambois began the final arguments by telling jurors that now they can understand why Julie Jensen began telling her next door neighbors, Tad and Margaret Wojt, her thoughts and emotions, why she believed her husband was trying to kill her.

The prosecutor argued his points for about an hour and a half pointing to an email exchange on October 16, 1998 between Mark Jensen and Kelly LaBonte, the woman with whom he was having an affair.

They discussed taking a cruise and getting problems out of the way along with “details.” That same night on that same home computer were Internet searches for poison, botulism, mercury fulminate along with an intranet search of Mark’s employee directory. The name researched: John “Jock” Joseph, one of Kelly LaBonte’s previous lovers.

Finally the prosecutor argued that Mark left a sleeping Julie to go to the doctor on December 2 1998 to get the sleeping pill Ambien. That sleeping pill truly immobilized her, Jambois told the jury, so Mark could get her to drink the antifreeze. He was her only caregiver at that point.

The defense spent much of its time focusing on con man Aaron Dillard, a key prosecution witness. Attorney Craig Albee portrayed Dillard as a professional at making things up. This was ticket out of a seven-year prison stint, Albee argued.

Mark Jensen had reports and transcripts of his April 1999 interview with the lead investigator. Dillard easily could have read that and made up his story, Albee reasoned.

Besides Dillard, the thrust of the defense argument centered on Julie herself — that she was sick, mentally depressed and did many things that were unknown at the time to Mark. Craig Albee told the jury Mark never knew Julie had called her next door neighbor on December 2, never saw her getting up to go to the bathroom and never saw evidence she had vomited.

Julie could have gotten on the computer during those final days – something else Mark just didn’t see, Albee said.

Mark Jensen’s loyal mother and father were in court for closing arguments but his sister, Laura, wasn’t. Nor was his wife, Kelly Jensen.

Julie’s four brothers continue their united front of loyalty to their sister. They have come from various parts of the country to sit here in this courtroom for the last seven weeks.

And finally the Jensen’s next door neighbors, Margaret and Tad Wojt are sitting in the back row on the prosecution’s side quietly listening to a death they have waited so long to understand. They told me we just had to come today, that the wait for answers has been too long.

– Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

CANTON, Ohio — I am quite taken by the historic Stark County courthouse and, in particular, the courtroom where Bobby Cutts Jr. is being tried in the slaying of his pregnant girlfriend.

The 25th U.S. president lived in Canton, Ohio. In fact, William McKinley was a prosecutor here before he was elected to the U.S. Congress, then governor of Ohio and finally, in 1896, commander-in-chief. As a prosecutor, McKinley practiced in this courtroom.

Constructed in the late 1860s, the courtroom still has two fireplaces on either side of the public gallery. A huge portrait of McKinley hangs on the wall behind the judge.

McKinley was assassinated in September 1901, in the first year of his second term. His body was transported back to Canton for burial. At this courthouse, Ohioans paid respects at his flag-draped coffin. Photos of the event line the hallway outside.

On Tuesday, I was able to peek into the courtroom just before the jury instruction. The witness box is not between the judge and jury as we see in most courtrooms around the country. In fact, the witness box is movable and sits in front of the public gallery at an angle toward to the jury box. The witness’ back is to the spectators.

When questioning a witness, the attorney stands at a lectern between the judge and jury facing the witness and public gallery. It’s a configuration I’ve never seen used, although I recall something similar in a historic courthouse in Tennessee.

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

CANTON, Ohio — Day two of jury deliberations and not a peep from the six men and six women deciding the fate of Bobby Cutts Jr. The former Canton, Ohio, police officer is facing murder charges in the slaying of his pregnant girlfriend, Jessie Davis, last June. Cutts’ trial is taking place in the same city he patrolled for six years.

Cutts, more accustomed to testifying for the prosecution, took the stand on Monday in his defense and described the killing as accidental. He said he panicked when Davis fell after he elbowed her in the throat.

Cutts faced a tenacious prosecutor who challenged this explanation and his behavior after the killing, when he drove 25 miles and dumped her body in a park. Perhaps some on the jury are grappling with this explanation of an “accident.”

As I write this, they’ve been deliberating nearly nine hours. Perhaps the jurors are still absorbing the 84 pages of jury instructions, replete with complicated legal definitions, and the 21 pages of verdict forms, each form to be signed by each juror.

Yesterday, shortly after I arrived at the courthouse, I met the attorneys and some family members from both sides. As I sat in the hall outside the locked courtroom, I watched Cutts’ mother and Davis’s father in a close, face-to-face discussion too far away to be within earshot. At the end of what appeared to be an intense dialogue, the two embraced. Not only do they share this tragedy but they share a grandchild. Cutts and Davis have a 3-year-old son, Blake, who now lives with Davis’ mother. When she died, Davis was just a few weeks away from giving birth to their daughter.

If, and only if, the jury returns a guilty verdict to the top charge of aggravated murder and finds at least one of the three “specifications” exists, there will be a penalty phase, scheduled to begin February 25. The state is seeking the death penalty. But this jury will have four choices: death, life without parole, 30 years to life or 25 years to life. Meanwhile, the wait continues.

– Beth Karas, In Session correspondent