BRADENTON, Florida–A cab driver has testified today that he drove defendant Thomas Fast to a Publix supermarket where his pick up truck was parked, but when they arrived law enforcement was waiting for him after a frantic call from Fast’s own father.

Fast is facing life in prison for the premeditated murder of his stepmother, Susan. Prosecutors say that he was angry at the thought of being cut out of his inheritance. Fast has pleaded not guilty, and says he did not kill her.

On Wednesday, the jury heard testimony from the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on Susan Fast.

Dr. Wilson Broussard testified that he went two different times to the retention pond area where Fast’s desecrated body was found in several different black plastic bags.

Divers were set to search the pond on July 25, 2007 when they saw a black plastic bag that had apparently risen to the top of the water with what Broussard testified as “a protruding left foot.”

The forensic pathologist said an autopsy of the 60-year-old victim was performed the next day, at which time he determined Susan Fast had a cut to either hand, but it was three knife wounds to the neck that led to her death.

Broussard specifically said one neck wound on the right side of victim was deeper than the other two; it cut through the sternum and the jugular vein was severed. This wound was more than two inches deep; the cut went downward from right to left and ended near the clavicle.

Pictures were circulated amongst the jury of the remains of the victim. They silently looked at them, passed them on to the next juror and continued to listen intently to the medical examiner’s testimony.

Gavel-to-gavel coverage continues on In Session.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

BRADENTON, Florida–Testimony is underway in the case of Florida vs. Thomas Fast, facing life in prison for allegedly murdering his stepmother, someone he had known for much of his life. Susan Fast returned home from s trip to the Bahamas on June 28, 2007, one day earlier than her husband Bruce, (the father of the defendant) only to have her life taken at the hands of a murderer.

For over three weeks, Susan Fast was a missing person but finally on July 25, 2009, two black plastic garbage bags were found in a retention pond and storm drain behind a grocery store. Those bags contained the cut up remains of Susan Fast.

Prosecutors say the defendant’s belief that his stepmother would stop him from receiving any inheritance played a role in the commission of this murder.

Late Tuesday afternoon, a jury panel of four men and 10 women was selected to hear the evidence in this capital murder trial.

During jury selection, the defense emphasized second-degree murder and manslaughter as alternate charges in this case. Jurors were also told there may be testimony concerning mental illness. The defense emphasized that in a criminal court, you can only convict the defendant if you believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stay tuned for live, gavel to gavel coverage of this case on In Session.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK–All last week my colleague, Anderson Cooper, fanned the flames of an already heated debate in this country: Whether to legalize marijuana. Anderson and his producers don’t pretend to have the answer to the question, any more than to the multibillion dollar illegal drug problem in America. But the first step toward finding the answer begins with pot.

The War on Drugs has been an utter failure; we need to shift the paradigm from war to public-health, starting with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders.

Nearly 800,000 Americans are arrested every year for marijuana-related crimes (90 per cent of them for possession), with approximately 60,000 to 85,000 of them doing some time on those charges.

To impose felony convictions on people for possession of pot — sending them to prison, for an advanced degree in the criminal enterprise — is short sighted, expensive, counterproductive, and just doesn’t make sense.

If nothing else, there’s economics: Legalized marijuana would generate between $10 and $14 billion in savings and taxes every year. The government can regulate it and tax it.

But admittedly, it is not an easy question for a kid, like me, from the projects and a community ravaged by drug use.

Smoking pot is not lighthearted recreation. It is a drug, like heroin and meth.

And that is why President Obama will probably disappoint reformers. He is not likely to push for legalization; but he is also not likely to continue on a blind path of prohibition.

Given the passion and good policy arguments on both sides, perhaps the President should do something that hasn’t been done since the 1970s — convene a blue ribbon panel of experts on drug policy. A Presidential Cannabis Commission, if you will. The commission can look at the issue, and send up some smoke signals on how best to proceed on the important issue of whether to finally legalize pot, or not.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK–In Session viewers may remember Richard Gagnon, who was convicted last year and sentenced to two life terms for the murders of a South Carolina couple.

Gagnon testified that he did not shoot Charles and Diane Parker and that he didn’t know who did, contradicting a cellmate who claimed he confessed to the murders.

Gagnon was living with Bambi Bennett, Diane Parker’s daughter. Investigators believed that Gagnon killed his girlfriend’s mother and stepfather to clear the way for her to inherit their estate, worth $700,000. Gagnon’s defense was boosted by crime scene evidence. There was blood at the home, the killer’s blood — but it didn’t belong to Gagnon.

Prosecutors have since found the mystery bleeder. DNA from the Parker crime scene has been matched to Bruce Hill, who is currently in a Tennessee Correctional Center.  Earlier this month, Hill was charged with two counts of murder and burglary in the Parker case. While investigators have not been able to establish the link between Hill and Gagnon, they do not believe it diminishes Gagnon’s involvement in the case.

“We suspect there’s a certain way they know each other,” said Lt. Jamie DeVari, commander of criminal investigations for the Horry County Police Dept. DeVari said it may take a more time to establish the connection, but remained confident in Gagnon’s guilt. “We believed all along there was more than one participant.”

–Grace Wong, In Session senior field producer

NEW YORK–Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has apparently decided that the finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted in the first place.

With all due respect to the court, this decision, which came down yesterday, is wrong. The case was brought by William Osborne, convicted in 1993 of a rape which he says he did not commit. For years, he sought DNA testing, but in Alaska, there is no law granting access to DNA. So Mr. Osborne took his case all the way up to the Supreme Court, which said yesterday that the states should decide, and found that Osborne’s rights were not violated when he was denied access to the DNA in his case.

The Innocence Project has more than 250 active clients right now and thousands of cases in evaluation; and of course, they will continue to fight for and win DNA testing through the state courts. But for prisoners in those states that do not provide access, prisoners with nowhere else to turn but the federal courts, the Supreme Court’s decision is devastating.

So, it is more important now than ever that the last three hold out states — Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma — pass laws granting access. DNA has played a role in at least 240 exonerations. In 103 of those cases, the test also identified the real perpetrator. Access to DNA testing should be a protected right for all prisoners with a valid claim of innocence. It is not just about the plight of the innocent. It is about truth and ultimate justice.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking Barack Obama to take a more humane approach to flies in the White House. As in house flies. As if the president of the United States doesn’t have bigger things to worry about. Apparently PETA doesn’t think so because they are actually sending the “flyswatter in chief” a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher. The ‘Katcha Bug’ is a humane bug catcher of some sort, a device that would allow the President to trap a house fly and then release it outside. PETA says the device ensures compassion for the “smallest and least sympathetic animals” – the fly. (Last I checked the housefly was an insect. Not an animal, but that’s another discussion for another day).

The current controversy started during a television interview at the White House on Tuesday, during which a fly went by. Ever cool, Mr. Obama shooed it. When that didn’t work he waited for the fly to settle and smacked — dead. This was a show of strength from our president at a time when our country needs a strong leader.

As for the fly, I mean animal, if PETA really cares about their ethical treatment, it should take a look at Obama’s voting record in the Senate, which was pretty good on animal rights.

And more to the point, what PETA is asking of our president would simply not be presidential.
It is precisely the kind of nonsense that makes PETA ineffective, if not a laughing-stock among do-gooder organizations. do we really want our commander-in-chief to carry a ‘Katcha Bug’ with him everywhere he goes? Or perhaps we want to spend our tax dollars to hire a ‘Katcha Bug’ carrier to walk with the president at all times. Maybe we ought to assign a secret service agent that task? Or perhaps the president should simply do what that old lady did, and swallow the fly?

-Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – The families of two American journalists convicted of “hostilities against the Korean nation” and sentenced to hard labor in a North Korean prison camp are speaking out. The families of Euna Lee and Laura Ling say that yesterday’s news from North Korea said that the women had admitted crossing into the country illegally was the first (and only) word they have had about them since last week’s sentencing.

A South Korean activist holding pictures of U.S. journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling

Of course, Americans visiting other countries must follow their laws. If we don’t, we will be subject to their system of justice, no matter how undemocratic it may be. In this case, however, Lee and Ling weren’t in North Korea; they were in China. Even if they did cross the border, they have apologized, publicly, privately and repeatedly.

None of that matters, however, because this is much bigger than two women in search of a story. Lee and Ling are caught in the midst of a diplomatic standoff between North Korea and the United States, as North Korea’s nuclear weapons program gains steam. It is clear the North Koreans want to use Lee and Ling to send a message; but it’s the wrong message.

Holding these women will only make matters worse for North Korea, in the eyes of the United States — and the United Nations. If compassion doesn’t instruct the North Korean government to release Lee and Ling, hopefully smart diplomatic strategy will.

-Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK–I grew up on the New York City subway, and I have a love-hate relationship with it: The rats, the heat, the unknown substances dripping on to my head.

The so-called “Subway Vigilante” Bernie Goetz

The old “Taking of Pelham 1 2 3″ captured it back in it in all it’s gritty 1970s splendor. But that was fiction; fact is, nothing gets you where you need go faster.

You just need the psychological wherewithal to enter the belly of the beast. There is no way out, and you know it; but you try not to think about it, especially on days like today: The anniversary of the verdict in the case of the so-called subway vigilante. I thought Bernhard Goetz was guilty; but the fact that it all happened on the subway was not lost on me, or apparently on the jury, since they acquitted him of shooting four black teenagers late at night on the Downtown 2 express.

Most people thought his fear was reasonable; but even his supporters agreed that, if it hadn’t happened on the subway, that fear would have been unreasonable.

Underground is just different. You feel trapped down there because you are.

But you make your peace with it, for convenience sake. (My commute is 18 minutes door-to-door. If I take the bus, it’s 40. If I walk it’s an hour.)

Bernie Goetz? That was a long time ago. So, it was all good until this: A new “Pelham” hit theaters, this week. Everyone’s worst fears realized — terrorism underground. It’s one big giant flashback. Or is it a flash forward? Great.

Now I am back at my psychological square one: I have to start all over again, conquer my fear, step all the way in and watch the closing doors.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – Last night, I watched a rape on television. It was a dramatized rape. But it was jarring, just the same. Weeds, Season 5, Episode 2.

Mary-Louise Parker, star of “Weeds”

I have always loved Weeds for its black humor, for its honesty. I love the way in which the show forces us to question our righteousness, our ability to pass judgment on our friends and neighbors, despite the disorder of our own houses. As a criminal defense attorney who cut her teeth on petty drug cases, I like most the show’s “There but for the grace of God go I” premise.

But I’m not sure where this rape fits in. Or whether it fits in at all.

Weeds was created by Jenji Kohan, who is also the head writer. Jenji is a woman who, until now, has seemed to get womanhood; Weeds, after all, is so firmly rooted in our power, as women, in some circumstances and our complete powerlessness in others.

Nancy Botwan, the main character who deals with her husbands sudden death by dealing pot in her suburban neighborhood, certainly understands the power of sexuality, the relative powerlessness of single motherhood and the foolish ways in which men respond to women in crisis. So Jenji must know about all of this too. She writes it. Its her show.

And she must also know a thing or two about this age-old problem of rape. She must have known what she was doing with this rape scene. Even assuming we should ever dramatize rape (a debate that raged in the days and weeks after the release of the film, “The Accused” in the 1980s) there must be some point to it. But they lost me on this one.

No matter that the victim is in love with this man who rapes her; no matter that she is pregnant with his child; no matter that he has said he loves her; no matter that they were in a relationship. It is still a rape.

Most disturbing is that this victim seems to enjoy it. And that’s where fact and fiction diverge dramatically. Because rape, as we all know (or should all know), is not sex. It is violence. And it is a crime. No matter who the perpetrator. A husband can rape his wife and, sadly, it happens all the time. And when we suggest that women like it, I fear we encourage it. I don’t know that to be true. I just worry that is will be.

I am not sure what to do with all of this. I firmly believe in artistic freedom, even when I don’t understand the point the artist is trying to make. But we, as the consumers of art, also have the right to walk away if the message offends.

Recently I have seen the word “boycott” graffitied on billboards for Weeds. I thought it was an anti-drug message and scoffed at the messenger who clearly hadn’t watched (or perhaps misunderstood) the show. But I now believe that message is about the rape scene. And if so, the messenger is right that rape should neither be tolerated nor celebrated.

So will I boycott? Will I stop watching Weeds? I don’t know. But I’m thinking about it. If I do, I will miss Silas and Shane and Celia and all the whacky characters as they struggle with the fallout of Nancy’s bad choices. I will miss Nancy most of all. But then again, this is not the Nancy I’ve come to love over 4 seasons of loyal viewership. This Nancy (and her rapist boyfriend/drug kingpin/father of her child) may not be worth watching at all.

-Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK–Lord have mercy! Madonna has just won the next stage of her legal battle to adopt a little girl from the southern African nation of Malawi. It is an answer to Madonna’s prayers, and no doubt little Mercy’s too.

Madonna with her son, a Malawian adoptee

I can understand the country’s reluctance. No one wants to encourage baby marketing or child trafficking; but clearly that is not what the multi-millionaire pop star is about. She has two biological children and one little boy she’s already adopted from Malawi, several years ago. If little Mercy joins their family, he will have a sister who shares his history and cultural roots. He and Mercy will also share in a lifestyle far beyond the reach of most children in Malawi.

I know this, because I’ve been there. It is a beautiful place. The skies are clear and brightly lit with sunshine, the countryside is glorious and the people are warm, open and friendly. However, Malawi is also among the world’s least developed and most densely populated countries. Life expectancy is just 37.8 years; infant mortality is 114 deaths per 1000.

There can be little doubt that Mercy will fare better here than she would there.

That is not to say that adoption of an African child by a wealthy white woman is the ideal in an ideal world. But we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in world full of disparities — between black and white, rich and poor, east and west.

That Madonna wants to share some of her good fortune with these children speaks volumes about her character. That Malawi is finally ready to make the bittersweet decision to Mercy go — to free her to enjoy that good fortune — speaks volumes for the little country and what it will someday become.

Jami Floyd, In Session anchor