The state now can't afford to pay to defend the accused in several capital punishment cases, leaving them waiting in jail for years before their trials start. Some, like Khan Dinh Phan, have appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court for help. They have asked that their cases be dismissed because the delays violated their right to a speedy trial.

Georgia has faced similar problems before. State legislators created the public defender system precisely because individual counties struggled to provide adequate legal defense for the poor. But prosecutors and defense attorneys say it may take drastic measures to recover from the Nichols' case, one of the statewide system's first high-profile tests.

Prosecutors said Nichols' defense should have cost about $500,000. But expenses ballooned with expert witnesses and attorneys fees. Nichols was spared death and sentenced to life in December 2008 for killing of a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent during the rampage.

She is jailed in lieu of $175,000 bail. Her lawyer, Michael Williamson, says she wants to stay there for the time being to avoid the media.

Authorities say Beck arrived at Burbank police headquarters on Monday and said she was tormented with guilt.

Police say she confessed to having sex with one of her male students last year.

Prosecutors charged Beck with five counts, and she faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.

In a landmark ruling, the court found in favour of Pink Floyd and ordered EMI to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs. The judge has yet to rule how much the beleaguered label is to pay in fines. In a further ruling, EMI has also been banned from selling Pink Floyd's music online.

The case came to court over a dispute about a clause in Pink Floyd's 1999 contract. Signed five years before the advent of legal downloads, EMI argued that clause allowed them to sell the band's music in any way that it saw fit. Pink Floyd's argument rested on the assertion that the clause -- "there are no rights to sell any or all of the records as single records other than with permission" -- included digital as well as physical formats.

Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.

The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.

Fewer medical malpractice payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009 than any year on record, according to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

This finding contradicts claims that medical malpractice litigation is to blame for rising healthcare costs and that changing the liability system to the detriment of patients will not curb costs.

The value of malpractice payments was also the lowest since 1999. Adjusted for inflation, payments were at their lowest since 1992, a Public Citizen analysis of the NPDB shows.

• The False Premises of Medical Malpractice "Reform" (Response to Richard Epstein in WSJ) (6/30/09)

  There's an old saying, "garbage in, garbage out." If you use a false premise to substantiate an argument then the result will be worthless. And that is exactly what University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein does today in the Wall Street Journal (via PofL)...

  
  
• Do Texas Med-Mal Damage Caps Work? (What Do You Mean By "Work?") (4/14/09)

  But what, exactly does it mean for a statute to "work" when it reduces the ability of the most badly injured individuals to recover for their loss?
  
  Does offering government protectionism for tortfeasors mean it works?
  
  Does stopping those who've been victimized from recovering from their loss mean it works?
  
  Does destroying the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions mean it works?

• My Tort "Reform" Op-Ed in Today's Journal News (7/29/08)

  Re "Tort reform needed in New York state," a July 23 letter by Cortes E. DeRussy of Bronxville that blamed the "trial-bar friendly state Legislature" for refusing to enact malpractice reforms needed to keep doctors from fleeing the state:
  
  The DeRussy letter repeated a common myth in an argument for tort "reform," claiming that one of the primary reasons for increased medical malpractice insurance was "unusually high judgments." DeRussy couldn't be more wrong...

  
  
• The Medical Malpractice "Crisis" Hoax -- From Public Citizen (1/24/07)

  Since others had already pointed out the Public Citizen report exposing the hoax of a medical malpractice "crisis" I wasn't going to bother. But there was Pres. Bush last night at his State of the Union speech once again leading people astray, when he said:
  
  "And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, by passing medical liability reform."
  
  Good doctors, however, don't seem to be the problem. Since 1991, according to the report, 5.9 percent of U.S. doctors were responsible for 57.8 percent of the number of medical malpractice payments. That is an extraordinary statistic.

  
  
• Debunking Yet Another Tort "Reform" Column, This Time in Forbes (7/15/09)

  I feel like a broken record sometimes, rebutting the same disingenuous tort "reform" nonsense over and over. The latest comes from Forbes (via PofL), in a piece written by Manhattan Institute fellow John Avlon, regarding the amount that New York City pays out in settlements and verdicts....

• Why New York Medical Malpractice Insurance Jumped 14% (7/31/07)

  You may have seen the screaming New York headlines: Doctors hit with 14% increase in medical malpractice rates! Doctors in high risk specialties paying 6-figure insurance premiums! Insurance reserves so low carriers may become insolvent! Blame the lawyers! came the cry from the doctor's, for surely it must be due to medical malpractice cases. A little protectionism called tort "reform" would go a long way to curing the problem. Right?
  
  Ahh, but truth is another matter...

U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport ruled in favor of the Machinists union, which sued Pratt & Whitney to halt efforts to shift the jobs. The union said the company violated its contract with the union that requires it to make every effort to preserve jobs in Connecticut.

Among the issues Pratt & Whitney said it may raise is its contention that Hall was wrong in how she interpreted the definition of "every reasonable effort" to preserve jobs. Pratt & Whitney said it is not required to save jobs if it results in lower profit.

The company also said Hall substituted her own judgment for Pratt & Whitney's business judgment in how it measures profit and financial performance.

In a request filed last week, Pratt & Whitney said a decision is needed soon to avoid financial harm because the company plans to shut two Connecticut plants immediately after its union contract expires in December.

The court said the two parties may file legal papers in April and May and an appeal may be heard as early as the week of May 31.

A lawyer for the union would not immediately comment. The union's chief negotiator did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

An Ontario Superior Court judge ruled on Feb. 19 that Shaw could acquire Canwest's television arm, putting a quick end to a last-minute bid for the assets, filed the night before by a consortium led by private equity fund Catalyst Capital and backed by Goldman.

The Catalyst consortium includes the Asper family, Canwest's founders. Leonard Asper was chief executive of Winnipeg, Manitoba-based Canwest, Canada's largest media group, until last Thursday when he stepped down to avoid potential conflict of interest concerns.

Goldman Sachs is a partner in Canwest's specialty TV arm after helping the media group acquire popular channels such as History Television and Food Network Canada from Alliance Atlantis in 2007 for C$2.3 billion.

It wants the Ontario Court of Appeal to set aside the deal that allows cable operator Shaw to buy the Canwest TV assets.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.