“Court Protects Judicial Records; Justices Say Computer Databases On Crime, Vehicle Cases Off Limits”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “A sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled Friday that the judicial branch’s computerized records of criminal and motor vehicle cases are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, in a decision that also includes a very narrow definition of which judicial records are subject to the act.”

Yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Connecticut consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.

“‘Choose Life’ plates put on hold; Delay granted while ACLU works on appeal to U.S. Supreme Court”: The Tennessean today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has delayed Tennessee’s production of a specialty license plate reading ‘Choose Life’ while the American Civil Liberties Union pursues a legal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In response to that development, the ACLU yesterday issued a press release entitled “ACLU Hails Federal Appeals Court Ruling Delaying Production of Tennessee’s Anti-Choice License Plate.”

The March 27, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column at law.com was headlined “‘Choose Life’ Tags Appear Headed to Supreme Court.” In the final paragraph of that column, I wrote: “I expect that the Supreme Court will overturn the 6th Circuit’s ruling and will hold that Tennessee’s program violates the First Amendment due to the program’s viewpoint discrimination. At the end of the day, those who have seen ‘Choose Life’ license plates as a reason to choose litigation are likely to achieve victory in the Supreme Court.”

“State questions senators about talks with justice”: The Wichita Eagle today contains an article that begins, “An investigator from Attorney General Phill Kline’s office has interviewed state senators about potential ethics violations by Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss, four senators said Friday. Nuss removed himself Thursday from the ongoing litigation over school finance after informing other justices that he spoke briefly about the case with Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, on March 1.”

On Friday, The Wichita Eagle reported that “Judge pulls out of school case; A Kansas Supreme Court justice has removed himself from future discussions of the school funding case.”

Meanwhile, in other coverage, The Lawrence Journal-World reports today that “Judge’s lunch meeting scrutinized; Speaker calls for investigation of school discussion with lawmakers.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that “Details of lunch chat emerge; Senator says Justice Nuss liked idea of bipartisan school finance plan.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Talks between justice, senators cause stir.”

“How judge in Ryan trial juggled turmoil over jury; Transcripts reveal struggle to keep case on track”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune, along with an article headlined “Ryan lawyers ask to talk with 2 dismissed jurors.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Jury room drama disclosed.” The Sun-Times also provides via this link access to PDF files of the trial transcript.

“Judges reject voting systems; Punch cards unconstitutional, federal appeals panel rules”: The Columbus Dispatch contains this article today.

The Toledo Blade reports today that “Punch-card ballots deemed biased; Ruling against Ohio may be moot by May 2.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “Court rules on punch cards.”

And The Akron Beacon Journal contains an article headlined “Punch-card voting is illegal; Professor: Appellate ruling in Ohio is first in U.S. to say a state’s equipment violates equal protection.”

“Pennsylvania Senate Race Tests Democrats’ New Abortion Tack”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Ex-judge shares take on the confirmation process in book”: Yesterday’s edition of The Danville (Va.) Register & Bee contained an article that begins, “If a fortuneteller had predicted for Judge Charles Pickering how his stalled nomination for the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would leave him stuck in the middle of a polarized America, Pickering probably would have passed up the opportunity to enter the fray.”

“Court tosses conviction due to lack of details”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A 14-year-old girl’s testimony that she had a ‘sexual relationship’ with a man was not specific enough to sustain his conviction for carnal knowledge of a child, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Virginia at this link.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Competing ‘three-strikes’ plans emerge; One measure adds offenses; another limits third strike to serious, violent crimes” and “Providing medical pot worth the risk, pair say.”

“When the Federal Death Penalty is ‘Cruel and Unusual'”: This article (abstract with links for download) by Law Professor Michael Mannheimer is available online at SSRN.

“Court upholds $28 million judgment for smoker”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A state appeals court upheld $28 million in punitive damages Friday for the family of a longtime cigarette smoker who died of lung cancer, in a case that could test new legal limits on punitive awards against corporate wrongdoers.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of California’s Second District Court of Appeal at this link.

“County jail strip search illegal; Ninth Circuit rejects sheriff’s blanket policy”: Yesterday’s issue of The Ventura County Star contained an article that begins, “A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a lower court ruling that a body-cavity check of a local woman at the Ventura County Jail was unconstitutional, a ruling that the woman’s attorney said could end up costing the county millions of dollars in damages.”

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Insanity Offense: Too often, mentally ill people and their families can’t get help.” The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “The case of Eric Michael Clark, argued before the Supreme Court this week, presents an important question concerning how far states can go in limiting the ability of mentally ill defendants to plead insanity.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times: An article reports that “After 2 Years, Microsoft Set to Appeal European Ruling.”

An article is headlined “In Old Mining Town, New Charges Over Asbestos.”

In news from New Jersey, “Ex-Nets Star Faces Retrial for a Shooting at His Home.”

And an editorial entitled “Kiss-and-Tell No More” begins, “A federal judge in Kansas has dealt another blow to the crusade by the state’s attorney general, Phill Kline, to restrict abortions under the phony banner of combating child abuse.”