“Three charged in bombing of downtown federal court house”: The San Diego Union-Tribune provides this news update. You can access the indictment at this link.

And The Associated Press reports that “3 charged in federal courthouse bombing in Calif.”

Under the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Georgia v. Randolph, when a wife consents to a police search of the marital home but the husband objects, can the police validly rely on the wife’s consent to search after the husband is arrested and taken to jail? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this decision today.

Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion joined. According to the majority’s holding, the husband’s objection to the search no longer precluded a valid search based solely on the wife’s consent once the husband had been arrested and taken from the scene.

Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner dissented. Her dissenting opinion begins:

There is one and only one reason that this case is not on all fours with Georgia v. Randolph: When Kevin Henderson told the police to “get the fuck out” out of his house, the officers arrested and removed him instead. Until that moment, Henderson was both a present and actual objector to the search of his home. Had he remained on the premises, his objection would have foreclosed the police from searching the house regardless of his wife’s consent; only a warrant would have broken the tie and permitted the search. My colleagues conclude that Henderson’s valid arrest and removal from the scene sapped his objection of its force and allowed the police to search the house with Patricia Henderson’s consent. In my view, this interprets the admittedly limited Randolph decision too narrowly. I would hold that Henderson’s objection survived his involuntary removal from the home, thus precluding the search in the absence of a warrant. See United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Melloy, J., dissenting).

Here’s hoping that the Seventh Circuit grants rehearing en banc to consider further this very interesting legal issue.

“Ninth Circuit Court Retreats to Idaho: Legal insiders point everywhere but at themselves during a sun-filled non-examination.” LA Weekly has posted online this article by Cyrus Sanai. Page two of the article mentions “How Appealing.”

And the Ninth Circuit’s web site has posted this photo montage of the event.

“3 states to consider affirmative action ban”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Bin Laden driver convicted at Guantanamo of aiding terror; Salim Ahmed Hamdan is found guilty of providing material support for Al Qaeda; But he is acquitted of more serious conspiracy charges”: Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Detainee Convicted by Military Panel.”

And The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Bin Laden’s Former Driver Convicted by Military Tribunal; Trial Is First Test of System Set up to Try Guantanamo Detainees.”

“Military jury convicts bin Laden’s driver”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A jury of six military officers at Guantanamo Bay reached a split verdict Wednesday in the war crimes trial of a former driver for Osama bin Laden, clearing him of some charges but convicting him of others that could send him to prison for life.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. convicts bin Laden’s driver at Guantanamo.”

And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Bin Laden’s driver found guilty of war crimes” that begins, “A U.S. military jury convicted Osama bin Laden’s driver of providing material support for terror on Wednesday — but cleared him of the more serious charge of conspiracy at the first U.S. war crimes tribunal since World War II.”

“Abu Ghraib contractor CACI loses defamation suit; Court affirms dismissal of Abu Ghraib contractor CACI’s lawsuit against talk radio network”: The Associated Press provides this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fourth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Medellin executed for rape, murder of Houston teens”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle, along with an article headlined “Somber tribute held to the teen victims; Group gathers where 2 girls slain and neighborhood was shaken to core.”

The New York Times reports today that “Texas Executes Mexican Despite Objections.”

The Washington Post reports that “Mexican National Executed in Texas; Murder Conviction Drew Attention of International Court.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Texas executes Mexican killer amid international protests; The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to grant a reprieve urged by Mexico and an international court; Jose Ernesto Medellin was convicted of raping and killing two Texas teens in 1993.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Texas executes Mexican national.”

The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Mexican-born killer put to death in Texas” and “Execution prompts concern for detained Mexicans.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Divided U.S. Supreme Court Allows Mexican National’s Execution.”

And Reuters reports that “Texas defies World Court with execution.”

“No verdict in Day 2 of Guantanamo deliberations”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

And The New York Times reports today that “Guantanamo Bay Judge Admits Possible Error.”

“E-Mail Hacking Case Could Redefine Online Privacy”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court in California is reviewing a lower court’s definition of ‘interception’ in the digital age, in a case that some legal experts say could weaken consumer privacy protections online.”

“Our Class-Action System Is Unconstitutional: Judges have no right to award money to nonplaintiffs.” George Krueger and Judd Serotta have this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

Available online from National Public Radio: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Professor Tries To Correct Century-Old Court Error.” And Monday evening’s broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Jury Deliberates In Hamdan Case” and “Book Examines Case Against Bin Laden’s Driver.”

Yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Fate Of Bin Laden Driver In Military Jury’s Hands.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.