On the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times: In today’s newspaper, an editorial entitled “Not the cardinal’s rules” begins, “His last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony may soon find himself at the mercy of a far less exalted body: the civil jury.”

And an editorial entitled “Judging juries” begins, “You don’t have to be A social scientist to realize that racially diverse juries might engage in more give-and-take than homogeneous ones.” The editorial proceeds to describe Justice Stephen G. Breyer as carrying on “a lonely campaign … to make it easier to impanel juries that are more reflective of the community.”

“Trial Starts for Man Who Knew Hijackers”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “More than four years after charges were filed, a Jordanian college student went on trial yesterday in Manhattan federal court, accused of lying to a grand jury that was investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. The trial tests the government’s practice of long detention of witnesses in terror cases.”

My earlier coverage of this case can be accessed here.

“Online Registry Or Target List? A Stranger Kills Two Sex Offenders Among 34 He Looked Up in Maine.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Arizona’s Strict Approach to Insanity Defenses Gets a Hearing Before the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Insanity-Based Defense Tested in High Court; Arizona argues that a schizophrenic knew right from wrong and can be jailed for murder.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices weigh when defendants can assert insanity.”

Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments on insanity defense; Case could affect way mentally ill defendants are treated nationwide.”

And The Arizona Republic reports that “U.S. justices look at Ariz. killing; Murderer’s intent focus of insanity case.”

“Twenty-first Century Religion and the Backlash Against Women’s Autonomy: Three Recent Events that Show that Women’s Freedom Is Imperiled.” FindLaw commentator Marci Hamilton has this essay today.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Examines Insanity Defense.”

Marcia Coyle reports that “High Court to Enter Illegal Worker Debate in RICO Case.”

Shannon P. Duffy reports that “3rd Circuit Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Continue.”

And in other news, “Morgan Lewis Partners Get a Hollywood Ending; Attorneys’ pro bono crusade will be turned into a film starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.”

Welcome to the new home of “How Appealing”: Thanks to Betsy Vardell of rubystudio, which operates the servers on which “How Appealing” resides, for making the switch to law.com go so smoothly, and to all the folks at law.com who were involved in the planning and template design. Although there are still a few minor functionality issues to be resolved, the new site is already off to a great start.