Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Fernando Tatis, who returned to Major League Baseball in 2006 after a two-year absence, strikes out in his effort to hold US Bancorp liable on claims of breach of contract, negligence, and violation of Ohio law arising from the bank’s payment of forged checks drawn on Tatis’s account. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

And a divided three-judge panel today has ruled that a Michigan state court’s consolidation hearing — during which the state court consolidated the trial of one criminal defendant with that of his co-defendants — did not constitute “a critical stage of the criminal proceeding” requiring the defendant’s counsel to be present. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Law Deans Release Statement on Remarks of Cully Stimson Regarding Lawyers for Detainees”: Yale Law School issued this news release today. You can access the law deans’ letter by clicking here.

“Court orders new review of ADA case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” According to Lyle’s post, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued no opinions in argued cases.

“Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Judicial Pay: Too Much, Too Little or Just Right?” This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

“Court’s use of video is facing review; The 9th Circuit’s chief judge says curbs could be imposed after panel members last week took up a death penalty appeal via a remote link”: Henry Weinstein has this very interesting article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The article begins, “So many people came to listen to lawyers argue the death penalty appeal of convicted Chino Hills murderer Kevin Cooper that dozens of overflow spectators had to watch from the courthouse cafeteria on a closed-circuit television. But three seats remained empty during the hearing last week in the large ceremonial courtroom of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They were the chairs reserved for the judges, who were hundreds of miles away, listening to the arguments via video hookup, and occasionally asking questions.” The article goes on to report that “the Cooper hearing marked the first time that an argument was held with none of the judges present, according to Mary M. Schroeder, the 9th Circuit’s chief judge.”

According to the article, one of the judges on the panel — Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould — “has serious health problems that make it dangerous for him to fly, according to Cathy Catterson, the 9th Circuit’s chief clerk.” The article says that The LATimes attempted to discuss the issue of oral argument via video hook-up with the three judges on the panel, but that none was willing to discuss the issue while the Cooper appeal remains pending.

Weinstein reports that “in recent months, an increasing number of 9th Circuit judges have invoked their privilege of appearing via video, even when they did not have a compelling reason, according to judges on the court who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis. Two judges on the court took particular umbrage at a colleague who they said had recently informed the court that it would be inconvenient to attend arguments because they would conflict with a child’s basketball games.”

You can download the audio of last week’s Ninth Circuit oral argument in Cooper v. Brown, No. 05-99004, via this link (Windows Media format). The other two judges on the panel were Circuit Judges Pamela Ann Rymer of Pasadena and M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego. The oral argument was held in San Francisco.

In the July 5, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” essay for law.com, headlined “Predicting Technology’s Impact on Appellate Oral Argument,” I wrote: “To be sure, technology occasionally allows attorneys or judges to participate in oral argument from a remote location. I’ve argued one appeal in which a judge on the panel participated via videoconference, and another appeal in which a judge participated by phone, but I felt that the technology wasn’t an adequate substitute for more direct interaction. In my opinion, being unable to observe the judge’s expressions and nonverbal cues in person deprives the advocates of valuable information. For that reason, I’m not a fan of teleconferencing for appellate oral arguments.”

“Political theater awaited at Libby trial; The CIA leak case promises a rare glimpse into the White House”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “‘All Star Game’ Taking Shape in Libby’s Trial.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Libby trial to open with eye on Cheney.”

“Suit calls sacrifice a religious right”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “Jose Merced said he is tired of Euless police knocking at his door and interrupting his church services. Police have told Mr. Merced that his Santeria religious rites are against the law in this rapidly growing community because some of its ordination rituals involve the sacrifice of animals.”

“Law school deans sign letter condemning boycott; Pentagon official provoked outcry”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The deans of Massachusetts’ major law schools joined about 100 law deans in signing a letter condemning a senior Pentagon official’s suggestion that US companies should boycott law firms representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

And The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial entitled “Sliming the defense: A Pentagon official’s overboard criticism of Gitmo lawyers is consistent with one bad strain of White House thought.”

“Enjoying Technology’s Conveniences But Not Escaping Its Watchful Eyes”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “The Legal Tangles Of Data Collection.”

“Some at Guantanamo Mark 5 Years in Limbo; Big Questions About Low-Profile Inmates”: The Washington Post today contains this front page article, along with an article headlined “Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says; Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods.”

“Alleged Voting Rights Violation With Twist Goes to Trial”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“High Court to Hear Consumer Credit Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Is Baseball Drugs Ruling A Fourth-Amendment Foul?” This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

My earlier coverage of last month’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Suggests A Boycott of Law Firms that Represent Guantanamo Detainees: Why This Kind of Blacklisting Is Always Wrong, and McCarthyite.” Anthony J. Sebok and Spencer Weber Waller have this essay online today at FindLaw.