“A.B.A. Panel Would Weaken Code Governing Judges’ Conduct”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

“Jail Record Near for Videographer Who Resisted Grand Jury”: Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “A freelance videographer who refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigation will become the longest incarcerated journalist in modern American history on Tuesday. The freelancer, Josh Wolf, will pass Vanessa Leggett, an investigator and a journalist who served 168 days in 2001 and 2002 for refusing to surrender information in a murder case.”

“Exxon, Alabama to face off in state supreme court”: Reuters provides this report.

“Wittig resentenced to 24 months for bank fraud”: The Kansas City Star provides this news update.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “9th Circuit Steps Up En Banc Reviews; A move to head off circuit conflicts before Supreme Court notices.”

And in news from Texas, “Married Lawyers Face Trial for Payment Demands After Wife’s Affairs.”

Apparently holding a bake sale is out of the question: What’s a federal appellate court in need of money to do? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit announced today on its web site that attorneys who have been admitted to that court for more than three years as of January 1, 2007 must pay a $25.00 Tenth Circuit attorney bar membership renewal fee. You can read the announcement at this link.

The announcement explains that “[t]he court does not at this time plan to make this renewal fee an annual requirement.” Presumably, if those who are required to pay the fee fail to do so, they will lose their membership in the Tenth Circuit’s bar. The fee for initially becoming a member of the Tenth Circuit’s bar is now $200.00, so many current members of the Tenth Circuit’s bar will likely find it cost-effective to pay the renewal fee.

“Idea Would Require Couples to Have Kids”: The AP provides a report from Washington State that begins, “Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.”

“Audiotapes of Libby’s Testimony to Be Released”: The Washington Post provides this news update.

And The Associated Press provides reports headlined “News Media Cheer Ruling on Libby Tapes” and “Fitzgerald Targets Cheney in Libby Tapes.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “The police lineup is becoming suspect practice; States are considering scrapping side-by-side lineups in favor of a one-at-a-time variety.”

And Seth Stern will have a book review headlined “Spotlight on the nation’s highest court: Two new books home in on Supreme Court justices, past and present, and how they shape the court they serve.”

When bankruptcy law and rap music collide: Lil’ Joe defeats JT Money in this ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

Three-judge First Circuit panel divides over “whether the prosecution must, in the absence of direct evidence, produce expert opinion testimony that a particular pornographic image is of a real, non-virtual child, in order to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence at sentencing.” You can access today’s 69-page ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.

The second to last paragraph of Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella‘s dissenting opinion states:

Although the views of other courts of appeal are usually heavily persuasive, I submit, with all due respect, that on the issue before us the other courts of appeal that have considered this matter have not reached the correct conclusion. Again with due respect to those who differ from me, arithmetic is not determinative of scientific truth. It made no difference how many cardinals said that the sun revolved around the earth, it did not make this asseveration a scientific truth. And it is scientific truth that trumps the day on the issue before this court. It is now beyond scientific dispute that it is possible to create virtual photographic images that can only be detected (with difficulty) by experts. Thus, experts are required before factfinders can make their findings on this issue. I do not recall any mention of this scientific knowledge, one way or another, in any of the appellate opinions cited in opposition to my views.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

“Justice Fever: The baloney in two new books about the Supreme Court.” Edward Lazarus has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“German Court Bars Stealth PC Searches”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Police cannot secretly search suspects’ computer hard drives over the Internet, a German court ruled Monday. The decision of the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe bars police from using software to search through remote hard drives unless parliament passes a law explicitly allowing the technique.”

You can access the ruling of the German Federal High Court at this link, while a related news release can be accessed here.

“Court-Martial Begins for War Objector”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Sen. Specter (R-PA) & Tony Mauro on Cameras in the Supreme Court”: You can view online this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America and the Courts” by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

The proposed legislation can be accessed here.

En banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds that facts relevant to the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: You can access today’s 145-page ruling at this link.

My coverage of the Third Circuit’s original divided three-judge panel ruling in this case from June 2006 can be accessed here.

“Libby Judge: Even I Don’t Know Plame’s Status; The essential craziness of the CIA-leak trial.” Byron York has this essay today at National Review Online.

More on ‘and’ versus ‘or’: The blog “AdamsDrafting” has this post about the recent Eighth Circuit ruling that I previously noted here. The author of that blog post is also the co-author of a new law review article on the subject.

“April arguments, day by day”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Tapes of Libby Testimony to Be Released”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby’s secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby’s trial ruled Monday.”

“Who Is the Client? Two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle face jail time. Should they have their own lawyers?” The February 2007 issue of The American Lawyer contains this article.

“Convictions v. conviction: Watada’s court-martial begins; Opponents, supporters of Army officer face off.” This article appears today in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The Seattle Times reported yesterday that “Fort Lewis officer’s words, deeds focus of court-martial.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Martial Due for War Critic Watada.”

“Hicks like a condemned man: lawyer.” The Australian contains this article today.

And Australia’s ABC Radio provides reports titled “Hicks’ lawyer angry at timing of charges” and “Terrorism charge against Hicks has base in US law: Ruddock” (transcripts).

“Passage of abortion ban not assured; Some lawmakers prefer small steps”: This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, along with an article headlined “Other states offer bills to restrict abortion.”

And The Concord (N.H.) Monitor today contains an editorial entitled “Judge gives Legislature a graceful way out.”

“New job, same Santorum”: Columnist Ralph R. Reiland has this op-ed today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

“Canada’s newest Justice to speak at Western Law”: The University of Western Ontario has issued this news release today.

“State court to hear Exxon verdict appeal”: The Birmingham News today contains an article that begins, “Attorneys for the state of Alabama and ExxonMobil Corp. plan to argue before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday in the appeal of a jury’s verdict that Exxon owes the state $3.6 billion.”

“For Federal Appellate Judicial Nominations, It’s a Time for Pragmatism”: This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

“Leak case hangs on Libby’s credibility; Amid a campaign against her husband, Valerie Plame came up too often to forget, the government argues”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Washington Post today contains an article headlined “The Big Uneasy: Insiders, Media Mingle Awkwardly at Libby Trial.”

And The New York Times contains an article headlined “Skipping Merrily Along as Others Take the Heat.”

“Future of suit at stake? Attorney says stockholders need class action.” Saturday’s issue of The Houston Chronicle contained this article reporting on an Enron-related case to be argued today before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“Instead of Iraq, a battle all his own: Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada was called an exemplary soldier; But then he decided to face court-martial rather than join a war he says is illegal.” This front page article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Wrong on habeas corpus”: Columnist Nat Hentoff has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Known Unknowns: How not to decide whether warrantless wiretapping is legit.” Benjamin Wittes has this essay online today at The New Republic.

Seventy years ago today: According to the popular “Today in history” feature from The Associated Press, “On Feb. 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court; critics accused Roosevelt of attempting to ‘pack’ the high court.”

The Supreme Court Historical Society provides more information here and here.

“Blawg Review #94”: Available here, at “Online Guide to Mediation.”