“After Libby Trial, New Era for Government and Press”: Adam Liptak will have this news analysis Thursday in The New York Times.

“Subpoenas Likely for Justice Officials in Prosecutor Firings”: This article will appear Thursday in The Washington Post.

McClatchy Newspapers report that “More officials likely to be subpoenaed in U.S. attorneys investigation.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Fired Prosecutors Probe Widens.”

“Jailed Man Is A Videographer And a Blogger but Is He a Journalist?” In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz will have an article that begins, “He is being cast by some journalists as a young champion of the First Amendment, jailed for taking a lonely stand against heavy-handed federal prosecutors. Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger, has spent more than six months behind bars in California — the longest contempt-of-court term ever served by someone in the media — for refusing to turn over a videotape he shot of a violent San Francisco demonstration against a Group of Eight summit meeting.”

Perhaps that’s why it’s called an advisory jury: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit today issued an interesting ruling that reverses a federal district court’s judgment because the district court relied too heavily on an advisory jury’s verdict and failed to issue sufficient findings of fact made by the court itself.

“Analysis: The Constitution and AEDPA.” At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Some 22 months after a federal appeals court raised a major constitutional issue that the Supreme Court has yet to confront, the lower court has provided an answer — though not in a binding precedent. It also has cleared up a fascinating mystery. With that solved, the controversy now seems back on track toward the Supreme Court.”

My most recent earlier coverage appears here.

“The battle over fired US attorneys: Eight lost their jobs, leading Democratic lawmakers to try to rein in presidential powers.” Gail Russell Chaddock will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

The Seattle Times reports today that “At Senate hearing, McKay vigorously defends his work.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that “McKay tells of a GOP call in 2004-05; Fired U.S. attorney and 5 others appear before congressional panels.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Ex-prosecutors felt political heat; Fired U.S. attorneys cite improper calls, requests.”

McClatchy Newspapers report that “Ousted U.S. attorneys describe lawmakers’ intrusions.”

And today in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article headlined “At Unusual Hearing Ousted Prosecutors Talk Back; Justice Department Says Lam Fired for Her Handling of Gun, Immigration Cases.”

Earlier today, I collected additional related coverage at this link.

“Attorneys ask judge to remove himself from Anna Mae case”: The Commercial Appeal of Memphis provides a news update that begins, “Attorneys for the parents of Anna Mae He have asked Juvenile Court Judge Curtis Person to remove himself from the controversial, long-running custody case. The attorneys contend that Person is too close to the attorney for Jerry and Louise Baker, who have been ordered to return 8-year-old Anna Mae to her natural parents, Shaoqiang ‘Jack’ He and Qin Luo ‘Casey’ He.”

And The AP provides a report headlined “Judge: Chinese Couple Can See Daughter.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Legal Experts Rap Media Ban at Gitmo” and “Libby Prepares Request for New Trial.”

“Trial Looms in Equal vs. Splenda Case”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer provides a news update (free access) that begins, “In a court battle between the makers of the nation’s leading sugar substitutes — Equal and Splenda — a federal judge has ruled that a jury must decide whether Splenda is misleading consumers by claiming in its ads and on its packaging that the product is ‘made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.'”

You can access last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Gay Veterans Want Lawsuit Reinstated”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Twelve gay and lesbian veterans who were dismissed under the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to reinstate their lawsuit challenging the policy. In arguments before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, they compared the policy to government-sanctioned discrimination against blacks.”

“This case presents an issue of first impression in this circuit as to the applicability of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to police conduct during arrests.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit today issued a decision that begins:

This case arises out of Plaintiff-Appellant Steven M. Bircoll’s DUI arrest. Bircoll, who is deaf, sued Defendant-Appellee Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging that its law enforcement officers violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against him because of his disability. Specifically, Bircoll claims that the officers failed to reasonably modify their procedures in order to ensure effective communication with Bircoll.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

The infliction by a police officer of a broken ankle on a man resisting arrest constituted excessive force and is not excused by qualified immunity: You can access today’s 111-page ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.

“The Brain on the Stand”: In this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have a cover story article (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “When historians of the future try to identify the moment that neuroscience began to transform the American legal system, they may point to a little-noticed case from the early 1990s.”

“When You’re In a Hole, the Best Thing to Do Is Stop Digging”: The title of this post was supplied by a reader who emailed to draw my attention to a memorandum and order that the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department issued last week. According to the appellate court’s factual recitation:

In May 2002, defendant, in an effort to get an individual to move a parked vehicle, allegedly impersonated a police officer, resulting in charges of criminal impersonation. He then reportedly offered assistance to the person to whom he had impersonated himself if she would recant and, ostensibly motivated in part by her dire economic circumstances, she signed a statement that defendant had prepared for her in which she essentially exonerated him. When his conduct was revealed to the prosecutor’s office, he was additionally charged with tampering with a witness in the fourth degree. Defendant then purportedly recruited others to give false statements and testimony at the trial regarding the criminal impersonation and witness tampering charges. At that trial, one such individual acknowledged on cross-examination that she had lied for defendant in her direct testimony.

You can access the ruling at this link.

On today’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “After the Libby Verdict” (featuring, among other guests, Law Professor Jonathan Turley; available in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats) and “Fired U.S. Attorneys Hearings” (featuring, among other guests, Dahlia Lithwick; available in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats).

Ninth Circuit holds that spitting on another person can be a federal crime: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues divided en banc ruling in case on appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board: If nothing else, the division among the en banc court is noteworthy:

MAYER, Circuit Judge, announced the judgment of the court, and filed the opinion for the court with respect to Part I, in which MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges, join, and filed an opinion with respect to Part II, in which MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, join. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, filed a concurring opinion, in which NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, and PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, join. MOORE, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which PROST, Circuit Judge, joins, and in which LOURIE, RADER, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges, join in part. BRYSON, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion, in which LOURIE, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges, join, and in which SCHALL and LINN, Circuit Judges, join in part. DYK, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion.

You can access the complete 81-page ruling at this link. And the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

In next week’s issue of The National Law Journal: The publication will contain an article headlined “Juror blogs complicate trials.”

And Isidore Silver will have an essay entitled “A devolving Constitution” that begins, “Perhaps in anticipation of a serious attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a technique of dismantling well-established constitutional rights and remedies and, in essence, relegating these protections to a form of ‘second class’ status.” Update: A reader emails, “There’s a glaring and repeated error in the National Law Journal article to which you link. Justice Kennedy, not Chief Justice Roberts, was the author of the Court’s majority opinion in Garcetti v. Ceballos.” And, of course, this reader is correct.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “U.S. Attorneys Testify About Their Firings“; “Defense Lawyers to Fight Libby’s Conviction“; “Libby Case Not Pretty for Pols or Media“; “Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame’s Outing“: and “Libby Evidence Finds Place at School’s Archives.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“North Carolina sues to get doctors at executions; A prison agency says the state medical board’s threat of disciplinary action prevents it from finding physicians”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports today that “Wary doctors shun execution; Prison officials sue to keep Medical Board from disciplining doctors who aid in lethal injections.”

“Legislators want pregnant girls reported; They say it’s to counter abuse, but others fear it would scare teens away from getting help”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Health care professionals would be required to call police if they know or suspect a patient 15 or younger is pregnant, under a bill filed recently in the House and Senate. In addition, doctors who perform abortions on such girls would be required to collect a DNA sample from the fetus and send it to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.”

“Suit seeks compensation for botched abortion; Child-rearing costs also being sought”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web; Law Students Feel Lasting Effects of Anonymous Attacks”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, has published in top legal journals and completed internships at leading institutions in her field. So when the Yale law student interviewed with 16 firms for a job this summer, she was concerned that she had only four call-backs. She was stunned when she had zero offers. Though it is difficult to prove a direct link, the woman thinks she is a victim of a new form of reputation-maligning: online postings with offensive content and personal attacks that can be stored forever and are easily accessible through a Google search.”

“Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times. In addition, the newspaper contains articles headlined “Members of a Sympathetic Jury Describe an Emotional but Inevitable Conclusion“; “White House Already on the Defensive Takes Another Hit With Guilty Verdict“; and “Questions About Cheney Remain,” along with a news analysis headlined “Prosecution by Logic Defeats a Defense in Shades of Gray.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A Libby Verdict.”

The Washington Post today contains articles headlined “Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case“; “Libby ‘Pilloried’ For Leak, Panel Members Believed“; “Cheney’s Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald“; and “Trying Times for Wilsons, Too; There’s More Legal Drama Ahead for the Controversial Couple.” A news analysis is headlined “For an Opaque White House, A Reflection of New Scrutiny.” An editorial is entitled “The Libby Verdict: The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal.” Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “Free-Fall for the Fall Guy.” Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column is headlined “Guess Libby’s Pardon Date, Win a T-Shirt.” And Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” column is headlined “A Case of Bad Ink: Portrait of Media Is Not So Flattering.”

The Los Angeles Times contains articles headlined “Libby’s conviction in CIA leak case a setback for White House; The former aide to Cheney is found guilty of lying about his role in discrediting a war critic“; “Jurors liked Libby but didn’t believe him; They saw him as ‘the fall guy’ for others in the administration but didn’t buy that he had forgotten conversations“; “Legal observers puzzled by ‘Scooter’ Libby’s version of events; A claim that the defendant had a faulty memory of when and how he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent is viewed as implausible“; and “Talk floats of a possible pardon by Bush; The Libby verdict is seen as tainting the White House too.” The newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Libby’s fibs: The verdict in the Plame affair may well be justice; But justice isn’t always satisfying.” Andrew Cohen has an op-ed entitled “The spin cycle runs dry: In the end, the jury just didn’t buy what the Libby defense was selling.” And Charles Kupchan and Ray Takeyh have an op-ed entitled “Libby, lies and another bad war; Not for the first time, a misguided military adventure ensnares a U.S. official.”

The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined “‘Day job’ awaits controversial top prosecutor” and a news analysis headlined “Cheney, Rove survive trial with clout intact; 2 still major players despite roles in leak.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Verdict: He lied.” Columnist John Kass has an op-ed entitled “Fitzgerald’s return will be fun to watch.” And Robert A. Mintz has an op-ed entitled “Libby verdict doesn’t shed light on leak; What about outing a covert CIA officer?”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Libby Question Turns to Pardon; His Lawyers Vow Appeal of Verdict.” And an editorial is entitled “The Cost of Libby.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Libby is convicted of lying in leak case; Appeal vowed; Ex-Cheney aide could face prison.” And an editorial is entitled “The cloud over Cheney.”

USA Today contains articles headlined “Jurors wonder why others weren’t also on trial; Many believe Cheney aide just ‘fall guy’ in Plame case” and “GOP: Verdict about Libby; Democrats say it’s bigger.”

The Washington Times reports that “Libby found guilty on 4 counts.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Justice and Scooter Libby.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “Trial hurts many reputations.”

The Hill contains an article headlined “Dems to Bush: Don’t pardon Libby.”

And The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “The Libby Travesty: Mr. Bush owes the former aide a pardon, and an apology” (free access).

“Hearings Set on Status of Detainees”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it planned to begin hearings this week on the status of 14 prisoners who were transferred from secret prisons to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Hearings for 14 Guantanamo Detainees to Be Held in Secret, Officials Say.”

“As to the Direction of the Roberts Court: The Jury Is Still Out.” Linda Greenhouse has this “Reporter’s Notebook” article today in The New York Times. The third item answers why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently observed walking especially slowly from the courtroom after having attended an oral argument — she had misplaced a shoe.

“As the Climate Heats Up, Lawyers Sharpen Their Wits”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “The review, published last month in The Philadelphia Inquirer, was three sentences long. It praised the crab cake at Chops restaurant in Bala Cynwyd, Pa., but said the meal there over all ‘was expensive and disappointing, from the soggy and sour chopped salad to a miserably tough and fatty strip steak.’ The resulting libel lawsuit was 16 pages long.”

“Prosecutors Describe Contacts From Higher Up”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Six ousted United States attorneys told Congressional panels Tuesday new details about lawmakers’ intrusions in sensitive investigations and possible efforts by the Justice Department to squelch their public protests over their firings.”

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Prosecutors Say They Felt Pressured, Threatened; Hill Republicans, Justice Dept. Cited” and “Justice Admits U.S. Attorney Was Forced Out.”

The Los Angeles Times contains articles headlined “Fired U.S. attorneys testify before Congress; One says he ‘felt sick’ after calls by GOP lawmakers” and “Fired U.S. attorney was going places; Observers had David C. Iglesias pegged as a rising GOP star.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Prosecutors’ firings slammed as ‘purge’; Democrats accuse Justice Dept. of ousting 8 U.S. attorneys who wouldn’t toe GOP line.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Ex-prosecutors felt intimidation; Ousted U.S. attorneys say they were told to be silent about firings.”

USA Today reports that “Ousted U.S. attorney says he felt ‘leaned on’ by senator’s call.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Political pressure taints firing of top prosecutors; U.S. attorneys need independence in pursuit of corruption cases,” while Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has an op-ed entitled “They lost my confidence: Attorneys’ dismissals were related to performance, not to politics.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “Ex-boss disputes DiBiagio’s story; Justice official who forced resignation says U.S. attorney for Md. was ousted on merits.”

The Albuquerque Tribune reports that “Iglesias speaks to Senate committee; Iglesias says Domenici, Wilson pressured him on corruption case.”

The Washington Times reports that “Fired prosecutor felt lawmakers’ ‘pressure.’”

And The Hill reports that “Senior aide implicated.”

“Not All Sources Are Equal”: Today in The New York Times, Anthony Lewis has an op-ed that begins, “The conviction yesterday of I. Lewis Libby Jr. on perjury and other charges, after a trial with a parade of press witnesses, leaves a legacy of intensified concern about legal proceedings that force journalists to disclose confidential sources.”

“Racial tensions are simmering in Hawaii’s melting pot; Road-rage incident, court battles expose a different side of paradise”: This front page article appears today in USA Today.

“Troxel too fuzzy? Try Fausey.” Law Professor David M. Wagner has this post at the “Ninomania” blog.

“Lawyer: If 9/11 Injured Sue, Rescue Efforts Would Suffer.” The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, “Future terrorist attack rescue efforts would be endangered if thousands of responders to the September 11, 2001, attacks were allowed to sue, a city lawyer warned a federal appeals court yesterday.”