“Duke Prosecutor Throws Out Case Against Players”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

The Washington Post on Thursday will contain a front page article headlined “All Charges Dropped Against 3 at Duke.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Duke lacrosse players cleared of all charges.”

Does requiring a judge to give written reasons for a ruling necessarily improve the quality of the ruling? Law Professor Chad M. Oldfather has posted online at SSRN an article titled “Writing, Cognition, and the Nature of the Judicial Function” (abstract with link for download; via “Legal Theory Blog“).

Available online at law.com: In news from New Jersey, “Jurors at Basketball Star’s Retrial May Hear Evidence of Post-Shooting Cover-Up.” My earlier coverage appears here.

And in news from California, “Court’s OK Likely in Overstock.com Stock Libel Suit.”

“Mike Nifong, Meet Alberto: What the rape case fiasco and the U.S. attorney scandal have in common.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Court Says Williams’ Jury Can Hear of Post-Shooting Actions”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “Prosecutors can tell a jury that former basketball All-Star Jayson Williams removed his fingerprints from a shotgun, got rid of bloody clothes and told others to lie to police after a hired driver was killed in his bedroom, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Williams Jury Can Hear Cover-Up Evidence.”

You can access today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Company Asks Top Court to Dismiss Appeal”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A major employment discrimination case under review by the Supreme Court is headed for dismissal just a week before justices were set to hear arguments, a lawyer said Wednesday.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Job bias case to be dismissed.”

“Saving Free Speech and Jesus: Religious and conservative groups support the ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ banner under fire at the Supreme Court.” Nat Hentoff has this essay in the current issue of The Village Voice.

“Who’s Watching the F.B.I.? The information it gathers may too often be your own.” Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this essay (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) in this upcoming Sunday’s edition of The New York Times Magazine.

Update: The essay can now be freely accessed at this link.

Can a federal criminal defendant refuse to be represented by a particular court-appointed attorney without being forced, as a consequence, to invoke the right to proceed without the assistance of counsel? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this interesting decision today.

“Prosecutor Drops Charges in Duke Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Prosecutors dropped all charges Wednesday against the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper at a party, saying the athletes were innocent victims of a ‘tragic rush to accuse’ by an overreaching district attorney.”

And The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina provides an update headlined “All lacrosse charges dropped.”

Access online the audio of today’s en banc Eighth Circuit oral argument in South Dakota’s appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of measures enacted in 2005 revising that State’s law on informed consent to abortion: You can download the en banc oral argument audio in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds via this link (15 MB mp3 file).

My earlier coverage of this case can be accessed via this link.

“Splenda marketing sour, jury told in Equal suit”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Duke Charges Expected to Be Dropped”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “State prosecutors will drop all charges against three Duke lacrosse players who were accused of sexual assaulting a stripper at a team party, a person close to the case told The Associated Press on Wednesday.”

The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina provides a news update headlined “Decision set today in lacrosse case.”

And The Duke Chronicle reports today that “LAX families arrive, dismissals rumored.”

“Judge permits trial over newspaper deals; MediaNews, Hearst had tried to block antitrust lawsuit”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Clint Reilly can go to trial in a lawsuit opposing a newspaper chain’s acquisitions of the San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, saying readers have the right to challenge media mergers under antitrust laws.”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

“Judge allows race as factor in enrollment; Decision is first since Prop. 209 to let school district integrate”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The Alameda Times-Star reports today that “Berkeley schools win race ruling; Judge rules district’s placement policy does not violate Prop. 209.”

“Most say Gonzales should quit over fired prosecutors; An even larger percentage believe White House aides should testify about the matter under oath, poll finds”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times, along with an article headlined “House panel subpoenas Justice Department; Gonzales is given until Monday to release new documents related to the firing of eight federal prosecutors.” You can access the detailed poll results at this link.

USA Today reports today that “Justice Dept. documents subpoenaed; Gonzales ordered to provide info to House panel.”

The Washington Times reports that “House Democrats subpoena Gonzales on firings.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Senate firings inquiry widens; Panel wants details on Biskupic, state aide’s conviction.”

And The Hartford Courant reports that “Prosecutor Heads Into D.C. Fray; O’Connor Named Top Gonzales Aide.”

“Call it the green Supreme Court”: Eric J. Sinrod has this essay online today at c|net News.com.

“Judicial rifts surface: Two complaints involve one judge. A sexual harassment case is tossed but an ethics complaint against one of the judge’s critics – also a judge – remains.” The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “An uproar has engulfed the state’s largest and most important appellate court. Two complaints have been filed with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, both having to do with the former chief judge of the 1st District Court of Appeal, Charles J. Kahn Jr.”

“Alum Granted Retrial for Fatal Stabbing”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.

And The Boston Globe reports today that “SJC backs retrial in slaying to air self-defense claim; Says jurors lacked evidence in Pring-Wilson conviction.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“Calling Fred Fielding”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “When Fred Fielding was named White House counsel in January, his selection was viewed as a welcome sign of the new times.”

“IVF woman loses her last fight over ex-lover’s baby”: This article appears today in The Times of London.

The Independent (UK) reports today that “Woman loses final round of battle to use frozen embryos.”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “Woman loses battle to use frozen embryos created with her ex-fiance; Would-be mother left distraught by judgment; Former partner says he fought for ‘basic principle.’”

The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Natallie breaks down as three-court battle ends.”

The Sun (UK) contains an article headlined “Natallie Evans: My baby agony.”

The Mirror (UK) contains an article headlined “I will never become a mother: Agony of embryo fight Nat.”

BBC News reports that “Woman loses final embryo appeal; A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.”

Reuters reports that “Woman loses frozen embryo appeal ruling.”

Bloomberg News reports that “U.K. Woman Loses Court Case to Implant Frozen Embryo.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Woman Seeking Frozen Embryos Loses Case.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg at this link. A related press release from that court appears here.

“Abortion case heard here could have national fallout”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, “St. Louis’ federal courthouse will be the backdrop this morning for yet another abortion fight with national implications, as both sides debate what physicians should be required to tell a woman before terminating her pregnancy. Officially, the case before the full 11-judge 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deals only with South Dakota. But legal experts in the anti-abortion and abortion-rights camps predict that the decision could reverberate around the country.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court to hear abortion case; South Dakota law under challenge.”