"I urge you to provide in statute the authority to regulate these products to enhance investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly markets," Cox told the Senate Banking Committee in prepared testimony. The debt insurance is known as credit default swaps.

Cox said such regulation should be part of a regulatory overhaul of nation's financial system, something Congress is not likely to tackle until next year.

Prices for this insurance soared in the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and pushed American International Group, a major insurer of this kind of corporate debt, into peril. The Federal Reserve last week provided a $85 billion emergency loan to AIG, which was on the brink of bankruptcy, saying the company's failure would have wreaked havoc on the economy.

The soaring prices of the debt insurance indicated that investors were getting even more afraid of taking risk.

The Senate's longest-serving Republican, Stevens is fighting charges that he lied about more than $250,000 in home repairs and other gifts he received from an oil contractor. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan warned the Alaska senator that leaving court might hurt him in the eyes of jurors.

Stevens said he understood.

"There's only one thing more important in his life than this trial, and that's doing his duty as a senator, particularly in this time of national crisis," defense attorney Brendan Sullivan said.

The trial comes at a difficult time in Stevens' political career. He is fending off a strong Democratic challenge to his seat and, during the height of campaign season, Stevens is tethered to a courtroom in Washington.

Being absent as Congress considers a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial market could make it look like the corruption charges have made it impossible for Stevens to do his job.

Prosecutors didn't oppose Stevens' plan to leave court but they said Stevens shouldn't be able to use the crisis to cast himself as a dedicated senator in front of jurors. The judge said Stevens could leave court but jurors would not be told why.

Jury selection continued Tuesday and opening arguments were scheduled to begin as early as Wednesday morning.

The first trial began Sept. 8 and involves John "Jay" Brooks, a millionaire businessman accused of orchestrating the 2005 kidnapping and murder of someone whom Brooks believed had stolen from him.

In the other case, jury selection was to begin Monday in the trial of Michael "Stix" Addison, who is charged with fatally shooting a Manchester police officer in 2006.

Death penalty opponents hope the simultaneous trials will focus attention on their cause, though they aren't planning another attempt to repeal the state's capital murder law when the Legislature convenes in January.

Both the House and Senate voted to repeal the death penalty in 2000, but then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen vetoed the bill. Last year, under the threat of a veto from Gov. John Lynch, the bill failed by 12 votes in the House.

New Hampshire's narrow capital murder law applies to a half dozen crimes, including killing a police officer, murder for hire and killing during a kidnapping. Prisoners who kill another while serving a life sentence, murder during a rape, and certain drug crimes also qualify.

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous ruling rejected arguments for a new trial from attorneys representing James Sullivan, who is serving life in prison for paying a hit man $25,000 to gun down Lita Sullivan.

The appeal was a last-ditch attempt to toss a 2006 murder conviction against Sullivan. A man carrying a dozen long-stemmed roses shot Lita Sullivan on the doorstep of her Atlanta town house in 1987, on the day of a hearing to discuss property distribution in the couple's divorce.

Her death — and the 19-year effort to prosecute her killer — is one of the most high-profile cases in modern Atlanta history.

James Sullivan's attorneys had argued that a search warrant used to get crucial evidence from Sullivan's $5 million Florida mansion was full of omissions and half-truths and relied on testimony from a confidential informant who had been arrested 38 times. The search yielded a diary and financial documents used in Sullivan's trial.

Prosecutors defended the affidavit as "truthful and complete with the best information at the time." They said there was ample reason to search Sullivan's home even without the informant's testimony.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Harold Melton, the court rejected Sullivan's claims.

"This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to determine that (the) defendant was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt," he wrote.

The case has gone on for more than two decades. In 1992, a federal judge dismissed charges that Sullivan violated interstate commerce laws by arranging his wife's murder through long-distance phone calls. Lita Sullivan's parents later won a $4 million wrongful death lawsuit — which they say still hasn't been paid — but James Sullivan wasn't charged with his wife's murder until 1998.

That was when Belinda Trahan told authorities Sullivan paid her ex-boyfriend, a trucker named Phillip Anthony Harwood, $25,000 to kill Lita Sullivan. Harwood was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to a lesser crime.

Sullivan, who fled to Thailand after hearing of Harwood's arrest, was arrested four years later after a local resident spotted him on "America's Most Wanted."

The federal appeals court in New York on Monday rejected the government's claim that releasing the photos would endanger the lives or physical safety of U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A lower court judge had already ordered that identifying facial features be removed from the pictures before they are released to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Some legal experts say the case, in which a criminal case in Connecticut intersects a bankruptcy judgment filed in St. Louis, shows a need for Congress to revise the nation's bankruptcy laws to better treat people who are awarded money as part of ruling in a criminal case.

"This is an outrageous decision," said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University and a bankruptcy expert. "I think it's a miscarriage of justice."

"I can't even begin to fathom it," Poveromo said. "Crime does pay."

The case began in 2006, when Poveromo hired Mark R. Koch of Illinois for an $80,000 project to construct a building for his pet food business in Thomaston, Conn. Poveromo paid $39,500 up front, but Koch never did any work, according to court documents.

Poveromo filed a criminal complaint, and Koch was convicted in Connecticut of first-degree larceny in April 2007 and ordered to pay restitution. Koch paid $25,000 and began monthly payments to Poveromo on the balance, but that's when the law turned on Poveromo.

Two months before his conviction, Koch filed for bankruptcy protection in St. Louis, halting any monetary claims against him. Poveromo says notices of the bankruptcy filing was sent to Poveromo's old business address and he didn't see them.

Koch then filed a complaint to the bankruptcy court accusing Poveromo of intentionally violating the stay on claims by having him arrested to collect on his debt.

Judge Charles Rendlen III agreed with the builder. In a ruling filed in December, and without hearing from Poveromo, Rendlen noted "the highly suspect timing" of Koch's arrest and conviction after filing for bankruptcy.