U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy, who in 2005 had ordered the government to preserve information on prisoner mistreatment at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, scheduled a court hearing on the tapes for Friday, overriding government objections.

Lawyers for a group of Guantanamo Bay inmates contesting their detention had requested the hearing to learn whether the government had complied with the preservation order. They cited reports that information obtained from the interrogations implicated five unnamed Guantanamo detainees.

"We hope to establish a procedure to review the government's handling of evidence in our case ... and generally to require an accounting from a government that has admitted that it destroyed evidence," said David Remes, an attorney for the group of inmates.

He declined to comment on whether he believed any of his clients were implicated during the interrogations.

The CIA on December 6 disclosed that it had destroyed hundreds of hours of interrogation tapes, prompting an outcry from congressional Democrats and human rights activists. The sessions recorded on the tapes were believed to have included a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding, which has been condemned internationally as torture.

The CIA said it destroyed the tapes lawfully and did so out of concern for the safety of agents involved if the recordings were ever made public. The White House has repeatedly denied the United States tortures terrorism suspects.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the judge's hearing order but the department last week urged Kennedy not to investigate the videotapes.

William Rothstein suffered severe internal injuries when he skied into a wall at Snowbird in February 2003. He sued and claimed the resort was negligent.

A lower court had said Snowbird Corp. was protected from a lawsuit because of two waivers signed by Rothstein when he obtained a season pass at the popular resort near Salt Lake City.

The high court overturned that ruling and said the releases go against a state law that is designed to keep insurance rates affordable for resorts but not shield them from all liability.

The releases signed by Rothstein "are contrary to the public policy of this state and are, therefore, unenforceable," the 3-2 decision said.

Snowbird spokeswoman Laura Schaffer said the resort doesn't comment on pending litigation.

In court papers, the resort maintained Rothstein skied off a connecting trail to an area that was marked off by rope. But the rope had a gap, which Rothstein mistook for an entrance to an open trail. He hit a wall made of railroad ties that was obscured by a light covering of snow.

Snowbird won the earlier ruling on two releases Rothstein had signed, assuming all risks and specifically mentioning cases "including the negligence of Snowbird, its employees and agents."

The Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday restores Rothstein's lawsuit and clarifies state law.

"What it will do is to encourage ski resorts to be more careful in their operations," said Jesse Trentadue, an attorney for Rothstein.

In the case of U.S. v. Sebastien Boucher, federal prosecutors think that the defendant has child pornography encrypted with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) on his Alienware laptop. They sent him a grand jury subpoena demanding the passphrase--which is what a judge rejected on Fifth Amendment grounds.

"I won't be able to provide anyone for an interview," said DOJ spokesman Jaclyn Lesch. "The point you raise is one that we would want to address in court. I hope you understand."

We had asked the DOJ this: "In the DOJ's view, under what circumstances can a person be legally compelled to turn over an encryption passphrase?"

In one view, which prosecutors tend to share, a passphrase is like a document or key that must be forcibly turned over. The civil libertarian view treats a passphrase as the contents of someone's mind, which a defendant cannot be compelled to divulge.

The distinctions between these views are important to Americans' privacy rights and law enforcement needs. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for future legal filings to find out what our public servants actually think.

One of Texas' most well-known legal recruiting firms has been acquired by a Florida company. Prescott Legal -- the 26-year-old Houston legal staffing firm that has placed more than 500 attorneys in Houston, Austin and Dallas in the last five years -- was acquired by Jacksonville, Fla.-based Special Counsel Inc., the legal staffing division of MPS Group, for an undisclosed sum.

"Lauren and I are very pleased to be able to position Prescott with a national leader in legal staffing services," said Larry Prescott, who founded Prescott alongside his wife, Lauren. "Lauren and I are excited about Prescott's working with Special Counsel both here in Texas and across the country."

According to a Special Counsel release, Prescott has received the highest ratings in two national employer surveys in American Lawyer magazine -- the only Texas firm to do so.

"As a life-long resident of Texas, I know that together, Special Counsel and Prescott will be able to offer our client unparalleled search and temporary placement services," said David Maldonado, senior vice president of Special Counsel.

The five were convicted of "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise," a broad charge frequently used in France. Although the court handed them one-year prison sentences, none of them will be returning behind bars.

The men all served provisional sentences upon their return to France that counted toward their new sentences. By the time the trial ended, all had been freed.

The court followed the recommendations of Prosecutor Sonya Djemni-Wagner, who said in her arguments Dec. 11 that she did not support "the Guantanamo system" and the men's "abnormal detention there."

"None of them should have been held on that base, in defiance of international law, and have had to go through what they went through," she said.

Requesting convictions and one-year sentences for the five, she said they should, however, be convicted because they used phony identity papers and visas to knowingly "integrate terrorist structures" in Afghanistan.

The men — Brahim Yadel, Khaled ben Mustafa, Nizar Sassi, Mourad Benchellali, Imad Kanouni and Ridouane Khalid — all insisted during the trial that they were innocent. Kanouni was acquitted.

The verdict had originally been expected in September 2006 but was postponed. At the time, the court said it needed to seek more information about secret interrogations of the suspects by French intelligence officers at the American base.

The suspects' lawyers had complained that the men were questioned by agents of France's DST counterintelligence service outside the framework of international law. Information about the interrogations did not surface until the trial was already under way, when the newspaper Liberation published a classified document about them.

Seven French citizens were captured in or near Afghanistan by U.S. forces in late 2001, held at Guantanamo, and then handed over to French authorities in 2004 and 2005. One was freed immediately and found to have no ties to terrorism, while the others were released later as investigations continued into their cases.

In court, the men recounted their stays in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 before their capture. Five of them said they had stayed in military training camps in Afghanistan, while Kanouni said his journey there was for spiritual reasons.