No man or woman has been executed in New York since 1963; the court ruled in 2004 that elements of a 1995 law restoring the state's death penalty made it unconstitutional. That decision left it to the State Legislature to modify the law, and opposition to the death penalty among Assembly Democrats has nullified any such effort.

But the 2004 decision was closely split, 4 votes to 3, and two of the judges in the majority have since retired. They were replaced by one appointee each of former Gov. George E. Pataki, a strong advocate for the death penalty, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who supports capital punishment only under narrow circumstances, as in the case of terrorists and the killers of police officers.

As in any death penalty case, the debate before the Court of Appeals on Monday was lengthy and highly technical, touching on dozens of questions of law and as many different elements of Mr. Taylor's crimes and trial. But questioning from the judges focused most intently on the prosecution's argument that the court should revisit its own 2004 decision.

In that case, the defendant, Stephen LaValle, was sentenced to death for raping and murdering a Long Island schoolteacher. As required by law, a judge told the jurors that if they could not choose unanimously between a sentence of death and one of life without parole, he would impose a sentence that would make Mr. LaValle eligible for parole after 20 to 25 years.

The Court of Appeals ruled in June 2004 that such instructions could coerce deadlocked jurors to vote for the death penalty out of fear that a violent defendant might be released from prison.

Mindful of the court's ruling, the trial judge presiding over Mr. Taylor's case, Steven W. Fisher, told a jury that he would "almost certainly" impose consecutive terms totaling more than a century if the decision were left to him, and that Mr. Taylor would be ineligible for parole until every year was served. Mr. Taylor and an accomplice, Craig Godineaux, had forced seven people into a walk-in freezer; bound and gagged the workers, and forced them to kneel before shooting each in the head.

Two survived to testify at trial. (Mr. Godineaux, who is mildly retarded, pleaded guilty to murder and is serving a life sentence without parole.) Because of Justice Fisher's careful instructions, Queens prosecutors argued on Monday, the jurors could be confident that Mr. Taylor would not walk free whatever their decision, and had voted to impose the death penalty without fear.

Under questioning, prosecutors told the judges that upholding that sentence would not amount to reversing the court's previous decision but would merely clarify part of it. The existing death penalty law could be constitutional in Mr. Taylor's case, said Donna Aldea, an assistant district attorney, even if unconstitutional in others.

"There would be no appearance of impropriety if the court unanimously agrees that the final sentence in LaValle, in fact, went too far," said Ms. Aldea.

But defense lawyers argued that because the original law that reinstated the death penalty in the state in 1995 had been rendered unconstitutional, absent legislative amendments, any death sentence stemming from it was also unconstitutional. Mr. Taylor's sentence, they said, should be changed to life without parole.

The prosecution's reasoning drew sharp questioning from some judges, including Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Reversing even one portion of the court's decision, she said, was the equivalent of telling the Legislature, "We didn't mean it." She also described as "fighting words" language in the prosecution's brief suggesting that the court's decision in the LaValle case was "unnecessary, inappropriate, and incorrect."

Even Judge Robert S. Smith, who sided against the 2004 decision, noted that overturning the court's own precedent — and one set so recently — would be a "radical" step.

Craig pleaded guilty by mail to disorderly conduct in August following his arrest in June. A police report alleged that Craig had solicited sex from police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, which the senator has denied.

After Craig's arrest was made public, the Idaho Statesman published its five-month investigation into previous allegations of homosexual behavior. Craig said he is not gay.

Statesman editor and vice president Vicki Gowler defended the newspaper's investigation. "From the start, it was important to us to do a thorough and responsible investigation, outside of deadline pressures. We did that," Gowler said.

Six years ago, the Harris County Bail Bond Board, which regulates the bond industry, told Pruett to stop calling. Officials said he was breaking a local rule that banned certain solicitations. And they threatened to suspend his license to do business.

Pruett fought back with a lawsuit against the board and Harris County and recently, after a protracted legal fight, a federal appeals court ruled he and fellow bondsman Scott Martin had a First Amendment right to consult public records, then solicit business by phone.

Calling times restricted

The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that state-imposed restrictions on "commercial speech" were unconstitutional, but agreed with the state law restricting solicitation calls between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.

Essentially, Pruett and Martin used public records to troll for people with outstanding warrants, and then called them to offer their services.

Constable offices, the county and other municipalities use those same records to mail thousands of letters every month to people with open warrants for bad checks, unreturned DVD rentals, unresolved traffic violations and other nonviolent criminal cases.

The 5th Circuit ruled that Pruett and Martin had the same rights to contact those people.

"The statute does not prevent attorneys, law enforcement officials or anyone else from alerting someone that he's the subject of an open warrant," the court said. "Harris County cannot give such notice itself and then claim that restricting notice by others is necessary to the safety of its officers and the public and the prevention of flight."

County Attorney Mike Stafford said the county didn't create or enforce the state law, but intervened to prevent bondsmen from "tipping off" alleged criminals. He said protecting officers from possible violence is a legitimate objection and the county will likely appeal the latest decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

David Furlow, who represents Pruett and Martin in the federal lawsuit, hailed the decision as a "vindication of First Amendment rights." But he said perhaps more importantly, the courts action sent a loud message to fellow bondsmen who saw Pruett and Martin as unscrupulous competitors.

"The largest bail bonding companies with large investments in Yellow Pages ads and large existing bases of criminal defendant clients, they wanted to restrict those and keep other bail bondsmen from contacting them," Furlow said.

At Monday's hearing, the court also urged the warring parties to continue to try to settle their differences out of court.

"We are very pleased with this decision, as we are keen to see this issue properly resolved with a minimum of further delay," said Tom Ehman, head of external affairs for the Golden Gate Yacht Club's team BMW Oracle.

Ehman said Oracle continued to support efforts to solve the dispute through mediation.

"Our strong preference remains to negotiate a solution. If this is not possible, today's decision provides for swift resolution through the courts," he said.

The GGYC of San Francisco launched its legal challenge arguing the new race protocol outlined by Swiss syndicate Alinghi for 2009 violates the historical "Deed of Gift" governing the race.

That's because Spain's Spanish Nautical Yacht Club (CNEV) has been tabbed to house its challenger of record Desafio Espanol.

The Americans say the Deed of Gift stipulates such a challenger has to involve a traditional yacht club which holds annual regattas.

CNEV was formed just days before before it issued the challenge and has never held a major regatta.

Ehman has called it a "sham club" that has given Alinghi unwarranted control over an event in which the challenger is traditionally involved in setting the competition terms.

Oracle and GGYC took their case to the New York Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction because the Cup was given to the New York Yacht Club in 1887 under the terms of the Deed of Gift.

The legal squabble has raised shades of the America's Cup court battle of the 1980s between New Zealand banker Michael Fay and US yachtsman Dennis Conner.

In 1987, Fay sued defending champion Conner after Conner refused to consider his challenge to race in a 90-foot monohull.

The court ordered Conner to take the challenge or surrender the Cup, and Conner responded by beating Fay in a 60-foot catamaran.

Fay later won a court ruling that Conner's catamaran defense was illegal, but that ruling was overturned on appeal.

Mob bosses James Marcello, Joey "the Clown" Lombardo, and Frank Calabrese Sr., along with Paul "the Indian" Schiro were all found guilty of racketeering conspiracy that included finding them guilty of the murders.

Former Chicago policeman Anthony Doyle was also found guilty of racketeering.

Calabrese's son Frank Jr. and brother Nicholas testified about his preference for strangling his victims. Nicholas also recounted Calabrese's roles as well as his own in the 1986 slayings of Las Vegas mob figures Anthony and Michael Spilotro that was later depicted in the movie "Casino."

Lombardo, 73, who lived up to his nickname "the Clown" with his quips during the trial, testified that he was only a "hustler" and had never been a member of the Chicago mob.

Lombardo's lawyer said his client changed his ways while serving time in the 1980s for bribing Nevada Sen. Howard Cannon and later took out a newspaper ad trying to dispel his reputation by asking anyone who saw him commit a crime to call his probation officer or the FBI.

A third Spilotro brother, Chicago dentist Pat Spilotro, testified how he helped capture the fugitive Lombardo who had shown up at his office for relief from a toothache.

The defendants could face life in prison, as well as millions of dollars in fines.

Carlos Pizarro was arrested in Miami last year along with two colleagues, Robert Pulido and Nelson Carrasquillo. Prosecutors allege the police officers went to Miami to collect $35,000 from undercover FBI agents.

U.S. District Court Judge William Young told Pizarro that under federal sentencing guidelines he could face between 19.5 and 24 years in prison.

But because Pizarro accepted responsibility and has no criminal record his sentence could be as low as eleven to 14 years.

Sentencing is scheduled for December 12th.

Prosecutors say the defendants believed the agents were drug dealers who had hired them to protect a shipment of cocaine in Massachusetts.

Pulido and Carrasquillo are scheduled to go to trial in November.