A New Haven-based law firm dove into the fray over People's United Bank's alleged failure to protect customers' information from Dumpster divers. "We don't comment on pending litigation," said People's spokeswoman Valerie Carlson, of the new lawsuit filed in Bridgeport Superior Court Monday.

Michael Stratton, partner and founder of the firm Stratton Faxon, said he notified an attorney for People's of his intention to seek class action status for a suit filed on behalf of five customers worried their information could have been exposed to identity theft by the bank's alleged failure to properly dispose of private information.

"Some People's Bank customers were pretty upset," Stratton said after reading a Connecticut Post report that Fairfield resident James Hastings had spent months pulling many unshredded papers listing private information, including account and Social Security numbers, from trash bins at branches in Fairfield County.

The bank didn't know about Hastings' activities until Hastings showed up at its headquarters with a video depicting him rummaging through the trash and pulling out documents. Hastings still has documents he culled from branch Dumpsters, although police raided his home and seized some documents. The bank is suing Hastings; that case begins today in Bridgeport Superior Court.

New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.

A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."

"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."

Grayson Barber, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, among other groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, said it was the first ruling in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy for Internet users.

The court blocked the executions of Thomas Arthur of Alabama, Earl Wesley Berry of Mississippi and Carlton Turner of Texas last fall while it considered a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection procedures.

The high court ruled 7-2 last week that the procedures are not cruel, and the justices' last-minute orders temporarily sparing the three inmates automatically expired when the justices denied their appeals Monday.

Lisa Smith, a Dallas County assistant district attorney who handles capital cases, said Monday that the execution of Turner, who was convicted of killing his parents, likely will be set for summer.

Her absence wasn't a result of a scheduling conflict. She was dead. And Giles killed her.

Three California courts that have considered Giles' claim have said, in effect, "You must be kidding."

Now, though, the Supreme Court, in arguments scheduled for Tuesday, is hearing Giles' case to see whether the use during his trial of statements the girlfriend made to a Los Angeles police officer violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.

The issue the court has agreed to resolve is when defendants forfeit that right. It is already clear that a defendant who kills someone to prevent him from testifying may not come into court and seek to exclude prior statements by the dead person.

But this case is one in which there were no charges pending against Giles when he shot Brenda Avie dead with a 9-millimeter handgun outside his grandmother's house in September 2002.

A few weeks earlier, Avie told a police officer that Giles assaulted and threatened to kill her. The officer testified about the conversation at Giles' trial, over his lawyer's objection.

Giles claimed he acted in self-defense, fearing that Avie was armed. She wasn't. Giles also testified that Avie behaved erratically and threatened to kill both him and his new girlfriend on the night she died.

The offices of big-name law firms typically reflect a conservative corporate culture, right down to the traditional mahogany trim in partner suites.

But at the new offices of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge in Hartford, there won't be a bit of hardwood from endangered rain forests in sight.

The firm hopes it will become the first law firm in Connecticut to earn LEED certification for its effort to outfit its new quarters in the 20 Church St. tower in downtown Hartford with the latest green technology.

The firm is spending $4 million to renovate and furnish 28,000 square feet, most of it on the 20th floor of the 23-story structure informally known as the Stilts Building.

During his third day of closing arguments, William DuBois again told the jury that the software engineer's odd behavior after his wife went missing does not prove guilt because he is an "eccentric intellect."

DuBois told the jury how his client is not normal, and his strange behavior — such as not looking for his wife or ripping the passenger seat out of his car — does not illustrate his guilt, but rather his eccentricities.

"I've stipulated he's not normal," DuBois said. He then turned to his client and said, "Sorry, Hans, you're not normal."

DuBois said all the jury needs to do is look at the video of him explaining his computer file system at a seminar at Google to see he is a "genuine nerd" and not like most other people.

DuBois added his strange behavior "is not because he is hiding evidence, but because he is strange."

However, DuBois added if jurors do find his client guilty, they should convict him of voluntary manslaughter — not the more serious charge of murder — because the crime would have been done in the "heat of passion."

Nevertheless, DuBois' main point was that the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt its case against Reiser.

White House documents are normally exempt from public records laws, but a federal judge ruled in December that Secret Service visitor logs must be released. The court sided with a liberal watchdog group that sought records showing visits by prominent religious conservatives to the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence.

The Bush administration appealed and lawyers were scheduled to argue the case Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Government lawyers argue the president and vice president must be able to receive visitors and solicit advice privately. They portrayed the request for Secret Service records as an end-around, saying those same logs maintained by the White House would never be considered public documents.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wants to use the Secret Service documents to show the influence religious conservatives have on the Bush administration. The government argues that proves the records are related to the White House, not to the workings of the Secret Service, and should not be released.

"The prospect of each and every appointment record immediately becoming the subject of forced public disclosure would surely cast a chill over the ability of the president and vice president to collect information and advice," Justice Department lawyers wrote in court documents.

CREW lawyers reject that argument. They say the documents shouldn't be considered White House records simply because a watchdog group is trying to find out what the White House is up to. The Secret Service created and controlled the documents, the lawyers said, so they should be public.