A federal U.S. court has ruled in favor of critics of Monsanto Co's genetically engineered sugar beets, saying the U.S. government failed to adequately evaluate environmental and economic risks associated with the crop.

The U.S. District Court for the northern district of California ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated federal law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before deregulating genetically altered sugar beets.

Monsanto developed the biotech beets to be resistant to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide Roundup, and promotes the sugarbeets as "Roundup Ready."

The plaintiffs include the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds. The groups filed the lawsuit in January 2008.

About 1.1 million U.S. acres were seeded this year to Roundup Ready sugar beets in the fourth year of commercialized production.

Critics say the Roundup Ready beets are dangerous for the environment because they promote the emergence of "superweeds" or weeds that cannot easily be killed because they also develop a tolerance to weedkiller. They also say that organic and convential beet farmers are damaged because the genetically altered sugar beets are wind-pollinated and inevitably cross-pollinate related crops grown nearby.

The court found that USDA gave only "cursory" consideration to some of these concerns, failing to adequately consider the risks. The court has ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment, and will evaluate other remedies in an October meeting of the parties.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state's plan to allow up to 17,500 video lottery terminals at horse racing tracks is subject to a statewide voter referendum.

The 6-1 ruling by the high court puts a potential dent in Ohio's plan to raise $933 million over two years. The money from the terminals was a key component in addressing a $3.2 billion shortfall in the state's new two-year budget for the fiscal biennium that began July 1 without raising taxes.

"While I am disappointed by this decision, we need to fully review the court's judgment before determining next steps," Ohio Governor Ted Strickland said in a statement.

"The Ohio Lottery Commission has modified its agenda for this afternoon's scheduled meeting, which was to include the video lottery terminal implementation rules, to ensure adequate time to fully review and understand the impact of the court's decision," he added.

The lawsuit was filed by LetOhioVote.org, a ballot issue committee, which argued that the state constitution requires voter approval of the gambling plan.

Two other lawsuits were subsequently filed in the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging actions taken by the governor and legislature earlier this year regarding the video lottery terminals.

In its ruling, the court rejected the state's position that the terminals were essentially part of the appropriation process with their revenue allocated to education and therefore not subject to any referendum. Justices also ordered Ohio's secretary of state to allow the plaintiff to pursue a referendum on the terminals.

The state Court of Appeals on Thursday struck down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification for voters, overturning on state constitutional grounds a strict law previously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Considered one of the nation's toughest voter identification laws, it requires that a state or federal photo ID card be presented at the ballot box. Critics have said it disenfranchises some poor, older and minority voters. Supporters contend it is needed to prevent voter fraud at the polls, which critics say is rare.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels called Thursday's 3-0 ruling "an act of judicial arrogance."

"It would be one thing if this thing had not already been litigated from the bottom up through the federal system, and multiple court rulings — including the Supreme Court of the United States — hadn't already spoken," Daniels said.

The Indiana Democratic Party previously challenged the law in federal court, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution. But the nation's highest court upheld 6-3 in April 2008.

The League of Women Voters then challenged the law in state courts, arguing it violated the Indiana Constitution by imposing a requirement on some, but not all, voters.

A Marion County judge dismissed the suit in December, but the League appealed, and this time a panel of judges ruled in its favor. In a 29-page ruling, Judge Patricia A. Riley wrote that the trial court must declare the law void because it regulates voters in a way that is not "uniform and impartial."

The judges held that it was irrational to require those who vote in person to verify their identities when those who vote by mail are not required to do so even though absentee voting is more susceptible to fraud. The panel also said the law arbitrarily gives preferential treatment to people who vote in nursing homes where they live because they aren't required to show a photo ID even though other elderly people who vote elsewhere must.

While the nursing home discrepancy could be remedied easily by requiring those residents to present ID, the treatment favoring absentee voters might require legislation to fix, the judges said.

A man has pleaded guilty to breaking into the car of an off-duty New York City police officer who was then killed in a friendly fire shooting.

Miguel Goitia pleaded guilty Wednesday to criminal mischief. He will serve 1 1/2 to 3 years in prison.

Officer Omar Edwards was killed May 28 by Officer Andrew Dunton, who spotted the 25-year-old officer chasing the thief with his gun drawn.

Dunton apparently mistook the off-duty officer for an armed suspect and shot him.

The shooting raised questions about racial profiling. Edwards was black and Dunton is white.

Last month, a grand jury voted not to indict Dunton in the shooting.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 6-3 that convicted murderer Charles Dean Hood should have raised concerns about the affair between the now retired court officials in earlier appeals. The ruling overturned a lower court's recommendation that Hood be able to make his case for a new trial based on the affair.

"Our argument is that they had this information and should have raised it in the earlier writ," said current prosecutor John Rolater, the chief of Collin County's appellate division. "We consider this a significant success for the state."

Hood's attorneys said in a statement that the affair led to a tainted trial and "obvious and outrageous violations" of Hood's constitutional rights. The ruling will "only add to the perception that justice is skewed in Texas," said Andrea Keilen, of the Texas Defender Service.

The rejection from the state's highest criminal appeals court means a future appeal on the same grounds must go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two men pleaded guilty Tuesday to participating in a ring that forced teenage girls to work as prostitutes in a half dozen states - Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

Shaun Leoney, 28, of Boston, and Aaron Brooks, 25, of Quincy, were among six men who were indicted in 2007 for participating in a Boston-based prostitution ring that operated from 2001 to 2005.

Leoney and Brooks originally were charged with conspiracy and transportation for prostitution. Leoney also was charged with sex trafficking of children.

Both men pleaded guilty Tuesday to a single count of conspiracy. Brooks reached a plea deal with prosecutors, who will recommend a sentence of four years. Leoney faces a maximum of five years in prison.

Sentencing for both men was scheduled for Dec. 15.

As part of their guilty pleas, Leoney and Brooks admitted they drove a teenager to Orlando, Fla., during Memorial Day weekend in 2005 for prostitution activity sponsored by Hoodlum Entertainment, a company owned by two convicted sex traffickers.

Brooks faced a maximum of 15 years if he had gone to trial on the original charges, said his attorney, Raymond O'Hara.

"He just wants to put this behind him," O'Hara said.

Leoney's lawyer, James Dilday, said Leoney faced a maximum of 40 years if he had been convicted of the original charges.

The U.N. Yugoslav war crimes tribunal on Monday found a former prosecution spokeswoman guilty of contempt for revealing confidential court decisions made by judges during the trial of Serbia's ex-President Slobodan Milosevic.

The court fined French national Florence Hartmann euro7,000 ($10,200) for disclosures she made in her 2007 book "Peace and Punishment," which she published after leaving her job, and again in a later magazine article.

She revealed that the court had decided in secret not to disclose Serbian military documents that could have linked the government in Belgrade to atrocities such as the Srebrenica massacre committed by Bosnian Serb forces.

The original documents — minutes of Serbia's Supreme Defense Council — are still not public. Serbia had given them to the court for Milosevic's case on the condition they be kept secret.

Some analysts believe the documents might have helped Bosnia in its failed attempts to sue Serbia for genocide. Observers of the war crimes court say it must show it is willing to enforce confidentiality agreements, otherwise states will never lend potentially sensitive documents in future cases.

Reading a summary of the ruling, Judge Bakone Moloto said Monday Hartmann had "knowingly and willfully interfered with administration of justice" by revealing the decisions.

He said that as a former spokeswoman, Hartmann was "well aware of what the confidentiality of a decision entailed."

Hartmann's lawyers had argued that the information was already common knowledge by the time she published it.