"My rights are mine, and I am entitled to waive them just as is any other defendant," Chapman wrote.

His lawyers argued that his wish to waive appeals showed he was not competent. But the court ruled Thursday that "our review of the record in this case ... shows that Chapman's plea was competently, knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made."

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice John D. Minton Jr., rejected the argument made by Chapman's defense attorneys that his guilty plea amounted to state-assisted suicide.

"Furthermore, the death penalty is not a disproportionately sentence for Chapman's heinous offenses," Minton wrote. "So Chapman's plea is not an impermissible 'suicide by court.'"

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said Chapman's "volunteerism" played no part in his decision to uphold the death sentence.

"The wishes of a defendant, whether motivated by sincere remorse, desire to escape life imprisonment or to assert control should play no part in a death penalty determination," Lambert wrote in a concurring opinion.

Chapman admitted to killing 6-year-old Cody Sharon and 7-year-old Chelbi Sharon, and attacking their mother, Carolyn Marksberry, and their sister, Courtney Sharon. Chapman said he deserved to die for the Aug. 23, 2002 attack at Marksberry's home in Gallatin County.

The trial judge, Tony Frohlich, said at the time that he could find no legal reason not to grant Chapman's request.

Despite his request to be put to death, Chapman's court-appointed attorneys, Donna Boyce and Randall Wheeler, appealed the sentence. They argued before the Supreme Court that Frohlich shouldn't have gone along with Chapman's request for a death sentence, saying a defendant who seeks the death penalty is inherently incompetent. For that reason, the attorneys said, Chapman's guilty plea should be set aside and he should be treated for depression before a new plea hearing is held.

Chapman said in the affidavit that sending his case back to the trial court would invalidate his rights, as well as the rights of other inmates who choose to plead guilty.

The Supreme Court, in Thursday's ruling, reaffirmed that the death penalty is constitutional and that neither lethal injection nor electrocution are cruel and unusual punishments.

Despite the ruling, it could be years before an execution date is scheduled, said Allison Connelly, a University of Kentucky law professor. Defense attorneys still could appeal the case to the federal level, even asking the U.S. Supreme Court for review, she said.

Connelly said the state attorney general's office typically won't ask for an execution date until all appeals are exhausted.

The defense lawyers declined to comment, as did the attorney general's office.

Volunteering for a death sentence is not new. Since 1977, when Gary Mark Gilmore waived his appeals and was killed by firing squad in Utah, 124 inmates in 26 of the 38 states with a death penalty law have waived appeals and asked to die, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

A second Kentucky Death Row inmate, Shawn Windsor, is also attempting to expedite his own execution. Windsor pleaded guilty in 2006 to killing his wife and son. He is on Kentucky's Death Row, but Chapman's case is further along in the automatic appeals process granted in death penalty cases.

The Supreme Court on Thursday also upheld the death sentences of Leif Halvorsen and Mitchell Willoughby who were convicted in 1983 of murdering three people in a Lexington apartment, and Fred Furnish who was convicted of murdering a Kenton County woman during a burglary in 1998.

The suit is similar to one filed in 2004 by California gasoline station owners. That case was dismissed last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs' attorney Joseph M. Alioto of San Francisco said the top U.S. court rejected the former case because it sought to prove only that the three corporations agreed to fix prices. This time, Alioto said, he and his fellow attorneys will attempt to prove unfair competition laws were broken.

"All of this started at the Masters Golf Tournament," Alioto told Reuters on Wednesday. "The guy from Shell got a brainstorm while he was watching the pros hit those pebbled balls around and called the CEO of Texaco."

Heads of Shell Oil, Texaco and Saudi Refining began meeting monthly in 1996, the lawsuit says.

By late 1997, Shell and Texaco were ready to form an alliance but the Saudi representative was not, Alioto said, so Shell and Texaco in January 1998 formed Equilon to refine crude oil and to sell gasoline in 32 states, mainly in the U.S. West and Midwest.

By mid-1998, Alioto claims, the Saudis joined with Shell and Texaco and the three formed Motiva for refining crude and selling gasoline in 27 states, mainly in the U.S. Gulf Coast region and the eastern U.S.

The suit asks for class-action status. Some stations lost $10,000 or more a month because of what he alleged were practices that raised prices by cutting competition.

On Wednesday, Shell Oil representative Sarah Andreani said that Shell, Equilon and Motiva were "carefully and extensively reviewed by the (U.S.) Federal Trade Commission and by several state attorneys general prior to their formation -- and earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision that neither Shell nor the joint ventures violated any antitrust law."

In 1998, at a time when U.S. crude oil prices dipped to $10 a barrel -- they are near $70 now -- gasoline prices at Texaco and Shell stations rose.

"With inflation taken into account, in 1998, oil prices were at their lowest since The Depression," said Alioto. "Both Shell and Texaco (by their U.S. alliance) had substantially reduced their costs.

"In the face of these economic factors, they agreed to raise the prices" for gasoline, Alioto said.

Eller, 63, pleaded guilty to making false statements in a matter within a political subdivision, tampering with evidence, hindering apprehension or punishment of a criminal and violation of oath by a public official or officer.

The two deputies, Jessie Gibson, 56, and Chief Deputy Eddie Osborn, 41, faced aggravated assault and obstruction charges in connection with a July 9 shooting at the home of Gary Dean of Hiawassee. Dean, who was not injured, was "involved in an ongoing intimate relationship" with Osborn's wife, according to a Georgia Bureau of Investigation affidavit.

Gibson was found dead on Aug. 8 of a self-inflicted gunshot in what authorities called an apparent suicide.

Outside the courthouse Tuesday, Eller apologized to the residents of Towns County.

He wore an oxygen tube in his nose as he walked from the courtroom. Mike Weaver, his attorney, said Eller was suffering from diabetes and other health problems and could not answer other questions. He said Eller's sentencing is pending.

He was arrested Aug. 13 for investigation of violating the order when he was found near a child care center at the University of California, Los Angeles. He had a camera with him at the time, but he told a local TV station that there wasn't any film in it.

McClellan was arrested again — several hours later — this time for trespassing after he did an interview with the TV station on university grounds. He had been told not to return to the campus after his first arrest. Prosecutors did not pursue the trespassing charges.

Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig issued the order Aug. 3 requiring McClellan to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California for a three-year period, said Nick Velasquez, a spokesman for the Los Angeles city attorney's office.

A three-year order amounts to what is termed a preliminary injunction, and cannot be issued without the statutory hearing and notice requirements, according to the city attorney's office.

Superior Court spokeswoman Pat Kelly said Sandvig could not comment because the case is pending. A call to his chambers went unanswered late Tuesday.

A cellphone message left for McClellan was not returned.

McClellan is unemployed and has been living out of his car. He stirred controversy in Southern California when he arrived this summer from Washington state, where he had lived with his parents.

McClellan maintained a website in Washington where he posted photos of children he had taken in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or "LGs," congregated.

His server took his website down more than a month ago. McClellan, who said he lives on supplemental security income and suffers from depression, has maintained that he launched the site as a form of therapy and wouldn't do anything illegal.

McClellen also has a hearing set for Friday on a temporary restraining order preventing him from coming within 10 yards of children in the city of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County, authorities said.

During a court hearing for Engman's case last week, Schlueter showed a video of a police tactics consultant shocking Engman for a few seconds, in order to demonstrate that Engman's injuries were more severe than those caused in the video. Schlueter and his brother were also shocked in the video, Schlueter said.

But, after the tape was shown, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Dan Ross said that Schlueter and his consultant Roger Clark may have violated the state's human experimentation law, which requires patients to sign waivers for medical experiments, according to Schlueter and local news reports.

When questioned by Ross, Clark testified that he was not certified to use the Taser and that he had not obtained waivers from Engman, Schlueter or his brother.

"It's something we're going to look at," Ross said of filing criminal charges, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. He declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Judge Katrina West postponed the hearing, advised Clark of his right against self-incrimination and appointed an attorney to represent him. She also advised Schlueter of his rights.

Schlueter said the move by prosecutors was an attempt to stop him from showing how police used excessive force on Engman. He said he had to shock Engman because he could not get studies on injuries caused by the weapons from Taser International. "I've never, ever heard of a single case like this," Schlueter said.

Ross told the Daily Bulletin that Clark's experiment damaged his credibility as an expert.

Neil Shouse, a former Los Angeles prosecutor, said the case was "very unusual. & This is first time I've heard of something like this," he said.

The state's human experimentation laws require that subjects of medical experiments be given an explanation of the purposes and risks of any experiment. They must give their written consent to participate. Violations can carry penalties of up to one year in jail or a $50,000 fine.

Alexander Capron, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Southern California, and an expert in medical ethics, said the law, which applies to "medical experiments," was intended to apply to medical research.

Told about Schlueter's case, Capron said, "This doesn't sound like research, as that's usually understood."

"If he's allowing himself to be stunned for the purpose of producing evidence in court, the notion that they're engaged in research seems laughable on its face," he said.

American Airlines (AA) is suing Google Inc over the Internet firm's sale of keyword ads for rivals trig-gered by its own trademarks.

A Google visitor who enters certain words or phrases that AA trademarked -- for example, Aadvantage, the name of its frequent-flier program -- will get links to AA's Web site but also its rivals under "sponsored links" -- targeted ads that appear alongside the regular search results.

Google makes most of its money from such keyword ads.

AA filed a lawsuit on Thursday in US District Court seeking unspecified damages.

"When done right, search is a great tool, but we have a problem with this part of their business," AA spokesman Billy Sanez said.

Sanez said the results could confuse consumers and divert customers away from AA's own site.

American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp, tried to negotiate a settlement with Google before going to court, Sanez said.

Google spokesman Jon Murchinson said the company is "confident that our trademark policy strikes a proper balance between trademark owners' interests and consumer choice, and that our position has been validated by decisions in previous trademark cases."

Similar lawsuits against Google are fairly common, although they tend to involve smaller companies.

More than two years ago, a federal judge ruled in a similar case filed by insurer Geico Inc, ruling that Google's advertising practices were legal. Geico had said Google was letting rival insurance companies pay to have their ads displayed when a user searched for "Geico."

But the judge left the door open for Geico to collect damages from Google for featuring ads that used Geico's name in the text, rather than just using the trademark to trigger the ad. The two settled in 2005.

Google lost cases in France, but has won others in the US.