Tai Mak's wife, Fuk Heung Li; and son, Billy Yui Mak, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the violation of the export-control laws.

Chi Mak was convicted May 10 of acting as an unregistered agent for China, giving false statements to the FBI, conspiracy to violate export-control laws and attempting to violate export-control laws. He was accused of attempting to pass information on U.S. naval technology to China, the newspaper report said. Prosecutors said he put the information on two encrypted disks and gave them to his brother to transport to China.

Chi Mak's wife, Rebecca Laiwah Chiu, is scheduled to go on trial Tuesday, the Times said.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "no evidence to indicate that any of the last six inmates executed suffered any unnecessary pain," according to its ruling.

The court's decision reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordering reforms to Missouri's lethal injection procedures. He wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find a doctor willing to participate.

Missouri is among nine states that have put executions on hold as it grapples with whether lethal injection is inhumane.

Attorney General Jay Nixon said the decision "reopens the necessary legal avenue for the state of Missouri to move forward on this issue."

Margaret Phillips of the Eastern Missouri Coalition Against the Death Penalty said many questions remain unanswered and it would be unwise for the state to renew executions.

"The uncertainty of all of this is a good indication that Missouri needs a moratorium on the death penalty," she said.

A message seeking comment was left with the governor's office.

Taylor, convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison in Kansas City in 1989, was hours away from being put to death in February 2006 when the execution was halted. His attorney, Ginger Anders, said she would appeal Monday's ruling but declined further comment.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial judge and said the 9th Circuit erred by intervening.

"It is not for us to second-guess the determination" of the trial judge over whether a potential juror is willing to follow the law, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

He said the prosecutor and the judge had ample reason for excusing the man, referred to as Juror Z, because he had said the death penalty was appropriate only if the killer might be released and kill again.

In Washington, as in California, that was not a possibility in a case such as this one. The defendant, if convicted of aggravated murder, would be sentenced either to life in prison without parole or to death. The prosecutor asked to have Juror Z excluded, saying his comments suggested he would reject the death penalty for Brown. The defense lawyer replied, "We have no objection."

Nonetheless, the move -- seemingly minor at the time -- led to the reversal of Brown's death sentence more than 12 years later by the San Francisco-based appeals court.

The Supreme Court was sharply split along conservative-liberal lines in its decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a strong dissent in the courtroom. By allowing prosecutors to exclude jurors who have qualms about the capital punishment, the court will encourage the formation of juries "unfairly biased in favor of the death penalty," Stevens said. "Millions of Americans oppose the death penalty," and juries are supposed to represent a cross section of the community, he argued.

He said jurors who pledged to follow the law in death penalty cases should be seated, even if they expressed doubts about the use of such punishment.

Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his dissent in the case of Uttecht vs. Brown.

"Anybody who thinks we‘re through has missed the point. This is an ever-changing and evolving target that requires constant vigilance," the governor said.

Late last year, four school districts asked the court to maintain oversight, arguing that while the Legislature had appropriated extra money, it hadn‘t adequately addressed buildings, programs for non-English speakers and money for rapidly growing districts.

"I think we‘ve made tremendous progress as a result of this case and I think the few remaining concerns we have about education are relatively small compared to what‘s been accomplished," Heller said.

"The court has said yes, it‘s about spending more money and showing your commitment to education, but what‘s more important is how you spend it," McDaniel said.

Plaintiff attorney Judith L. Spanier, who said the class would contain about 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees, said similar cases were pending in other states.A spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart had no immediate comment on the ruling.

The Supreme Court found that the class should be certified because common questions of law outweigh individual issues, and that the class-action lawsuit is the better method to handle the dispute.

The trial is scheduled to start Monday before Superior Court Judge David DeAlba, who will decide the case without a jury.

Ford lost $12.7 billion last year, said Malcolm Wheeler, a Denver attorney who heads Ford's trial team. "This is a company that has had to lay off thousands of employees, a company struggling with a $3.5-billion negative net worth," Wheeler said.

Tab Turner - a Little Rock, Ark., lawyer who pioneered SUV rollover lawsuits - will be the plaintiffs' lead trial counsel in the Sacramento case. "This vehicle is one of the most dangerous vehicles ever produced in this country," said Turner, who first brought SUV rollover lawsuits involving the Ford Bronco II and Explorers.

Marketed as a replacement for family station wagons, the Explorers built in the 1990s have a tendency to flip over during evasive maneuvers at speeds over 40 mph, he said. Ford knew of the Explorer's problems but decided it was more profitable to produce the vehicle without changing its design, he said.

The class of plaintiffs includes California residents who bought, owned or leased a 1991-2001 model-year Ford Explorer, new or used, between 1990 and Aug. 9, 2000.

The plaintiffs' attorneys claim Ford's deception cost the state's car buyers about $500million because the value of their vehicles fell once the alleged defects became widely known. In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking a return of profits Ford earned from its alleged wrongdoing. According to the plaintiffs' lawyers, Ford reaped profits of $2.135 billion on sales in California from 1990 to 2000.

Ford lawyer Wheeler said it was the tires, not the Explorers, that were the problem and plaintiffs' lawyers were simply trying to extract millions more from Ford. He said the Explorer had been deemed safe by Consumer Reports magazine and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Out of 32 Explorer product-liability cases that had gone to trial, Ford had won 26 of them, he said.

The Supreme Court affirmed the federal appeals court, rejecting Ledbetter's argument that each paycheck issued violated Title VII, triggering a new six-month EEOC filing period. The Court held that "a pay-setting decision is a discrete act that occurs at a particular point in time" and that the statutory period for filing an EEOC claim begins when that discrete act occurs. Read the Court's 5-4 opinion per Justice Alito, along with a dissent from Justice Ginsburg.