"We obviously asked leadership not to call the bill," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"The bottom line is we certainly had a lot more votes than what we've had, but it's not a majority and quite a few people we've talked to in the last week or so said personally they'd support it and sooner or later it will pass, but it's too soon."

Lawlor said he was slightly surprised that the so-called gay marriage bill won easy passage in his committee, recalling that in 2003 the civil union legislation that was signed into law in 2005 was defeated in the Judiciary panel.

"At this moment the marriage-equality bill seems to be going in the right direction," Lawlor said. "People are saying 'we're getting there, give us a little more time, we want to discuss it a little more.' "

He said that the effort for the legislation ended Friday in part to clear the table for the Supreme

Court hearing Monday. A possible option for the court, Lawlor said, would be to send the entire issue back to the General Assembly to review the rationale for providing the expanded civil rights for gay couples, while calling it something other than marriage.
"I think we'd have a hard time explaining it a second time around," said Lawlor, who is gay.

Anne Stanback, president of the umbrella gay-rights group called Love Makes a Family, said Friday that she had "mixed emotions" about pulling the bill from floor debate.

"We are disappointed that after coming so far we did not quite have the votes we needed in the House to advance the bill this session," Stanback said in a statement.

"However, we can't help but feel encouraged by the significant progress we have made in the two years since the civil union law passed," she said. "We still must win those remaining votes in the Legislature, as well as convince Gov. Rell that treating all Connecticut families fairly is the right thing to do."

Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, agreed that support is growing for the marriage-equality bill.

"We achieved an incredible benchmark this year by passing the bill out of committee — a step that many believed we would not be able to accomplish," said McDonald, who is gay, recalling the 27-15 vote of April 12.

The lawmakers' decision came the same day that opponents of gay marriage, led by the Family Institute of Connecticut, announced a push to combat "anti-family activists" and an anticipated vote next week in the House.

"They are trying to push this through quickly before people find out and make their voices heard," the Family Institute announced in an e-mail message.

Later Friday, Brian S. Brown, executive director of the Family Institute, called the withdrawal of the legislation "a massive victory for marriage protection."

The group has scheduled a May 23 rally against same-sex marriage outside the Capitol at 10 a.m.

A series of emails released by the Department of Justice in March revealed that Rove originally suggested firing all 93 US Attorneys in January 2005, contradicting earlier assertions by the White House that the idea first came from former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The same month, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Rove, Miers, and Sampson, rejecting Bush's interview offer. The House Judiciary Committee later subpoenaed Rove, Miers, and several aides to testify in a concurrent investigation. The Department of Justice is currently investigating whether Gonzales' former White House liaison Monica Goodling considered political affiliation in hiring replacement US attorneys in violation of federal law.

A series of emails released by the Department of Justice in March revealed that Rove originally suggested firing all 93 US Attorneys in January 2005, contradicting earlier assertions by the White House that the idea first came from former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The same month, the Senate Judiciary Committee panel subpoenaed Rove, Miers, and former DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson, rejecting Bush's interview offer. The House Judiciary Committee panel later subpoenaed Rove, Miers, and several aides to testify in a concurrent investigation.

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told the Times Giuliani's association with the law firm could cost him votes.

From clean air to mercury pollution to global warming policies, Giuliani's firm has been perhaps the most anti-environment voice in Washington, representing some of the biggest corporate polluters, Karpinski said.

Publicly however, Giuliani has advocated increased use of nuclear power, natural gas, Alaskan oil drilling and ethanol to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the report said.

The law firm founded by the late Johnnie Cochran Jr. has joined the team representing a woman whose toddler was shot to death during in a gunbattle between the child's father and a police SWAT team, according to court papers.

Brian Dunn of The Cochran Firm filed papers this week, saying he has joined attorney Luis Carillo in representing Lorena Lopez.

Carillo filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on Lopez's behalf against the city of Los Angeles, Police Chief William Bratton and other police officers. The Cochran Firm has filed numerous lawsuits against law enforcement, including cases that involved officer shootings.

Nineteen-month-old Suzie Pena was killed by a police bullet as SWAT officers exchanged fire with her father, Jose Raul Pena, in 2005. Authorities said that Pena, who also was killed, used the child as a shield during the gunbattle.

In a court hearing Friday, Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu denied Carrillo's motion to review investigative reports and witness statements. Deputy City Attorney Christian Bojorquez had argued the documents were confidential.

The civilian Police Commission last year ruled that two officers who fired their weapons early in the standoff violated the department's use-of-force policy.

The district attorney's office declined to file charges against the officers involved in the standoff and shooting, saying they acted lawfully in defense of themselves and others.

A judge has ruled that there was not enough probable cause to allow recording of a conversation between an undercover police officer and a defense lawyer as part of an obstruction of justice investigation.

Some attorneys across the state were concerned about the case, worried it could impinge on their ability to effectively represent their clients.

The matter sprang from a domestic assault case involving defendant Terry Russ. After police had trouble locating witnesses in the case, including the victim, they initiated an obstruction of justice investigation. Russ eventually entered into a plea agreement.

But because of telephone conversations between Russ and his mother, Brattleboro police apparently suspected that his lawyer, Eileen Hongisto, may have been involved in the matter as well. Police obtained a warrant allowing an undercover detective to call Hongisto and, taping the conversation, pose as a witness asking if he should testify.

No charges were ever filed against Hongisto over the case.

This week Judge Karen Carroll of Windham District Court ruled that warrant should never have been issued and ordered that the tapes of the conversation be returned to Hongisto.

"A review of the affidavit in support of the search warrant in this matter reveals that it lacked the necessary probable cause to support the belief that Ms. Hongisto was involved in criminal activity or that evidence of a crime would be obtained through a phone call to her by an undercover police officer," according to the ruling.

The judge who issued the warrant, Katherine Hayes, recused herself from ruling on Hongisto's motion that sought the tapes of the conversation.

"I feel totally vindicated," Hongisto said Friday. "I hope by going as far as we did go with this that we protected defense attorneys."

"I knew I hadn't said anything wrong or done anything wrong, but I needed to have the public know that as well," she said.

Hongisto said she is not sure if she will file a civil lawsuit in the matter.

"I haven't thought that far ahead at all," said Hongisto.

Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis said he did not see the warrant request before it was presented to the judge originally and his office will not appeal the decision reached by Judge Carroll on Tuesday.

"We have followed the judge's direction and returned the audio tapes to attorney Hongisto," he said.

Allegations of a crime must be investigated whether the accused is a lawyer or not, Davis said.

"If, in fact, there is an allegation that someone may be involved in violating the law, that matter ought to be looked into," he said.

But the investigation and tape recording of a conversation with a defense lawyer is unusual, he added.

"This is a very rare event," he said. "This is the only time I am aware of in my 32 years in law enforcement in the state … that this has happened."

Defender General Matthew Valerio said the judge's decision this week was the correct one.

"It vindicates Eileen Hongisto and it frankly supports my opinion and the opinion of many defense counsel that there wasn't probable cause to support the warrant," Valerio said.

"I never got the sense that people were going to practice law defensively" because of the case, he said. "It's not a dimmer switch. You either do it or you don't do it."

As for Hongisto, she said she will continue on in her general law practice.

The danger in the case for the practice of defense lawyers was that they would be blocked from advising their clients about the status of their cases, said Hongisto, who graduated from Vermont Law School and worked as a public defender before going into private practice.

"You wouldn't be able to give accurate and sound legal advice to your client," she said. "If you are not allowed to discuss those options with your client, how can they make an informed and voluntary decision."