A Texas appeals court on Wednesday formally exonerated a former grocery store clerk who spent nearly 25 years in prison for his wife's 1986 beating death, reaffirming a judge's decision to set him free last week based on DNA testing that linked her killing to another man.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared Michael Morton innocent of killing his wife, Christine, and made him eligible to receive $80,000 from the state for each year of confinement, or about $2 million total.

Morton, 57, was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and sentenced to life in prison. He maintained over the years that his wife and their 3-year-old son were fine when he left for work at an Austin Safeway the day she was killed, and that an intruder must have attacked her.

DNA found during tests this summer on a bloody bandana discovered near the crime scene matched that of a former convict, who remains at large. Prosecutors recommended that Morton be freed immediately after that man's DNA was also linked to a hair found 17 months later at the scene of another woman's beating death in north Austin, about 15 miles (24 kilometers) from the Mortons' home.

The Supreme Court is grappling with the question of whether jailers need a reason to suspect someone may be hiding a weapon or drugs before subjecting the person to an invasive strip search.

The court on Wednesday heard arguments concerning just how close jail guards can get to inmates who forced to undress and shower — and how thorough those searches can be. The issues arose in the case of Albert Florence, who was arrested on a warrant for an unpaid traffic fine and strip-searched in two county jails.

Corrections and the Obama administration back a policy that allows close searches of anyone entering the general jail population. Lawyers for Florence argue that while people brought in on minor charges can be asked to disrobe and shower while being watched at a distance, they should not have to submit to a more thorough search without reason.

An Australian court on Wednesday overturned a judgment that found the once-popular painkiller Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for consumption.

The Federal Court's decision reverses a 2010 ruling that had found in favor of an Australian man who blamed the since-recalled drug for a heart attack he suffered. The court said the man, a former smoker, was susceptible to a heart attack independent of taking the drug.

The 2010 judgment — which awarded Graeme Peterson 287,000 Australian dollars ($285,000) in compensation — had opened the door for claims from hundreds of other litigants in a lawsuit against U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. over the arthritis painkiller.

Vioxx was taken off the international market in 2004 after research showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck, the world's second-largest drugmaker by revenue, later paid a $4.85 billion settlement to resolve about 50,000 lawsuits in the U.S.

Peterson sued Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, arguing the painkiller was the cause of his 2003 heart attack, which left him unable to work.

In March 2010, Federal Court Judge Christopher Jessup found that Merck Sharpe & Dohme failed in its duty of care by not warning Peterson's doctor about the drug's potential cardiovascular risks, and by its sales representatives emphasizing the drug's safety. Jessup also concluded that the consumption of Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for use as a pain reliever.

Merck Sharpe & Dohme appealed that decision. On Wednesday, the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled the 2010 judgment should be thrown out and said the drug company was not liable for damages. The money originally awarded to Peterson has been held by the court since the initial ruling, so there is nothing for him to pay back.

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a gay couple who want both of their names to appear on the Louisiana birth certificate of the child they adopted.

The court said Tuesday it won't review a federal appeals court ruling against the adoptive parents. The appeals court ruled that the Louisiana registrar's insistence that only one father's name can go on the certificate does not violate the child's right to equal protection under the law or deny legal recognition of the adoption by both men. The adoption occurred in New York, which allows same-sex couples to adopt.

Louisiana says its birth certificate policy reflects state law prohibiting adoption by unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or gay.