The high court on Monday turned away an appeal from Homaidan Al-Turki. He was convicted of false imprisonment, conspiracy, criminal extortion, theft and unlawful sexual contact.

Al-Turki was convicted of sexually abusing his Indonesian housekeeper and paying her less than $2 per day.

He complained that he wasn't allowed to question a potential juror about potential anti-Muslim sentiment.

But online auction site operator eBay won significant victories in rulings by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said it did not engage in trademark infringement or trademark dilution in its use of jeweler Tiffany & Co.'s trademarks. Those rulings upheld the findings of a lower court judge.

Tiffany sued eBay in 2004, saying eBay engaged in trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising because most items that sellers list for sale as genuine Tiffany products on its sites were fakes.

The appeals court left in place a finding by the lower court that eBay did not violate false advertising laws but returned the case to the judge to consider that issue again.

The three-judge panel said in its written ruling that it had difficulty with the lower court's reliance in its ruling on eBay's assertions that it did not know which listings offered counterfeit Tiffany goods. The 2nd Circuit noted that eBay advertised the goods sold through its site as Tiffany merchandise.

A filing Tuesday in U.S. District Court charges the officer, Michael Hunter, 33, of Slidell, with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and one count of misprision of a felony.

The charges are part of a deal under which Hunter has agreed to help in the investigation of a cover-up after police shot six people — killing two — at the Danziger Bridge in September 2005, according to the person familiar with the case, who was not authorized to discuss it and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Hunter is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on April 7. He faces a possible maximum sentence of eight years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Townsend Myers, a lawyer for Hunter, wouldn't immediately comment.

Hunter remains on the force, but he is assigned to desk duty. Police spokesman Bob Young said Tuesday that Hunter was expected to resign before pleading guilty.

Michael Lohman, a retired lieutenant, and Jeffrey Lehrmann, a former detective, earlier pleaded guilty to participating in the cover-up.

Atlanta law firm King & Spalding LLP has won a $700 million judgment for Chevron Corp. in an arbitration between the energy giant and the government of Ecuador.

An international tribunal ruled that Ecuador must pay damages for delaying court rulings on commercial disputes with Chevron subsidiary Texaco Petroleum Co. for more than a decade.

The ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague resolves some Texaco claims against the Ecuador government dating as far back as 1991.

The court determined that by refusing to rule on Texaco's claims, Ecuador violated international law by breaching an investment treaty with the United States.

The $700 million in damages includes principal and interest dating to Dec. 22, 2006, when Chevron and Texaco initially filed the arbitration. Further hearings will determine whether Ecuador owes more for taxes, interest and costs.

Chevron and other energy companies have additional arbitration actions pending against the Ecuador government. 

Before a federal judge, Justice Department prosecutors will lay out the dirty laundry of the company best known for its elegant Mercedes-Benz autos: a pattern of bribery that for many decades has helped fuel the company's sales and illicitly added millions of dollars to its profits. As a result, the company has agreed to pay $185 million in fines.

According to court papers filed March 24, the company's board 11 years ago adopted an integrity code with anti-bribery provisions. The problem is, Daimler failed to enforce it; many Daimler executives actively resisted it, and improper payments continued until 2008.

The court papers provide a case study of how executives at one of the world's blue chip companies responded when governments said "no" to bribery.

Of course, Daimler, through its subsidiaries, is hardly the first corporate giant to be caught paying off foreign officials to get contracts.

In December 2008, for example, engineering company Siemens AG agreed to pay more than $1 billion in fines in Germany and the U.S. after being accused of bribing officials with suitcases stuffed with money.

Ten years earlier, Germany ratified an international anti-bribery agreement; an implementing law took effect in early 1999.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that lawyers for people thinking of pleading guilty to a crime must advise their clients who are not citizens about the possibility that they will be deported.

Likening deportation to the punishments of banishment and exile, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for five justices, said the Constitution guaranteed competent legal advice on at least some collateral consequences of guilty pleas.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice Stevens wrote.

The vote was 7 to 2, though two justices in the majority would have required only that criminal defense lawyers not say anything false and tell their clients to consult an immigration lawyer if they had questions.

The case involved Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras who has lived in the United States for 40 years, served in the Vietnam War and is a legal permanent resident. Mr. Padilla, a commercial truck driver, was arrested in 2001 after the authorities in Kentucky found more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his truck.

Mr. Padilla pleaded guilty to marijuana trafficking, a felony, and received a five-year sentence. He later said he had agreed to the plea based on his lawyer’s incorrect advice that it would not affect his immigration status. In fact, the plea made it all but certain that Mr. Padilla would be deported once he served his time.

The question in the case, Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08-651, was whether bad legal advice about a collateral consequence of a guilty plea could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.