AstraZeneca says a jury in Middlesex County Superior Court in New Jersey ruled in favor of the drugmaker.

The case was brought by a 61-year-old Louisiana man who claims he developed diabetes after taking the drug for a few years. Ted Baker, a Vietnam veteran, took Seroquel from 2001 through 2006.

The drug is approved for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It's been on the market since 1997 and brings in more than $4 billion in annual sales.

Nine other cases brought by plaintiffs in New Jersey, Delaware and Florida have been dismissed before the start of a trial.

All the men argued that the state violated their Sixth Amendment due process rights because they were sentenced to death by a judge instead of a jury, as required under the 2002 federal decision.

But in a unanimous ruling handed down Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that their cases were all appealed and the judgments made final before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was issued — and that 2002 decision can't be retroactively applied to the Idaho inmates' cases.

All six inmates have appeals in various stages of state and federal court that will now move forward.

Obama on Wednesday tapped Amy Totenberg for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She has been in private practice and has served as an arbitrator in Atlanta since 2000.

The Harvard Law School graduate also is a special master in federal court in Maryland and a court monitor in federal court in the District of Columbia.

U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel also dismissed defense attorneys' concerns that U.S. Supreme Court decisions expected by the end of June could unfairly complicate the trial.

Zagel said he saw no reason to delay the trial's June 3 start date.

If the date holds, voters will likely hear months of testimony about the former Democratic governor's alleged misdeeds as the party tries to retain his former seat and the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama.

Prosecutors say Blagojevich schemed to sell or trade that Senate seat and used his power to illegally pressure political campaign donors.

Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy and other charges.

A federal judge on Tuesday said farmers can harvest their genetically engineered sugar beets this year, ruling the economic impact too great and that environmental groups waited too long to request that the crop be yanked from the ground and otherwise barred from the market.

Nearly all sugar beets planted are genetically engineered and the crop accounts for half the nation's sugar supply.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White last year sided with the environmental groups when he ruled that federal regulators five years ago improperly approved the genetically engineered crop for market. White said in September that further environmental studies are required before the United States Department of Agriculture can decide the issue but didn't decide the next legal steps.

In January, the Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and several other groups and organic farmers asked White to immediately halt the planting and harvest of all genetically engineered beets while determining how to resolve the lawsuit, which was filed in 2007.

The groups sued the USDA over its approval, and the biotech company Monsanto Co., which develops genetically engineered seeds, joined the lawsuit on the government's side.

The groups and organic farmers fear the biotech beets will cross-pollinate with conventional beets, as well as Swiss chard, and upset consumers who shun genetically engineered products.

Barack Obama is gunning for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled that he welcomes the fight. Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well. That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.

As a matter of history, this argument is wrong: In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails. Using the Court as a punching bag puts Obama in the company of his greatest predecessors, Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts--all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people. As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.