Chinese software developers over the Green Dam Youth Escort monitoring program suffered several targeted attacks earlier this week, when documents containing malicious exploits were sent to attorneys, the firm stated late Wednesday.

On Monday evening, lawyers at the firm of Gipson Hoffman & Pancione received e-mails that appeared to have been sent by associates, the group said in its statement. The Trojan e-mail messages contained either links to Web sites or attachments and were specially constructed to retrieve data from the victim's computer or the company's server.

"The specific source of the attacks has not yet been determined, but it appears that they attacks were initiated within China," the firm said in its statement.

Last week, filtering software firm CYBERsitter announced that it had retained Gipson Hoffman & Pancione to sue the Chinese government, two Chinese software developers and seven PC makers for allegedly distributing its software code as part of the Chinese state-sponsored filtering and monitoring program known as Green Dam Youth Escort. The latest incident follows Google's announcement on Tuesday that it was considering pulling out of China following serious attacks on its networks that resulted in stolen intellectual property and the surveillance of human-rights activists in China.

The attacks on law firm GHP are not the first attempt to infiltrate companies involved in the claims against China and Green Dam. Last summer, CYBERsitter also received two PDF files containing malicious code.

The law firm has contacted the FBI and the U.S. government and the incident is under investigation, according to its statement.

The Supreme Court split along ideological lines Wednesday as it barred a federal judge in San Francisco from broadcasting a high-profile trial involving same-sex marriage.

The court issued an unsigned opinion that said lower courts had not followed proper procedure in approving plans for the broadcast. The trial is to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court cited arguments from proponents of the ban that releasing video of witnesses could subject them to harassment and even physical danger.

The court's liberal bloc -- joined for the first time in an ideological split by Sonia Sotomayor, the new justice -- issued a strong dissent. It said the court's "extraordinary legal relief" was unjustified.

The majority "identifies no real harm" from televising the trial, "let alone irreparable harm to justify its issuance of this stay," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who was joined by Sotomayor and Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts."

The court on Monday blocked U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's plan to stream live video from the trial, which started that day, to five courthouses across the country and to later release the proceedings for broadcast on YouTube. The justices' more complete ruling came at the end of the day Wednesday.

The Schwarzenegger administration filed an appeal Wednesday in a lawsuit over his furloughs of state workers, contesting a decision by the controller to restore pay for prison guards.

Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered some 200,000 state employees to take three days off a month without pay, cutting their paychecks by 14 percent to help close the state's budget gap. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association sued, arguing that guards are losing three days' pay each month, but can never take the time off because prisons operate around the clock.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch sided with the 30,000-member union last month. On Tuesday, state Controller John Chiang said he intends to restore guards' full pay to comply with that ruling. The guards' court victory does not affect about two dozen other union lawsuits opposing the furloughs.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the administration will impose layoffs and end guards' extra pay and pension benefits if an appeals court doesn't quickly block the decisions by Roesch and Chiang. The state filed the appeal in the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday denied tobacco companies' appeals of a San Francisco jury's award of $2.85 million in damages to the family of a woman who died of lung cancer after smoking cigarettes for 26 years.

Leslie Whiteley of Ojai sued Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds before her death in 2000 at age 40.

She testified that she started smoking at 13, using her lunch money to buy cigarettes, and paid little attention to the warning labels because tobacco companies promoted the benefits of smoking and the government allowed the sales. She smoked two packs a day until she was diagnosed with cancer in 1998.

A jury awarded Whiteley and her husband $1.7 million in compensation and $20 million in punitive damages four months before she died. It was the nation's first verdict in favor of a smoker who took up the habit after 1965, when the government first required warnings on cigarette packages.

A Nevada inmate lost a U.S. Supreme Court bid to challenge what jurors were told about DNA evidence against him in the 1994 sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl.

The nation's highest court ruled Monday that it would not hear the evidence issue but did give Troy Don Brown, 38, another chance to argue before a federal appeals court that he received ineffective legal representation at trial.

State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto called the Supreme Court ruling a victory for prosecutors and Nevada after they lost arguments about the DNA evidence in lower courts.

Paul Turner, an assistant federal public defender in Las Vegas handling Brown's appeals, has argued that the conviction should be overturned if the DNA evidence was insufficient.

The high court did not hear oral arguments before reversing a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that an analysis of DNA evidence overstated the likelihood that body fluids found at the rape scene were from Brown.

The Supreme Court pointed to an evidence standard set in a 1979 case calling for courts to consider all the evidence in a case, not just evidence being challenged.

At trial in Elko County, the chief of the Washoe County crime lab testified the chance that Brown's DNA matched the DNA found at the rape scene was 99.99967 percent.

The witness also told jurors that one in three million people randomly selected from the population would also match that DNA.

A federal court turned to historians Tuesday as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California.

Harvard professor Nancy Cott told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose," the Los Angeles Times reports.

She noted that that divorce rates rose steeply in the 1960s and marriage continued to be viewed negatively in the 1970s as heterosexuals advocated "open marriages" and "swinging." But divorce rates hit a plateau in the 1980s, and marriage is now held in high esteem in the U.S., she said.

She attributed the higher status of marriage to advocacy by the Christian right and the growing clamoring of gays and lesbians to participate in it.

During cross-examination, lawyers for the Proposition 8 campaign noted that racial restrictions on marriage in the U.S. were never as "uniform" or widespread as the ban on same-sex marriage. He also asked Cott if it was possible to predict the consequences same-sex marriage would have on society.