The state Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed a judge to examine the Wilkes-Barre newspaper's claim that corruption was involved in the handling of the lawsuit against it by a businessman and one of his companies. The court wants the judge to recommend whether a new trial is warranted.

The court's order says the newspaper has offered new evidence suggesting irregularities in how the case was handled because of the involvement of former Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella (shiv-uh-REL'-uh) and Michael Conahan.

Ciavarella and Conahan have pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges. Prosecutors say they took kickbacks from private juvenile detention centers.

The holders of about 4,000 accounts had their constitutional rights violated when a district judge in Dallas froze their Stanford-related assets, according to documents filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The pleading also argues that the judge and a court-appointed receiver don't have jurisdiction over an Antigua-based bank connected to the alleged fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in February accusing Stanford and his top financial officer of running a "massive Ponzi scheme" that defrauded investors of about $8 billion. Stanford has denied the allegations, and did so again Monday night during a tearful interview aired on ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson."

Attorney Michael Quilling, who represents about 35 account holders, said a favorable ruling on his pleading would result in the court unlocking the 4,000 accounts that the receiver has so far declined to release. He also questioned whether Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver, has jurisdiction in the case, calling Janvey "a king without a country."

"The big issue here is that right now thousands of Americans are having their due process rights trampled under the guise of an order that is based on no jurisdiction," Quilling said. "This is a second victimization. (Account holders) were victimized by the bank and its fraudulent practices and are now being victimized by the court and the receiver."

The court said in a 5-4 decision that long delays before a suspect sees a judge can give the government too much leverage over someone who has been arrested.

"Federal agents would be free to question suspects for extended periods before bringing them out in the open, and we have always known what custodial secrecy leads to," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.

The prisoner in the case, Johnnie Corley, was arrested on suspicion of robbing a credit union in Norristown, Pa. The FBI agents who arrested him did not take him to court for his initial appearance for 29 1/2 hours, during which time they elicited a confession from Corley.

Under federal law and previous court decisions, confessions obtained within six hours of an arrest are presumed to be valid and may be used at trial. The question in Corley's case was what courts should do with confessions when there is a delay before the first court appearance.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia said Corley's admission that he robbed the bank could be used against him, ruling that the confession was voluntary despite the delay.

The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from the state of Georgia over attorney fees for lawyers who sued to force dramatic changes in Georgia's foster care system.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob awarded them $10.5 million in attorney fees, a $4.5 million enhancement on top of a $6 million award. Shoob said he increased the award because of the exceptional results that children's advocates achieved. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn his decision.

The class-action lawsuit against Georgia, settled in 2005, prompted the state to reduce worker case loads, improve investigations into abuse and prevent overcrowding in foster homes. Gov. Sonny Perdue, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, authorized hiring 500 additional child welfare workers.

Shoob said the attorneys deserved the award because their lawsuit had beneficial results despite the state's resistance to reform. The state settled the case after fighting it for nearly three years.

Lawyers for Georgia say appeals courts around the nation have split on whether a judge can give lawyers extra money based on their performance.

The high court, in an unanimous opinion Monday, reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ending the tribe's fight with the government.

"Today we hold, once again, that the tribe's claim for compensation fails," said Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court. "This matter should now be regarded as closed."

The sprawling Navajo reservation, which is the nation's largest, covers part of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. The Peabody Coal Co. has mined coal on tribal lands for decades, paying the tribe taxes and mineral royalties.

In 1985, the tribe alleged that Peabody conspired with then-Interior Secretary Donald Hodel to persuade the tribe to accept a lower royalty than other government officials believed the tribe should be paid.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema told a gathering at the University of Virginia law school that the courts' ability to handle even the most complicated terrorism cases was demonstrated by the prosecution of terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui in her courtroom.

She also said the government should not abuse classification procedures to suppress information about mistreatment of detainees. She said it's been her experience that much of what the government seeks to keep classified has more to do with avoiding embarrassment than divulging secrets.

"As embarrassing and as ugly as some of this information might be, it is not in my view national security information," she said.

Her remarks come as the Obama administration decides what to do with detainees at Guantanamo, which it wants to close by January 2010.

One option is to bring suspected terrorists to trial in the United States, though some critics have questioned whether traditional courts can handle the volume of classified information involved. Some argue that military courts or a some sort of hybrid national security court would provide a better forum.