The delays paid off — for Brillon: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case this week, trying to decide if delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.

Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.

"You're greasing that slippery slope," said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor's appeal. "That's the big concern here."

Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who was the mother of his child.

Wisuth Setsawat, the owner of Santika Club, and club manager Suriya Ritrabue have been charged with negligence resulting in the death and injuries of others, Deputy National Police Commissioner Gen. Jongrak Jutanont said.

"More than 1,000 people were allowed into the building, which has a capacity for only 500 people," Jongrak said. "The safety measures were also dysfunctional. Fire exits were not clearly marked. Automatic fire extinguishers were not present."

Police have said the fire was likely sparked by a fireworks display on the nightclub's stage.

The two have also been charged with allowing in underage customers. A 17-year-old was found among the dead.

The maximum penalty for negligence is 10 years in prison and a fine of not more than 20,000 baht ($573). Allowing in underage customers carries a fine of 50,000 baht ($1,433).

The fire raced through the two-story building shortly after the New Year's countdown, sending hundreds of panicked guests running for the main entrance. Victims were killed by the blaze, smoke inhalation and crushed in the stampede to get out.

Among the dead were three Singaporeans, one Japanese and one Myanmar national.

Jongrak said several other people were being sought for questioning in the case, including staffers of the company hired to put on the fireworks display.

Prosecutors say the grandmother set a fire that killed five people, including three young girls, because she was allegedly angry her son's ex-girlfriend wouldn't let him see his two kids.

Her trial is set to begin Tuesday on murder and arson charges after an extraordinary delay while her lawyer fought to keep the jury from hearing an alleged confession she made after the Feb. 24, 1999, blaze in a Lynn triple-decker.

Her grandchildren survived, but the blaze killed another family in the building.

Hilton, now 62, has spent most of the last decade at MCI-Framingham, a medium-security women's prison where she works in the kitchen and watches television, said her attorney, Michael Natola.

In Massachusetts, it usually takes one to two years for murder cases to go to trial.

"Ten years is aberrational," said Michael Cassidy, a professor at Boston College Law School. "Sometimes, complex murder cases can take two or three years to get to trial but 10 years is well beyond the average."

Natola said he had to push for the statements to be suppressed — no matter how long it took. The case twice went to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The law allowing civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" federal inmates intrudes on police powers that the Constitution reserves for states, many of which have their own similar statutes, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Civil commitment power "is among the most severe wielded by any government," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote. "The Framers, distrustful of such authority, reposed such broad powers in the states, limiting the national government to specific and enumerated powers."

In upholding a decision by U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt of Raleigh, N.C., the 4th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule on an issue that has divided courts nationwide. A judge in Minnesota reached the same conclusion as Britt, while courts in Hawaii, Oklahoma and Massachusetts upheld the measure.

Thursday's ruling is binding only in the states included in the 4th Circuit: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Maryland.

U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said it was too early to comment on what steps the government might take next. The department could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or seek a rehearing before the full federal appeals court.

Citing separation of powers, the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled Wednesday it could not intervene because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had not signed the bill into law.

The lawsuit was filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, with support from most Republican state lawmakers. It argued that the Democratic majority acted illegally when it passed the tax increases because it did so with a simple majority vote.

The state Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for tax increases.

John Coupal, president of the taxpayers association, said the group was considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court and a new lawsuit in federal court because the vote violated the constitutional rights of the Republican minority members.

"We are still looking at this case for potential appeals because we believe this issue needs to be resolved," he said.

Schwarzenegger vetoed the $18 billion proposal, which included a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to start closing California's $42 billion budget deficit. The governor said the package didn't make enough labor and environmental concessions.

With his promise that he'd made no deals to gain the appointment, Burris cleared what he called one of the two hurdles between him and the oath that would make him Illinois' junior senator. Senate Democrats raised both obstacles.

The other hurdle, the signature that Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has so far declined to provide on paperwork certifying Burris' appointment, is in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court. White has said the governor shouldn't have appointed someone to fill President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat, given the corruption charges against him.

"I feel like I've passed this test with flying colors," the 71-year-old Burris told reporters Thursday after testifying for almost 90 minutes before the committee, which later voted to recommend impeaching the governor. "I have nothing to hide."

Now Burris awaits the court's decision. It isn't clear how long that will take.

Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat.

The two-term Democratic governor has denied any wrongdoing, but Senate Democrats had warned that the corruption allegations would strip credibility from anyone he named to fill the vacancy. Blagojevich ignored them and appointed Burris on Dec. 30, creating a furor.

White pressed the governor not to fill the seat before Burris' appointment, then withheld his signature as a "ceremonial" stand against the move, White spokesman Dave Druker said Thursday. If the court says White has to sign, he will, according to Druker.