The jury pool was asked to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. One of the questions: "Do you regularly follow professional basketball or consider yourself a fan?"

U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch also read aloud a list of names of possible witnesses, including Knicks players Stephon Marbury and Malik Rose.

During individual questioning, the judge dismissed one prospective juror, a coffee trader, after the man revealed his anguish over being fired from a job based on a co-worker's claim of inappropriate touching.

A maintenance man and Knicks fan was kept in the pool despite suggesting that game tickets were overpriced and that Thomas's track record as coach was poor. "I can speak freely? The team's not doing too well," he said as Thomas listened nearby.

Eight jurors were to be picked for a trial expected to last three weeks, meaning a verdict could come just before the Knicks open training camp.

Browne Sanders, a former Northwestern basketball star and married mother of three, wants reinstatement to her job as senior vice president of marketing and business operations. She's also seeking hefty damages after spending five years with the storied franchise.

The plaintiff contends she was fired in January 2006 "for telling the truth" while going through internal channels to stop the harassment by Thomas. Madison Square Garden, which owns the team, insisted her dismissal was because she "failed to fulfill professional responsibilities."

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled 2-1 that William Garner didn't understand his right to silence when he told police he would waive his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. He gave a taped statement to police, saying he set fire to a Cincinnati apartment with six children inside to destroy evidence of his burglary, according to court records.

Garner told police he thought the children would be awakened by the smoke and escape, according to court records. Only one child survived, and Garner, now 34, was convicted of five counts of aggravated murder in the 1992 fire, along with arson and other charges.

Judge Karen Nelson Moore, joined by Judge Boyce L. Martin, wrote that evidence showed that Garner, 19 at the time of the statement, was poorly educated and had low intelligence and other limitations directly related to understanding and comprehending his rights. Expert testimony also showed that Garner didn't understand the word "right" or his right to remain silent, their opinion stated.

"Thus, admission of his statement at trial was unconstitutional," the opinion stated.

Judge John M. Rogers dissented, saying police repeatedly asked and obtained assurance that Garner understood their meaning.

The judges granted Garner's request for habeas corpus, which protects inmates from unlawful imprisonment, and ordered his release in 180 days unless the state sets a new trial.

The state could ask for the case to be heard by all 14 appeals court judges or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Messages seeking comment were left with Attorney General Marc Dann's office.

Kyle Timkin, an assistant state public defender who argued Garner's case, said he was trying to reach his client, who is being held at the Mansfield Correctional Institution.

"Obviously, we're thrilled," he said. "It just basically affirms long-standing principles."

Shirley Williams originally filed the discrimination case after she and several other employees were laid off in October 2001. Layoffs occurred again in March 2003.

The plaintiffs accused the company of using a computerized performance management system to determine which employees to let go. The plaintiffs contended that the system unfairly singled out employees older than 40.

A Sprint Nextel Corp. spokesman said at the time of the settlement agreement in May that the company settled the case to move on with business.

A Sprint Nextel representative was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

No man or woman has been executed in New York since 1963; the court ruled in 2004 that elements of a 1995 law restoring the state's death penalty made it unconstitutional. That decision left it to the State Legislature to modify the law, and opposition to the death penalty among Assembly Democrats has nullified any such effort.

But the 2004 decision was closely split, 4 votes to 3, and two of the judges in the majority have since retired. They were replaced by one appointee each of former Gov. George E. Pataki, a strong advocate for the death penalty, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who supports capital punishment only under narrow circumstances, as in the case of terrorists and the killers of police officers.

As in any death penalty case, the debate before the Court of Appeals on Monday was lengthy and highly technical, touching on dozens of questions of law and as many different elements of Mr. Taylor's crimes and trial. But questioning from the judges focused most intently on the prosecution's argument that the court should revisit its own 2004 decision.

In that case, the defendant, Stephen LaValle, was sentenced to death for raping and murdering a Long Island schoolteacher. As required by law, a judge told the jurors that if they could not choose unanimously between a sentence of death and one of life without parole, he would impose a sentence that would make Mr. LaValle eligible for parole after 20 to 25 years.

The Court of Appeals ruled in June 2004 that such instructions could coerce deadlocked jurors to vote for the death penalty out of fear that a violent defendant might be released from prison.

Mindful of the court's ruling, the trial judge presiding over Mr. Taylor's case, Steven W. Fisher, told a jury that he would "almost certainly" impose consecutive terms totaling more than a century if the decision were left to him, and that Mr. Taylor would be ineligible for parole until every year was served. Mr. Taylor and an accomplice, Craig Godineaux, had forced seven people into a walk-in freezer; bound and gagged the workers, and forced them to kneel before shooting each in the head.

Two survived to testify at trial. (Mr. Godineaux, who is mildly retarded, pleaded guilty to murder and is serving a life sentence without parole.) Because of Justice Fisher's careful instructions, Queens prosecutors argued on Monday, the jurors could be confident that Mr. Taylor would not walk free whatever their decision, and had voted to impose the death penalty without fear.

Under questioning, prosecutors told the judges that upholding that sentence would not amount to reversing the court's previous decision but would merely clarify part of it. The existing death penalty law could be constitutional in Mr. Taylor's case, said Donna Aldea, an assistant district attorney, even if unconstitutional in others.

"There would be no appearance of impropriety if the court unanimously agrees that the final sentence in LaValle, in fact, went too far," said Ms. Aldea.

But defense lawyers argued that because the original law that reinstated the death penalty in the state in 1995 had been rendered unconstitutional, absent legislative amendments, any death sentence stemming from it was also unconstitutional. Mr. Taylor's sentence, they said, should be changed to life without parole.

The prosecution's reasoning drew sharp questioning from some judges, including Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Reversing even one portion of the court's decision, she said, was the equivalent of telling the Legislature, "We didn't mean it." She also described as "fighting words" language in the prosecution's brief suggesting that the court's decision in the LaValle case was "unnecessary, inappropriate, and incorrect."

Even Judge Robert S. Smith, who sided against the 2004 decision, noted that overturning the court's own precedent — and one set so recently — would be a "radical" step.

Craig pleaded guilty by mail to disorderly conduct in August following his arrest in June. A police report alleged that Craig had solicited sex from police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, which the senator has denied.

After Craig's arrest was made public, the Idaho Statesman published its five-month investigation into previous allegations of homosexual behavior. Craig said he is not gay.

Statesman editor and vice president Vicki Gowler defended the newspaper's investigation. "From the start, it was important to us to do a thorough and responsible investigation, outside of deadline pressures. We did that," Gowler said.

Six years ago, the Harris County Bail Bond Board, which regulates the bond industry, told Pruett to stop calling. Officials said he was breaking a local rule that banned certain solicitations. And they threatened to suspend his license to do business.

Pruett fought back with a lawsuit against the board and Harris County and recently, after a protracted legal fight, a federal appeals court ruled he and fellow bondsman Scott Martin had a First Amendment right to consult public records, then solicit business by phone.

Calling times restricted

The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that state-imposed restrictions on "commercial speech" were unconstitutional, but agreed with the state law restricting solicitation calls between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.

Essentially, Pruett and Martin used public records to troll for people with outstanding warrants, and then called them to offer their services.

Constable offices, the county and other municipalities use those same records to mail thousands of letters every month to people with open warrants for bad checks, unreturned DVD rentals, unresolved traffic violations and other nonviolent criminal cases.

The 5th Circuit ruled that Pruett and Martin had the same rights to contact those people.

"The statute does not prevent attorneys, law enforcement officials or anyone else from alerting someone that he's the subject of an open warrant," the court said. "Harris County cannot give such notice itself and then claim that restricting notice by others is necessary to the safety of its officers and the public and the prevention of flight."

County Attorney Mike Stafford said the county didn't create or enforce the state law, but intervened to prevent bondsmen from "tipping off" alleged criminals. He said protecting officers from possible violence is a legitimate objection and the county will likely appeal the latest decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

David Furlow, who represents Pruett and Martin in the federal lawsuit, hailed the decision as a "vindication of First Amendment rights." But he said perhaps more importantly, the courts action sent a loud message to fellow bondsmen who saw Pruett and Martin as unscrupulous competitors.

"The largest bail bonding companies with large investments in Yellow Pages ads and large existing bases of criminal defendant clients, they wanted to restrict those and keep other bail bondsmen from contacting them," Furlow said.