A jury in 2006 had ruled that Janet Orlando had suffered sexual harassment and sexual battery when she was paddled at home security company Alarm One Inc. The jury punished the company with a $1 million punitive damage award.

But on Monday, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal overturned that verdict, ruling that the jury had been given improper instructions. In particular, the jury wasn't instructed that one vital element of proving that sexual harassment occurred is showing the action was directed at a woman because of her gender.

Lawyers for Alarm One, an Anaheim-based, 300-employee company, said that the spankings were not discriminatory because they were given to both male and female workers and that Orlando and others willingly took part.

Orlando's attorney, Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, vowed to take the case to trial again.

"We may get more this time," Wagner said.

But K. Poncho Baker, the attorney who defended the company at trial in 2006, said that because the company has since gone into bankruptcy and its insurance was exhausted battling Orlando's claim and settling with three other co-workers, there may be little left to recover.

"Good luck retrying this one," Baker said.

Orlando quit the company in 2004, less than a year after she was hired at the Fresno office, saying she was humiliated during the company's team-building practices.

Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against one another. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.

The company has since abandoned the practice.

Former Mitsubishi Motors Corp. President Katsuhiko Kawasoe, who had pleaded innocent, was sentenced to three years in prison suspended for five years, a Yokohama District Court official said on customary condition of anonymity. The suspended sentence means he won't have to serve time.

Kawasoe and three other company officials were suspected of failing to report defects although they knew the problems could cause serious accidents.

They were charged in 2004 with professional negligence resulting in death in a 2002 accident in southwestern Japan in which a driver died in a crash after the brakes failed on his Mitsubishi vehicle. A defective clutch system that was later recalled is suspected of causing the brake failure.

The three other officials were also found guilty but were given suspended sentences, the court official said.

Kawasoe, who became president in 1997, quit in disgrace in 2000 after acknowledging that the automaker had hidden defects for decades, many secretly repaired without recalls, despite reports of dozens of accidents.

The massive cover-up scandal stunned Japan when it surfaced in 2000. The sale of Mitsubishi Motors vehicles plunged, sending the Tokyo-based maker into losses for years.

For decades, Mitsubishi kept a two-tier record of driver complaints, tucking away defect reports in a locker that employees called "H," standing for the Japanese word for "secret."

Responsibilities were not defined and driver safety concerns were forgotten, according to a company report ordered in response to the scandal. When the concealed defects grew massive over the years, everyone was afraid to speak up, it said.

Mitsubishi apologized Wednesday to the family of the driver who died, and the company promised to do better.

"The entire company will continue to do its utmost to uphold corporate governance," it said in a statement.

The scandal has produced two other criminal trials.

In December last year, Yokohama District Court Two found two former Mitsubishi quality-control workers guilty of professional negligence in the death of a pedestrian crushed by a wheel falling off a truck.

That trial revolved around the January 2002 death of then 29-year-old Shiho Okamoto, a housewife, who was walking on a sidewalk with her two children when she was crushed to death by a wheel that rolled off a Mitsubishi truck. Her two boys were injured.

In another lawsuit, three former Mitsubishi officials, charged in Okamoto's accident, were acquitted in December 2006 of falsifying defect reports and failing to take proper recall measures. Among them was Takashi Usami, former chairman of Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Corp., the automaker's former truck unit.

Donna D. Jones has been named the 2008 chair of the Downtown San DiegoPartnership.  Jonesis a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental practice group ofSheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton's San Diego office. 

The Downtown San Diego Partnership is a nonprofit businessassociation, comprised of 320 local business and property owners, dedicated toadvocating and educating for development and planning on behalf of downtownbusinesses and residents. Jones and theboard were officially installed by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders at the Partnership'sannual installation meeting on Jan. 15. 

"Between working with stakeholders tosupport completion of the C Street Master Plan, selection of the developer forthe Civic Center public/private partnership, approval of the Lane Field projecton the waterfront and helping to implement The Plan to End Chronic Homelessness by selecting alocation in the Downtown region for a Central Intake Facility for thehomeless, as well as implementing our Business Attraction program to bring morebusinesses downtown, we at the Downtown San Diego Partnership lookforward to meeting the challenges and opportunities of 2008," commentedJones.

As a land use attorney and registered lobbyist, Jones focuses oncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), permitting andentitlement issues. She has entitledmaster-planned communities; urban infill, multi-family and mixed-usedevelopments; shopping centers; municipal solid waste landfill expansions;peaker power plants and more.

Since 1994, Jones has represented Black Mountain Ranch in developmentof the Santaluz and Del Sur communities in the city of San Diego. This representation has included obtainingentitlements for a transit-oriented, "smart growth" community of morethan 3,000 dwelling units, a resort hotel, two golf courses, and commercial andinstitutional development. Jones'representation included negotiating development agreements as well as alldevelopment permits, maps and associated entitlements, and assuring CEQAcompliance for all discretionary actions. In addition, she worked with the developer andhis team in crafting a ballot measure voters ultimately approved to redesignatethe property and allow a significant increase in density.

In addition, Jones worked on CEQA and entitlement issues on the Padres'downtown Petco Park as well as the East Village Square Master Plan and otherancillary development; entitlements for expansion of the Ritz-Carlton LagunaNigel; lobbying and land use advice on numerous residential and mixed useprojects in downtown San Diego; entitlements for expansion of the La JollaYMCA, conversion of a golf driving range to a condominium project for SheaHomes, and negotiations with the resource agencies and local government onzoning, habitat and other land planning and entitlement issues for a21,000-acre property in the county of San Diego, among other projects.

Jonesearned a J.D., with high honors as a member of Order of the Coif and as GrandChancellor, from the University of Texas in 1990 and a B.A. in journalism, withhonors, from Texas A&M University in 1981.

About Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton LLP

Sheppard Mullin is a full service AmLaw 100 firm with more than 520attorneys in 10 offices located throughout California and in New York,Washington, D.C. and Shanghai.  Thefirm's California offices are located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, SantaBarbara, Century City, Orange County, Del Mar Heights and San Diego.  Founded in 1927 onthe principle that the firm would succeed only if its attorneys deliveredprompt, high quality and cost-effective legal services, Sheppard Mullinprovides legal counsel to U.S. and international clients.  Companies turn toSheppard Mullin to handle a full range of corporate and technology matters,high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions.  In the U.S., the firm's clients include morethan half of the Fortune 100 companies.  Formore information, please visit www.sheppardmullin.com.

In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, those candidates run on the general election ballot. In practice, they frequently have no opposition.

Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group filed a lawsuit challenging the system. A federal district judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have support of the party leaders.

In striking down the system, the two federal courts said judgeship candidates who are not the choice of the party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights.

The high court on Wednesday reversed the lower courts.

Scalia said there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The system's opponents "complain not of the state law, but of the voters' (and their elected delegates') preference for the choices of the party leadership," Scalia said.

He said the state legislature is free to return to a primary if it wishes.

Justice John Paul Stevens chimed in with a brief opinion distinguishing between a constitutional system and wise public policy, resorting to the words of former Justice Thurgood Marshall. "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws," Stevens said, quoting Marshall.

Critics have said the conventions are patronage-driven affairs in which allies of party leaders are rewarded with judgeships and all others are shut out.

The appeals court said that between 1990 and 2002, almost half the state's elections for Supreme Court justice — trial judges in New York's judiciary — were uncontested, calling them "little more than ceremony."

The appeals court ordered the state to dispense with the conventions and switch to primary elections until state lawmakers come up with a new plan. Many legal and civics groups have come out in favor of appointing judges in New York.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously has ruled that states can decide whether to use conventions or primaries to nominate candidates. States also can choose to have judges appointed rather than elected.

Margarita Lopez Torres became the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit after Democratic leaders in Brooklyn blocked her from getting the party's nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship. She said the leaders turned against her shortly after her election as a civil court judge when she would not hire people they recommended. Three years later, Lopez Torres said they offered her a second chance if she would hire a leader's daughter. She refused.

The state, the Democratic and Republican parties and the elections board joined to ask the high court to reverse the appeals court ruling. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings.

The state Legislature adopted the nominating conventions 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because of the potentially corrupting influence of having prospective judges raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.

The plaintiffs have said the current system leads to cozy relationships among judges, lawyers and politicians.

The case arose over a relatively small tax dispute, $4,448, involving the income tax return filed by the trust established by the will of Henry A. Rudkin, former chairman and founder of the Pepperidge Farm company.

The trust was funded with the proceeds of the sale of Pepperidge Farm to the Campbell Soup Co. The trust had $2.9 million in assets and $625,000 in income in 2000, the year of the disputed return.

The trust reported that it spent $22,241 on investment advice and deducted all of it on its tax return. The Internal Revenue Service said the expenses could be deducted only to the extent they exceeded the 2 percent floor. The discrepancy was $4,448.

The trust sued in U.S. Tax Court, which ruled for the government. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

Lawyers for NBC Universal Inc., had asked the high court to overturn a lower court order that the cable TV news network include the Ohio congressman or pull the plug on broadcasting the debate Tuesday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

An hour before the debate, the state Supreme Court's unanimous order said that blocking the debate unless Kucinich got to participate would be "an unconstitutional prior restraint" on the news network's First Amendment rights. The justices also said the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Kucinich's participation even though he first requested and was denied relief from the Federal Communications Commission.

"It's a matter of being on stage and answering questions. That's the issue," lawyer Bill McGaha argued for Kucinich during a hearing before four justices in Las Vegas. Three other justices participated by closed-circuit video conference from Carson City.

Donald Campbell, a Las Vegas lawyer representing NBC Universal, accused Kucinich of trying to make a jurisdictional "end run" around the FCC and federal courts by suing in Nevada state court to be added to the debate.

FCC broadcast rules do not apply to cable TV networks, Campbell said, adding that forcing MSNBC to add Kucinich or not broadcast the debate amounted to prior restraint and would be a "clear and unequivocal" violation of First Amendment press freedom.

"Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Campbell said in his appeal.

Campbell said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Kucinich drew less than 2 percent of the Democratic vote in the New Hampshire primary, after attracting little support in the Iowa caucuses.