Lawyers for John Odgren say he was legally insane when he fatally stabbed 15-year-old James Alenson at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in January 2007.

A judge ruled last year that prosecutors improperly obtained more than 30 hours of Odgren's jailhouse conversations.

But prosecutors say they obtained the recordings lawfully. They want to play the recordings at Odgren's trial because they believe the conversations show a lucid boy who was not in the throes of mental illness.

The Supreme Judicial Court will hear prosecutors' appeal on Monday.

Trustee Irving Picard says in a complaint filed Friday in Bankruptcy Court that Stanley Chais and his family made more than $1 billion in false earnings off Madoff's scheme. He claims the money came from the pockets of burned investors. He wants the money back.

Chais lawyer Eugene Licker says the Chais family has suffered "astounding and ruinous losses from the Madoff scheme."

Madoff pleaded guilty in March to charges his secretive investment advisory operation was a pyramid scheme. He faces up to 150 years in prison.

Picard is overseeing the liquidation of Madoff's assets. He says he plans to use sale proceeds to pay Madoff's victims.

Critics of the prosecution of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Afffairs Committee had accused the federal government of trying to criminalize the sort of back-channel discussions between government officials, lobbyists and reporters that are commonplace in the nation's capital. AIPAC is an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

Acting U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said the government moved to dismiss the charges in the drawn-out case after concluding that pretrial rulings would make it too difficult for the government to prove its case.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman intended to harm the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information.

The trial had been scheduled to start June 2 in a case that has dragged on for four years.

Rosen and Weissman had not been charged with actual espionage, although the charges did fall under provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act, a rarely used World War I-era law that had never before been applied to lobbyists.

A former Defense Department official, Lawrence A. Franklin, previously pleaded guilty to providing Rosen and Weissman classified defense information and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

The court will hear arguments Tuesday in an Oregon case in which a local school district contends that students should at least give public special education programs a try before seeking reimbursement for private school tuition.

A federal appeals court sided with a high-school student identified in court papers only as T.A. The student enrolled in a $5,200-a-month private program and sought reimbursement from the Forest Grove School District.

The Supreme Court heard a similar case from New York in 2007, but split 4-4 on the outcome.

The case is Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 08-305.

The Supreme Court, acting Monday, rejected an appeal from Salvador Magluta, who was convicted of laundering at least $730,000 in drug money and bribing a juror at an earlier trial. The federal appeals court in Atlanta threw out the bribery count, but otherwise upheld the lengthy sentence.

Magluta asked the high court to take his case to consider whether the government should have been barred from trying him again after a jury acquitted him in 1996 of charges based on the same conduct. He also disputed the sentence's length since the judge acknowledged he took into account money laundering charges on which the jury found Magluta not guilty.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney ruled after hearing three days of testimony that detailed a scheme to recruit men who would claim they were rendered sterile by exposure to a pesticide in the 1970s.

Witnesses and investigators told of being in fear for their lives for exposing the fraud.

The judge denounced the lawyers who hatched the scheme and said there was a group of corrupt Nicaraguan judges "devouring bribes" to make judgments and aid the scheme.

The lawsuits ended up in the California court seeking enforcement of extravagant damages determined by Nicaraguan judges.