During a court hearing for Engman's case last week, Schlueter showed a video of a police tactics consultant shocking Engman for a few seconds, in order to demonstrate that Engman's injuries were more severe than those caused in the video. Schlueter and his brother were also shocked in the video, Schlueter said.

But, after the tape was shown, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Dan Ross said that Schlueter and his consultant Roger Clark may have violated the state's human experimentation law, which requires patients to sign waivers for medical experiments, according to Schlueter and local news reports.

When questioned by Ross, Clark testified that he was not certified to use the Taser and that he had not obtained waivers from Engman, Schlueter or his brother.

"It's something we're going to look at," Ross said of filing criminal charges, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. He declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Judge Katrina West postponed the hearing, advised Clark of his right against self-incrimination and appointed an attorney to represent him. She also advised Schlueter of his rights.

Schlueter said the move by prosecutors was an attempt to stop him from showing how police used excessive force on Engman. He said he had to shock Engman because he could not get studies on injuries caused by the weapons from Taser International. "I've never, ever heard of a single case like this," Schlueter said.

Ross told the Daily Bulletin that Clark's experiment damaged his credibility as an expert.

Neil Shouse, a former Los Angeles prosecutor, said the case was "very unusual. & This is first time I've heard of something like this," he said.

The state's human experimentation laws require that subjects of medical experiments be given an explanation of the purposes and risks of any experiment. They must give their written consent to participate. Violations can carry penalties of up to one year in jail or a $50,000 fine.

Alexander Capron, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Southern California, and an expert in medical ethics, said the law, which applies to "medical experiments," was intended to apply to medical research.

Told about Schlueter's case, Capron said, "This doesn't sound like research, as that's usually understood."

"If he's allowing himself to be stunned for the purpose of producing evidence in court, the notion that they're engaged in research seems laughable on its face," he said.

American Airlines (AA) is suing Google Inc over the Internet firm's sale of keyword ads for rivals trig-gered by its own trademarks.

A Google visitor who enters certain words or phrases that AA trademarked -- for example, Aadvantage, the name of its frequent-flier program -- will get links to AA's Web site but also its rivals under "sponsored links" -- targeted ads that appear alongside the regular search results.

Google makes most of its money from such keyword ads.

AA filed a lawsuit on Thursday in US District Court seeking unspecified damages.

"When done right, search is a great tool, but we have a problem with this part of their business," AA spokesman Billy Sanez said.

Sanez said the results could confuse consumers and divert customers away from AA's own site.

American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp, tried to negotiate a settlement with Google before going to court, Sanez said.

Google spokesman Jon Murchinson said the company is "confident that our trademark policy strikes a proper balance between trademark owners' interests and consumer choice, and that our position has been validated by decisions in previous trademark cases."

Similar lawsuits against Google are fairly common, although they tend to involve smaller companies.

More than two years ago, a federal judge ruled in a similar case filed by insurer Geico Inc, ruling that Google's advertising practices were legal. Geico had said Google was letting rival insurance companies pay to have their ads displayed when a user searched for "Geico."

But the judge left the door open for Geico to collect damages from Google for featuring ads that used Geico's name in the text, rather than just using the trademark to trigger the ad. The two settled in 2005.

Google lost cases in France, but has won others in the US.

Woodbury admitted fatally shooting James Walker, manager of the Army Barracks outdoors gear store in Conway, on July 2, along with two customers, William Jones, 25, and his friend Gary Jones, 23.

Woodbury gave short answers in Merrimack County Superior Court as Fitzgerald and public defender Caroline Smith reviewed his history of mental problems, including bipolar disease, and his understanding of the process and his options.

"I'm pleading guilty because I am guilty," he said.

He apologized to each victim by name, and to their families.

But Walker's father, also named James, told him, "You are a coward, a thief and a cold-blooded murderer."

Woodbury, of Windham, Maine, was released May 4 from the Maine State Prison after serving five years for robbery and theft. Authorities say he left the state a month later, heading south with two teenage sisters in a car allegedly stolen from their mother.

Woodbury is accused of robbing a bank in Florence, S.C., on June 6; breaking into a million-dollar home in St. Simons Island, Ga., and then setting it on fire June 12; and holding up a clothing store June 19 in Chattanooga, Tenn., wielding a knife in a scuffle with the shop owner's son before escaping.

Both sisters eventually broke away from Woodbury, one of them hiding from him in a gas station restroom the day before the Chattanooga robbery.

After his arrest for the murders, Woodbury told authorities he thought Walker, 34, was reaching for a weapon, so he shot him. He said he then shot the other two men because they got in his way. Relatives said William Jones of Walpole, Mass., and Gary Jones, of Halifax, Mass., were not related but were as close as brothers.

Woodbury complained after his arrest that he had warned prison officials in Maine he would be a danger.

"I reached out, asking for help. I reached out and told them I need medication. I reached out and told them I shouldn't be out in society. I told numerous cops, numerous guards," Woodbury told reporters outside a courthouse on July 5.

Maine authorities said Woodbury had access to a wide variety of mental health services.

When the judge declined to let Woodbury speak a second time on Friday, he scribbled a sign and pointed it toward the family members. "U have a lawsuit," it said.

A relative of one victim had said Woodbury pleaded guilty in order to choose his prison, but Jeffery Strelzin, head of the criminal division in the Attorney General's Office, said Woodbury was promised nothing in return for his plea.

Before being sentenced, Tocchet told Burlington County Superior Court Judge Thomas S. Smith: "I'm sorry to the court, my family and friends I was involved in this."

Tocchet, 43, partnered with former New Jersey state trooper James Harney and another man in a sports betting venture they ran for five years.

Harney, who pleaded guilty on Aug. 3, 2006, was sentenced two weeks ago to five years in jail. He could be eligible for parole in about a year. Tocchet remains on indefinite leave from his job with the Coyotes.

"Is it the government's position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?" Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer in a tone of incredulity and frustration.

Gregory G. Garre, a deputy solicitor general representing the administration, responded that the courts have a role, though a limited one, in assessing the government's assertion of the so-called state secrets privilege, which can require the dismissal of suits that could engender national security. Judges, he said, must give executive branch determinations "utmost deference."

"Litigating this action could result in exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the United States," Garre said, referring to the assessment of intelligence officials.

The three judges, on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, were hearing arguments in two combined lawsuits challenging the highly classified surveillance programs, which the administration said were essential in combatting international terrorism. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the federal trial court here, Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

The appeals concern two related questions that must be answered before the merits of the challenge can be considered: whether the plaintiffs can clearly establish that they have been injured by the programs, giving them standing to sue; and whether the so-called state-secrets privilege requires dismissal of the suits on national security grounds.

Though the questions are preliminary, the impact of the appeals court's ruling may be quite broad. Should it rule for the government on either ground, the legality of the NSA programs may never be adjudicated.

All three judges — appointed by Democratic presidents — indicated that they were inclined to allow one or both cases to go forward for at least limited additional proceedings before Walker.

The two cases deal with different secret programs, but are broadly similar. One, a class action against AT&T, focuses mainly on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers' phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. The lawyers in the AT&T case call that program, which the government has not acknowledged, a "content dragnet."

The second case, brought by an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers against the government, concerns a targeted program which the Bush administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The program, which has since been submitted to a secret court's supervision, bypassed court warrants to monitor international communications involving people in the United States.