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.

Attorneys representing the students had hoped that if they won in court, tuition would be lowered to pre-2003 levels, when in-state tuition and fees for undergraduates averaged about $2,500 a year. Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the coming school year averages up to $4,949. advertisement 

Tucson attorney Paul Gattone, who represents the students, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He worries that students from middle-income families will be hurt the most by rising tuition because they aren't eligible for as much financial aid as students from lower-income families.

"Certainly we can assume tuition rates are not going to go down any time soon, and they probably will continue to climb," he said. He has not decided whether he will ask the court to reconsider the decision.

The state Board of Regents has contended Arizona's tuition is low in comparison to many state universities. The regents have kept tuition and fees in the lower one-third of a sample of 50 public U.S. universities. The average tuition and fees at those universities is $6,635 a year, according to a regents survey.

Taylor had appealed to the full appeals court after a three-judge panel ruled in June that Missouri’s execution procedure is not cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling had overturned another judge’s decision to ban executions until the lethal injection process was reformed.

Taylor’s attorney said Wednesday that she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. And while the high court accepts only a small percentage of the thousands of cases it is asked to review each year, “this has a better shot than most,” attorney Ginger Anders said. “It’s an extremely important issue, one that is going on in a lot of states.”

A Kansas City federal judge’s order last year to suspend executions could be lifted within a week, freeing the Missouri Supreme Court to set execution dates.

But if Taylor asks, and the appeals court agrees, the moratorium could continue while the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to consider his case.

'Step toward resolution'
Brian Hauswirth, a state Corrections Department spokesman, called the ruling “another step toward resolution of the legal challenges to lethal injection.”

Taylor’s case had prompted a federal judge last year to place a moratorium on executions in Missouri. U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. said he wanted to be sure that the three-drug injection method did not cause risk of pain and suffering.

Gaitan wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find such a doctor willing to participate in the executions.

The three-judge appeals panel on June 4 reversed Gaitan’s ruling, saying the state’s execution protocol “is designed to ensure a quick, indeed a painless, death.”

But Taylor argued the panel focused too narrowly on the protocol rather than how it is implemented, or any accidents or mistakes by staff that may result.

Days after the June 4 ruling opened the way for restarting executions in Missouri, Attorney General Jay Nixon asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for 10 condemned inmates — more than one-fifth of the state’s 44 death row inmates.

Drugs contested

The debate centers on the three drugs used in executions. The argument is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can be excruciatingly painful. But the inmate would not be able to communicate the pain because of a second drug that paralyzes him.

Missouri is among at least nine states that had put executions on hold as they consider whether lethal injection is inhumane.

Taylor was convicted of killing a 15-year-old girl in Kansas City in 1989 after kidnapping her from a school bus stop. He was hours away from being executed in February 2006 when the procedure was halted.

Missouri hasn’t executed an inmate since convicted killer Marlin Gray was put to death in October 2005.