In its fight for LaSalle Bank, Bank of America [ticker: BAC] said in an appeal filing that it was “shocking” that the Dutch court would disregard fundamental European Union law.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank has accused a Dutch court of unlawful action by blocking its $21 billion purchase of Dutch banking giant ABN Amro’s U.S. unit.

In support of calls from investors, last month a Dutch commercial court froze the deal between Bank of America and LaSalle Bank in order to allow for a shareholder vote.

The Dutch Supreme Court is hearing appeals by both ABN and Bank of America over the frozen deal and will rule later this month or in early July on whether the sale can take place.

From the beginning, Scott, his family and attorneys have all insisted he is innocent. They say he had nothing to do with the murders. The court of appeals threw out his conviction, saying his right to a fair trial was violated.

In 2002, prosecutors used a videotaped statement from Scott's former friend, Robert Springsteen, to help convict him of murder. At the time Scott did not have an opportunity to challenge it in court.It was a decision the Court of Criminal Appeals now says violated Scott's constitutional rights to a fair trial.

"Because the statement was introduced without Springsteen being there, Scott never had a chance to cross examine the statement,” appellate defense attorney Ariel Payan said. “It was just introduced and there was nothing that could be done about it."

Scott's wife Jeannine has spent five years trying to set him free. "I'm thrilled that they really did look at this and decide there's something wrong with this case," Jeannine said. She says it's time police investigators focus their attention on someone else. "I would like them to find the actual perpetrators and stop wasting the county's and the city's money in this particular endeavor," she said.

State prosecutors admit this latest decision is a setback. They say they don't agree with the Appeals Court ruling.

"If in fact it stays as it is now, Michael Scott would be tried again, " assistant district attorney Bryan Case said.

But until the decision is declared final, Case says they will continue weighing all of their legal options. They could appeal the reversal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or take the case back to trial all over again.

Scott also insists his confession to police was coerced. He say he only agreed to it after several days of almost non-stop interrogation.

Tai Mak's wife, Fuk Heung Li; and son, Billy Yui Mak, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the violation of the export-control laws.

Chi Mak was convicted May 10 of acting as an unregistered agent for China, giving false statements to the FBI, conspiracy to violate export-control laws and attempting to violate export-control laws. He was accused of attempting to pass information on U.S. naval technology to China, the newspaper report said. Prosecutors said he put the information on two encrypted disks and gave them to his brother to transport to China.

Chi Mak's wife, Rebecca Laiwah Chiu, is scheduled to go on trial Tuesday, the Times said.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "no evidence to indicate that any of the last six inmates executed suffered any unnecessary pain," according to its ruling.

The court's decision reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordering reforms to Missouri's lethal injection procedures. He wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find a doctor willing to participate.

Missouri is among nine states that have put executions on hold as it grapples with whether lethal injection is inhumane.

Attorney General Jay Nixon said the decision "reopens the necessary legal avenue for the state of Missouri to move forward on this issue."

Margaret Phillips of the Eastern Missouri Coalition Against the Death Penalty said many questions remain unanswered and it would be unwise for the state to renew executions.

"The uncertainty of all of this is a good indication that Missouri needs a moratorium on the death penalty," she said.

A message seeking comment was left with the governor's office.

Taylor, convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison in Kansas City in 1989, was hours away from being put to death in February 2006 when the execution was halted. His attorney, Ginger Anders, said she would appeal Monday's ruling but declined further comment.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial judge and said the 9th Circuit erred by intervening.

"It is not for us to second-guess the determination" of the trial judge over whether a potential juror is willing to follow the law, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

He said the prosecutor and the judge had ample reason for excusing the man, referred to as Juror Z, because he had said the death penalty was appropriate only if the killer might be released and kill again.

In Washington, as in California, that was not a possibility in a case such as this one. The defendant, if convicted of aggravated murder, would be sentenced either to life in prison without parole or to death. The prosecutor asked to have Juror Z excluded, saying his comments suggested he would reject the death penalty for Brown. The defense lawyer replied, "We have no objection."

Nonetheless, the move -- seemingly minor at the time -- led to the reversal of Brown's death sentence more than 12 years later by the San Francisco-based appeals court.

The Supreme Court was sharply split along conservative-liberal lines in its decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a strong dissent in the courtroom. By allowing prosecutors to exclude jurors who have qualms about the capital punishment, the court will encourage the formation of juries "unfairly biased in favor of the death penalty," Stevens said. "Millions of Americans oppose the death penalty," and juries are supposed to represent a cross section of the community, he argued.

He said jurors who pledged to follow the law in death penalty cases should be seated, even if they expressed doubts about the use of such punishment.

Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his dissent in the case of Uttecht vs. Brown.

"Anybody who thinks we‘re through has missed the point. This is an ever-changing and evolving target that requires constant vigilance," the governor said.

Late last year, four school districts asked the court to maintain oversight, arguing that while the Legislature had appropriated extra money, it hadn‘t adequately addressed buildings, programs for non-English speakers and money for rapidly growing districts.

"I think we‘ve made tremendous progress as a result of this case and I think the few remaining concerns we have about education are relatively small compared to what‘s been accomplished," Heller said.

"The court has said yes, it‘s about spending more money and showing your commitment to education, but what‘s more important is how you spend it," McDaniel said.