Just last week, the appeals court was given a similar appeal for Carlton Turner Jr., a Dallas man set to die for killing his parents, but refused to stop his punishment. The Supreme Court, which last week agreed to review whether lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel in a claim raised by two condemned Kentucky inmates, gave Turner a reprieve a few hours later, sparing him a trip to the nation's busiest death chamber in Huntsville.

The Kentucky lethal injection procedure is the same one used by Texas and other states. Although Chi's lawyers were prepared to go to the Supreme Court, his appeal never got that far.

"I'm grateful there's some measure of common sense descending on the great state of Texas," Wes Ball, Chi's attorney, said. "We're not left in the wilderness."

Chi would have been the 27th inmate executed in Texas this year, far more than any other state.

"We're actually joining the company of perhaps more progressive states like Alabama and Florida," Ball said. "Somebody's finally going to decide this question, so let's stop killing people. If we're supposed to kill them, we can kill them later."

In its brief order, the appeals court gave state lawyers 30 days to address the question of "whether the current method of administering lethal injection in Texas constitutes cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

In their appeal, Chi's attorneys said the execution procedure "creates a wholly unnecessary, unacceptable risk that he will experience excruciating pain and suffering."

The Texas Attorney General's Office has said it will review each condemned inmate with an approaching execution date on a case-by-case basis. Gov. Rick Perry, who could issue a 30-day reprieve, has said through a spokesman that the matter is for the courts to resolve but also has said he believes the procedure is proper.

Early last week, within hours of the Supreme Court announcement in the Kentucky case, the courts allowed Texas officials to execute Michael Richard for a slaying 21 years ago. Lawyers attributed his execution moving forward to procedural hurdles they couldn't overcome in the hours immediately after the high court announced its Kentucky review. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals never ruled in his case because the appeal was filed past the court's 5 p.m. closing time.

In Turner's case, the Texas court voted 5-4 against stopping his punishment. The order in Chi's reprieve listed no dissenters among the judges.

Attorneys involved in death penalty litigation viewed Chi's case as a better indicator of the immediate future of lethal injection in Texas, where 405 inmates have received the toxic drug combinaton since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982.

Earlier Tuesday, Terence O'Rourke, a lawyer in the Chi case working with the government of Honduras, lost a request to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for a commutation request or 180-day reprieve.

O'Rourke's focus was on Chi's inability to contact someone from the Honduran government, a violation of an international treaty, after he was arrested for the 2001 slaying of Armand Paliotta.

The board voted Tuesday 7-0 against a request for commutation. The request for a 180-day reprieve failed in a 4-3 vote.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague, ruling in a suit Mexico filed against the United States, has said the convictions of about 50 Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available under the treaty. President Bush then ordered new state court hearings for those prisoners based on the ruling, but his order applies only to imprisoned Mexican citizens.

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber said he would not release Colliton until he had imposed the sentence. The judge scheduled sentencing for Oct. 11.

Colliton, 43, admitted he had sex numerous times with one girl younger than 15 and another under 17 between Dec. 25, 2000, and March 1, 2005. He also admitted he visited a prostitute younger than 17 between August 2000 and February 2004.

Colliton's lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said his client faced 30 years in prison if he had been convicted at trial on a 43-count indictment that charged him with numerous counts of rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Rachel Hochhauser said she was ready for trial but Colliton had agreed to "take responsibility for his actions" and plead guilty. She said the victims were told of the disposition of the case and "supported it."

Colliton, formerly of the prestigious Manhattan law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore, fled the country in February 2006 after learning that police wanted to talk to him.

The 38-year-old mother, whose name was withheld to protect her daughters' identities, pleaded guilty in April 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child. She admitted she allowed her girls to have sex with Colliton and knew he was giving them money and gifts.

The complaint charges Harman and several of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). It is alleged that defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period. Harman claims to be a leading manufacturer of high-quality, high fidelity audio products and electronic systems for the automotive, consumer and professional markets in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates under the brands names Harman Kardon, JBL, Revel, Mark Levinson, Infinity, Lexicon, Soundcraft-Studer, AKG, Becker, and QNX, and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The complaint alleges that on April 26, 2007, the Company announced that it had entered into a contract in which two investment funds affiliated or sponsored by private investment companies, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR") and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. ("GSCP") (KKR and GSCP are collectively referred to as the "Purchasing Companies" herein), would merge with Harman (the "Merger"). According to the complaint, the Merger was valued at approximately eight billion dollars ($8,000,000,000).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused Harman's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had breached the Merger agreement with KKR and GSCP and thus placed the Merger in serious doubt; (2) the Company needed to sustain higher research and development ("R&D") costs primarily related to its automotive platform awards; (3) the Company's inventory was greater than disclosed and was negatively impacting its cash flows; (4) its relationship with DaimlerChrysler had materially worsened; (5) a material adverse change in Harman's business had occurred which related to capital spending; (6) the Company's financial health had generally deteriorated; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being, earnings, and future prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

According to the complaint, on September 21, 2007, the Company shocked the market and announced that the Purchasing Companies "no longer intend to complete the previously announced acquisition....KKR and GSCP have informed Harman that they believe that a material adverse change in Harman's business has occurred, that Harman has breached the merger agreement and that they are not obligated to complete the merger." The complaint alleges that this news caused the Company's share price to fall from a closing price of $112.25 on September 20, 2007, to close at $85.00 on September 21, 2007, on unusually heavy volume. Then, on September 24, 2007, the complaint alleges that the Company announced that it would fail to meet its financial guidance for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, and needed to significantly reduce its estimates for the FY 2008. According to the complaint, this news caused the Company's share price to fall to $80.31 on extremely high volume of over 14.5 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Harman International common stock during the Class Period, which is between April 26, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Harman International common stock during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the securities, you may wish to join in the action to serve as lead plaintiff. If you purchased Harman International common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than November 30, 2007.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 30 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Los Angeles.