"Some courts are being prudent by waiting to see how the Supreme Court will go," said Lisa McCalmont, a consultant to the death penalty clinic at the University of California at Berkeley law school.

Fewer than 50 executions will take place this year, even if several states pushing ahead with lethal injections defeat legal efforts to stop them. The last time executions numbered fewer than 50 was in 1996, when there were 45.

Since executions resumed in this country in 1977 after a Supreme Court-ordered halt, 1,099 inmates have died in state and federal execution chambers. The highest annual total was 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

So far this year, 42 people have been executed. Texas, where 26 prisoners have been executed this year, plans no more executions in 2007 after federal and state judges stopped four death sentences from being carried out.

Executions also have been delayed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma since the court announced Sept. 25 it would hear a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection method. Courts in California, Delaware, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee have previously cited problems with lethal injections procedures in stopping executions.

The last person executed in this country was Michael Richard, 49, who died by lethal injection in Texas the same day the Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection procedures in Kentucky. A Texas state judge refused that day to accept an appeal from Richard's lawyers, saying it had arrived after office hours.

Kentucky's method of lethal injection executions is similar to procedures in three dozen other states. The court will consider whether the mix of three drugs used to sedate and kill prisoners has the potential to cause pain severe enough to violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The U.S. is clearly in what amounts to a de-facto death penalty moratorium," said Bridgers' attorney David Dow, who runs the Texas Innocence Network out of the University of Houston Law Center.

Josh Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County, Oregon, and a death penalty supporter, said executions should continue even while the Supreme Court looks at lethal injection.

Marquis distinguished the lethal injection issue from court reviews that led to banning execution of the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed their crime. "The court's response is not going to be ban all lethal injections. At most, it's going to be reformulate the protocol," Marquis said.

The reprieves for the dozen or so men whose dates to die had been set are likely to be only temporary. Even the lawyers for the Kentucky inmates concede that there are alternative drugs and procedures available that lessen the risk of pain.

Justice Antonin Scalia also has suggested that people are reading too much into the court's decision to take up the Kentucky case. Scalia said Tuesday night he would have allowed Arkansas to proceed with the execution of Jack Jones.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier put off Jones' execution because of the high court review. That decision "was based on the mistaken premise" that the high court wants state and federal judges to intervene every time a defendant raises a court challenge to lethal injection, Scalia said in a statement accompanying the Supreme Court's order that kept the appeals court ruling in place.

In that ruling, the court reinstated the case, which accuses Microsoft and Best Buy of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand.

The two companies will now face a class-action lawsuit involving thousands of consumers and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Allegation of RICO violations are typically seen in cases of organized crime, such as the conviction of mobster John Gotti. RICO, however, is now being used in some civil cases and plaintiffs can be awarded triple the amount of their claimed damages.

In the Microsoft/Best Buy case, plaintiff James Odom complained that during the purchase of a new computer at Best Buy he was enrolled in a free-trial subscription to Microsoft's MSN Internet service without his knowledge and then his credit card was charged for the service once the trial period had expired. He says other customers paying with credit or debit cards also were enrolled in the same fashion.

The suit alleges wire fraud in the transferring of his financial data and, therefore, a violation of the RICO Act.

Odom charged the pair violated RICO in part due to an agreement under which Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy and agreed to promote Best Buy's online store through its MSN service. In return, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN service and other Microsoft products in its stores and advertising. The agreement, Odom alleged, led to the MSN enrollment issue.

We conclude that plaintiffs have alleged facts that, if proved, provide sufficient evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit', the 9th Circuit Court wrote in its findings. The continuing ruling means the behavior by Microsoft and Best Buy was ongoing and not an isolated incident. The court also wrote that if the allegations are true that they establish that the pair shared a common purpose to increase MSN subscribers through fraudulent means.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, the two companies said their joint marketing did not constitute an ongoing enterprise.

Microsoft officials told Bloomberg News in May after the 9th Circuit Court's decision that the ruling was procedural and did not reflect on the merits of the case. The MSN subscription program at Best Buy concluded in 2003 when Microsoft began to offer refunds to customers.

"I said I thought we would bring this up prior to us leaving here," said Hoyer. "I have not changed on that, although I would be less than candid [not] to say that there are a number of people who are revisiting their own positions."

President Bush called on House leaders Wednesday to abandon the measure. "Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day."

Bush also said at a Wednesday news conference that "... one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire," the predecessor of modern Turkey.

By a 27-21 vote last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the resolution, which formally identifies the killings as genocide. Turkish officials acknowledge the killings of Armenians during World War I but vehemently object to the designation "genocide."

The U.S. and Iraqi governments fear the proposed resolution could harm Washington's influence with Turkish officials who want to launch military raids against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Washington officials are concerned the Turkish raids would further destabilize the region.

Originally filed by one consumer in northern California, the lawsuit claims the companies' joint venture violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used in organized crime cases. Successful RICO claims provide for triple damage awards in civil cases.

In a friend-of-the-court filing on behalf of the companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the filing of civil cases invoking RICO is out of control and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case as a way to determine whether the use RICO should be reined in.

Under the joint venture, Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy in April 2000, and agreed to promote the company's online store through its Internet access service, MSN. In turn, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN in its stores.

The dispute began in 2003, when James Odom sued the companies after purchasing a laptop computer at a Best Buy store. Odom alleged that Best Buy included a software CD with his purchase that provided a six-month free trial to MSN.

Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged.

Odom is one of two lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit involving thousands of consumers with similar claims, said Daniel Girard, a lead attorney on the case in San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges the companies violated RICO by engaging in wire fraud when they electronically transmitted the plaintiffs' financial information. The plaintiffs are claiming damages in the "tens of millions," which if tripled would top $100 million, Girard said.

Microsoft has denied illegal conduct in response to these allegations and a Best Buy spokeswoman says the company does not comment on pending litigation.

In papers filed in court, the companies said their joint marketing agreement did not constitute an ongoing "enterprise," as required under the RICO statute.

The appeals court ruling that the companies' venture constituted an enterprise would greatly expand RICO's scope, Microsoft and Best Buy said.

The 9th Circuit's decision would "convert a statute designed to eradicate organized crime into a tool to induce settlements from legitimate businesses," the companies said. Most corporations "cannot risk the possibility of an award of treble damages" or the "reputational injury" of being sued under a law "associated with racketeers and mobsters," they added.

In its filing, the Chamber said civil RICO "is becoming one of the most frequent and damaging devices used against businesses." Over 4,500 RICO cases have been filed since 2001, the Chamber said, with only 35 of those filed by the government.

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Odom, 07-138. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the decision to turn down the case, the court said. As is customary, no reason was given, but Roberts' 2006 financial disclosure shows he owned Microsoft stock that year.

A pair of former users of Sprint Fidelis cardiac leads made by Medtronic Inc. (MDT) said Tuesday they are suing the medical device firm over injuries they claim to have sustained from the product.

The two are suing both for their own damages and as members of a class of all users of the leads.

The suit, filed in federal court in Minnesota, has plaintiffs Leonard Stavish and Kelly Liusi alleging the lead wire portion of the implanted heart defibrillators was defective and they "received jolting shocks when it falsely detected that the user needed a jolt from the device, or that the device failed, so that when they actually needed defibrillation they could not get it," according to their attorneys.

-William Spain; 415-439-6400