The state's ailing system to defend the poor has struggled almost since its start in 2005, hamstrung not just by the costly Brian Nichols case but also because of the lukewarm support from legislators and a dismal economy.

The state now can't afford to pay to defend the accused in several capital punishment cases, leaving them waiting in jail for years before their trials start. Some, like Khan Dinh Phan, have appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court for help. They have asked that their cases be dismissed because the delays violated their right to a speedy trial.

Georgia has faced similar problems before. State legislators created the public defender system precisely because individual counties struggled to provide adequate legal defense for the poor. But prosecutors and defense attorneys say it may take drastic measures to recover from the Nichols' case, one of the statewide system's first high-profile tests.

Prosecutors said Nichols' defense should have cost about $500,000. But expenses ballooned with expert witnesses and attorneys fees. Nichols was spared death and sentenced to life in December 2008 for killing of a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent during the rampage.

Amy Victoria Beck had arrived in court with her lawyer on Wednesday for her arraignment, but it was postponed until March 25.

She is jailed in lieu of $175,000 bail. Her lawyer, Michael Williamson, says she wants to stay there for the time being to avoid the media.

Authorities say Beck arrived at Burbank police headquarters on Monday and said she was tormented with guilt.

Police say she confessed to having sex with one of her male students last year.

Prosecutors charged Beck with five counts, and she faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.

The case had been closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.

Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.

The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.

The subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. filed five proposed issues in its appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a Feb. 5 decision halting its plans to move engine repair jobs to Columbus, Ga., Japan and Singapore.

U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport ruled in favor of the Machinists union, which sued Pratt & Whitney to halt efforts to shift the jobs. The union said the company violated its contract with the union that requires it to make every effort to preserve jobs in Connecticut.

Among the issues Pratt & Whitney said it may raise is its contention that Hall was wrong in how she interpreted the definition of "every reasonable effort" to preserve jobs. Pratt & Whitney said it is not required to save jobs if it results in lower profit.

The company also said Hall substituted her own judgment for Pratt & Whitney's business judgment in how it measures profit and financial performance.

In a request filed last week, Pratt & Whitney said a decision is needed soon to avoid financial harm because the company plans to shut two Connecticut plants immediately after its union contract expires in December.

The court said the two parties may file legal papers in April and May and an appeal may be heard as early as the week of May 31.

A lawyer for the union would not immediately comment. The union's chief negotiator did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc will ask a Canadian court on Wednesday to hear its appeal of a lower court decision allowing Shaw Communications Inc to buy the broadcast arm of bankrupt Canwest Global Communications Corp.

An Ontario Superior Court judge ruled on Feb. 19 that Shaw could acquire Canwest's television arm, putting a quick end to a last-minute bid for the assets, filed the night before by a consortium led by private equity fund Catalyst Capital and backed by Goldman.

The Catalyst consortium includes the Asper family, Canwest's founders. Leonard Asper was chief executive of Winnipeg, Manitoba-based Canwest, Canada's largest media group, until last Thursday when he stepped down to avoid potential conflict of interest concerns.

Goldman Sachs is a partner in Canwest's specialty TV arm after helping the media group acquire popular channels such as History Television and Food Network Canada from Alliance Atlantis in 2007 for C$2.3 billion.

It wants the Ontario Court of Appeal to set aside the deal that allows cable operator Shaw to buy the Canwest TV assets.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

Self-exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has won his libel case against a Kremlin-owned broadcaster that aired allegations he masterminded the murder of a former KGB agent in London.

The 64-year-old tycoon's victory against All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting is the latest round in the oligarch's battle against the Kremlin, which has long sought to bring him before a Russian court.

Berezovsky sued after the broadcaster, known by its acronym RTR, aired a show in which it was suggested he was behind the poisoning death of renegade Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, who died in 2006.

In the ruling at London's High Court, Justice David Eady awarded Berezovsky 150,000 pounds (about $225,000) in damages, saying: "There is no evidence before me that Mr. Berezovsky had any part in the murder of Mr. Litvinenko. Nor, for that matter, do I see any basis for reasonable grounds to suspect him of it."

Berezovsky, who was in court for the verdict, said in a statement he was pleased the court "has unequivocally demolished RTR's claims."

RTR, which did not take part in the hearings, called the judgment illegal. Speaking from Moscow, the broadcaster's lawyer Zoya Matviyevskaya said the company "does not recognize the decision of the court" and was ready to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.