Attorneys for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy said Wednesday they see a positive sign in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling.

Like Skilling, some of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved charges that make it a crime to deprive the public of "the intangible right to honest services."

Critics have complained that the 28-word "honest services" law is vague and sometimes used by prosecutors when they are unable to prove another crime was committed.

Siegelman attorney Sam Heldman said the Supreme Court's decision to hear three different cases involving "honest services" charges is a sign that the law is "broad and confusing."

"It shows that some members of the court are concerned prosecutors are overreaching in this whole area of the law," Heldman said.

U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment.

Siegelman and Scrushy are waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will review appeals of their convictions in a government corruption case. They were convicted of bribery, "honest services" mail fraud and other charges in 2006. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year threw out two charges against Siegelman, but rejected most of his appeal and denied Scrushy's.

The two have also asked U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller in Montgomery to grant them a new trial, citing misconduct by prosecutors, inappropriate communications between jurors and other issues.

Siegelman was accused of appointing Scrushy to an influential hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman's campaign for a statewide lottery. The appeals to the Supreme Court focus heavily on whether prosecutors proved that Siegelman and Scrushy had a "quid pro quo" agreement where they would each receive something of value.

Newly released court documents say the newsman accused of blackmailing David Letterman about his sexual affairs told the TV host's attorney that his client's world was about to collapse around him.

The documents say CBS News producer Robert "Joe" Halderman allegedly told Letterman's attorney that he needed to "make a large chunk of money."

Halderman has pleaded not guilty to trying to extort $2 million from the comedian. Documents in the case were released Thursday in Norwalk Superior Court.

Letterman is not named specifically in the documents, but they refer to Jackoway's "Client No. 1" as a public figure who faced the threat of "a ruined reputation" and damage to his career and family life.

On Wednesday, Roberts offered a new take on that argument in a Supreme Court case about whether lawyers who sued to force changes in Georgia's foster care program could receive extra pay for their efforts.

A federal judge awarded the lawyers an extra $4.5 million on top of the $6 million they were due under a formula. U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob said their work was the best he'd seen in 27 years on the bench. Georgia appealed Shoob's decision.

Roberts was skeptical of Shoob's reasoning and the argument in defense of the extra money, which the court has previously said could be paid in undefined exceptional circumstances.

"The results obtained under our theory should be what the law requires, and not different results because you have different lawyers," Roberts said.

He said a judge who suggests otherwise appears to be saying, "'If you weren't there, I would have made a mistake on the law.'"

Paul Clement, the former top Supreme Court lawyer for the Bush administration, replied that capable lawyers can affect the outcome, a point not seriously in doubt in a court that regularly hears from the same band of high-priced appellate lawyers.

Finally, Roberts said good-naturedly: "Maybe we have a different perspective. You think the lawyers are responsible for a good result, and I think the judges are."

Clement responded, "And maybe your perspective's changed, Your Honor." Roberts was a top Supreme Court advocate before he became an appellate judge, earning more than $1 million in his final year in private practice.

A Christian legal group seeking to stop New York agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the state argued in the state's highest court Tuesday that the practice amounts to a policy decision that requires approval by lawmakers.

Attorney Brian Raum told state Court of Appeals judges that a law their court upheld three years ago defines marriage as between one man and one woman, based on "well established public policies linking marriage in New York to procreation and the welfare of children."

Raum's group — the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. — is representing New York plaintiffs who are challenging state and county benefits for spouses of same-sex couples married in Canada or states where those marriages are legal.

The state has exceptions for marriages performed elsewhere that are considered abhorrent in New York, including incest and polygamy. Raum argued that same-sex marriage should be regarded as another exception.

He acknowledged when questioned by judges that a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York recently passed the state Assembly. He also acknowledged that the law defining marriage is a century old, and some more recent statutes protect gays in New York from discrimination.

Supreme Court justices are questioning whether defendants should expect their lawyers to advise them on all the possible consequences of a guilty plea before it is submitted to a court.

Jose Padilla wants his guilty plea to drug charges thrown out. The Honduras-born immigrant says he wouldn't have made the plea if his lawyer hadn't incorrectly told him it would not affect his immigration status. He now faces deportation.

Lawyer Stephen Kinnaird says bad advice on the collateral consequences of a guilty plea is a violation of the constitutional right of "effective assistance of counsel."

But prosecutor WM Robert Long Jr. said criminal attorneys' only constitutional duty is to advise defendants on guilt, innocence and sentencing when it comes to pleas.

A Florida appellate court again has rebuffed the NCAA's effort to prevent public release of documents on academic cheating at Florida State.

The 1st District Court of Appeal late Monday denied the college athletics organization's motions for a rehearing or certification of the case to the Florida Supreme Court.

The documents being sought by The Associated Press and other news media concern a proposal to take wins away from coaches and athletes.

That includes football coach Bobby Bowden who could lose 14 victories — diminishing his already dwindling chances of overtaking Penn State's Joe Paterno as major college football's winningest coach.

A 10-year analysis of prosecutions under a law meant to punish artifact looters shows most people convicted never go to prison.

Archaeologist and former academic Robert Palmer has found in his review of cases from 1996 to 2005 that of the 83 people found guilty, 20 went to prison and 13 of those received sentences of a year or less. Another study found only 14 percent of artifact looting cases are ever solved.

Jeanne and Jericca Redd were given probation after pleading guilty to several felonies related to a sweeping federal investigation into grave robbing and artifact trapping in the Southwest.