2 EX-COPS IN CHICAGO WIN COCAINE RETRIAL

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court forced U.S. prosecutors Monday to retry two
former Chicago police officers and the two sons of one officer, whose
convictions in a cocaine distribution conspiracy were reversed last year
because of a mistake in the jury selection process.

The Justice Department argued to the court in April that the trial judge's
error hadn't denied the defendants any "substantial right." A Court of
Appeals ruled last year that it "violated (their) due process rights by
impairing the intelligent exercise of peremptory
challenges." The justices Monday refused to hear the government's appeal.

The purported ringleaders of the wide-ranging conspiracy were Richard
Messino and Clement Messino, both former police officers who received life
sentences after a 10-week trial in 1995.

Richard Messino's two sons, Paul and Christopher Messino, each received
sentences of nearly 20 years.

According to the government appeal, the conspiracy involved purchasing
large quantities of cocaine in Florida, transporting it to Illinois and
reselling it in the Chicago area between 1980 and 1991.

"It is undisputed . . . that all of the seated jurors were impartial," the
Justice Department told the court. "At most the error in the present case
caused two potential jurors who otherwise would have been excused to
participate as regular jurors."

Government lawyers had urged the court to hear their appeal to correct what
they argued were conflicting rulings by lower courts on the issue.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether individuals can sue
health insurers for fraudulent conduct under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Unlike state law, the
racketeering law allows successful litigants to recover treble damages and
the costs of their lawsuits.

The appeal focuses on charges that Humana Sunrise Hospital, owned by Humana
Inc., secretly arranged for discounts of between 40 percent and 96 percent
from Humana Health Insurance of Nevada. Insurance policies obligated Humana
Insurance to pay 80 percent of a beneficiary's hospital charges over and
above a designated deductible amount; the beneficiary paid the remaining 20
percent.

According to the lawsuit by policy beneficiaries, they continued to be
billed for their co-payments as if the hospital were still charging the
full, undiscounted rate.

A federal judge dismissed their claims, holding that the racketeering law's
tougher penalties would "invalidate, impair or supersede" Nevada insurance
law. The U.S. appeals court in San Francisco later reversed on grounds
there was no conflict between Nevada law and the racketeering law.

The Supreme Court also agreed Monday to decide whether the testimony of
engineering experts must comply with the rigid standards of reliability of
scientific evidence. The case arose from an Alabama lawsuit against a tire
manufacturer.

Federal judges are required to scrutinize so-called scientific evidence
before it can be used as evidence, but courts are divided over whether this
applies to engineers' testimony.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)