[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/29/judge.white.cnn.art.jpg caption="New Orleans Judge Laurie White in her chambers as she prepares for a hearing."]

From CNN Producer Eric Marrapodi

(Washington, DC) - I’ve spent a lot of time in my career as a journalist in and out of courthouses covering murders, rapists, and other nefarious folks who got put away for a long time. Being in court can be pretty dramatic regardless of what side you’re on.

Emotions run high and it's generally cramped quarters, especially for the victim’s family members who could be sitting a few feet from the accused killer. Those tensions can and sometimes do explode. Look no further than the Atlanta courthouse shooting in 2005 or the judge in Florida who leaped over the bench in March after a defendant attacked a victim during in a hearing.

For judges – safety is becoming a growing concern. A report released by the U.S. Marshals says threats against prosecutors and federal judges have gone from 500 in 2003 to 1,200 in 2008. Jeanne Meserve and I spoke with a few judges for our piece this morning. All had horror stories of being threatened either early in their careers as an attorney or while on the bench.

Judge Laurie White, a criminal court judge in New Orleans, LA said, “If you're going to get elected and be in the rough and tough world of criminal justice you can't be shy and you'd better have nerves of steel. And you better have a strong gut. It's not an easy spot and I think you do this job at your own personal risk and the point is whether you depend on everyone else to protect you or you provide a lot of your own protection." In New Orleans the only person allowed to carry a firearm by law is the judge, but in Washington, D.C. neither the judges nor the bailiffs have firearms on them in the courtroom.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walker has been threatened many times in his career, most recently during the Scooter Libby trial here in Washington, D.C. “None of us want to be reversed, none of us want to be threatened. You can't play scared,” he said. “Our obligation is to ensure that the rule of law is adhered to and if you can't do that because of fear, then obviously you're not fulfilling what your constitutional obligations are as a judge. So, despite the potential that you may be reversed, and despite the potential that you may be threatened, you gotta do what you think is right.”

Watch: New threats against judges

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/21/vick.getty.art.jpg caption="Michael Vick was released from a federal prison on Wednesday. File photo."]

From CNN's Carol Costello and Ronni Berke

Does Michael Vick deserve a second chance? The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback's agent says the National Football League could reinstate Vick by September - but NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has said the NFL won't do that until Vick shows "genuine remorse."

The problem is no one knows what that means. And the NFL isn't saying.

But there are some who say Vick has already paid his dues, and deserves another shot at a 140-million dollar contract. Others say even humiliation, prison, and 3.7 million dollars-plus in legal fees are not nearly enough.

At Atlanta's sports radio "790 The Zone," football fans who once revered Vick called in to say he's paid his dues. After all, they say, the quarterback did show remorse before he went to prison for 21 months.

In August, 2007, Vick appeared at a press conference and announced "...I want to apologize for all things that I've done."

But for the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - or PETA – Vick's apologies don't add up to "genuine remorse." PETA wants Vick to undergo a brain scan–to see if he's capable of remorse.

PETA spokesperson Dan Shannon says his group believes Vick "has lost the privilege of having his remorse, if he does choose to express it, taken at face value and we feel that we do need to see some evidence that he's capable of it and that he's genuine before it can be taken seriously."

FULL POST

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/15/costello.911calls.art.jpg caption="A lawmaker in Ohio wants to ban broadcasters from playing 911 calls."]

From CNN's Ronni Berke and Carol Costello

There is no doubt that broadcasting 911 calls on TV exposes operators who make mistakes while handling emergency calls. There are hundreds of examples, like the call CNN aired in 2005 – A frantic parent called 911 to report her violent children were out of control. Here’s how the call went:

Caller: "I just got home from work. They were physically fighting with each other.  And they're 12 and almost 14 and the 12 year old is completely out of control. I can't... I physically... she's as big as I am.... I can't control her."

911 Dispatcher: "OK. Did you want us to come over and shoot her?"

The 911 operator later apologized for what he called “a joke.” He was also reprimanded by his superiors, but was allowed to stay on the job.

The question today? Was it really necessary to for the public to hear his faux pas on TV?

Ohio State Senator, Republican Thomas Patton, has the answer to that question. He says, “no.” He feels so strongly about it he’s introduced a bill in the Ohio legislature that would prohibit "radio, television and the internet..." from "playing a recording of" 911 calls.

The bill would allow broadcasters to "read(ing) a transcript..." of the calls. But, if broadcasters violate the law, they’re subject to a 10-thousand dollar fine. Patton says he got the idea from law enforcement officers. They told him airing audio of 911 calls makes people afraid to call 911 to report crime because they fear the bad guy will recognize their voice.

FULL POST