A South Texas man accused of beheading his common-law wife's three children was found guilty of capital murder Monday at his second trial. A state appeals court had overturned John Allen Rubio's previous conviction and death sentence in 2007, saying the children's mother had wrongly been allowed to testify. A second jury deliberated for about three hours before convicting him again.

Rubio, 29, of Brownsville, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and his defense attorneys had argued that the sheer brutality of the crime showed he was not in his right mind. Defense attorney Nat Perez described it during his closing argument as "overkill."

Evidence showed Rubio made increasingly ferocious attempts to kill the children, strangling and stabbing them, then finally cutting off their heads. Rubio initially said he killed the children, all under age 4, because they were possessed.

Police discovered the bodies of 3-year-old Julissa Quesada, 14-month-old John E. Rubio and 2-month-old Mary Jane Rubio on March 11, 2003, in a squalid Brownsville apartment.

Rubio was convicted on four counts of capital murder. Each death was covered by one count, and the fourth count included all of them.

The trial will now move to a punishment phase, in which prosecutors plan to again seek the death penalty.

During closing arguments given before a packed courtroom earlier Monday, both sides showed enlarged photographs of the children from happier times. Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos got the last word and accentuated it by showing a photograph of a headless child and making a chopping motion on the floor with a cleaver.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to weigh in on whether software, online-shopping techniques and medical diagnostic tests can be patented, saying only that inventors' request for protection of a method of hedging weather-related risk in energy prices cannot be granted.

The high court unanimously agreed with a lower court ruling that threw out Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw's patent, a decision many said could endanger patents in an increasingly high-tech world. But the high court said they did not need to make a broad sweeping decision about patents to dispose of Bilski and Warsaw's case.

"The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. "The court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable process."

The Supreme Court has already said that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be patented. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit added that a process cannot be patented unless it is "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or if it "transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."

A federal judge will hear closing arguments Wednesday in a groundbreaking trial on a lawsuit that seeks to establish marriage as a fundamental constitutional right for gays and lesbians.

The latest effort to overturn California's Prop. 8 gay-marriage ban is wrapping up in federal court today, with Ted Olson and David Boies--the attorneys for George W. Bush and Al Gore in the Florida 2000 court case--presenting final arguments. (For a liveblog of what's going on, check in with Firedoglake.) Gay-marriage proponents have voiced optimism about this case since it mirrors the case that successfully ended California's gay-marriage ban in 2008, ultimately leading to the Prop. 8 campaign to ban it again.

The case is being heard by District Judge Vaughn Walker (who heard the al Hamarain case and ruled the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program illegal); it seems likely that, regardless of the result, it will be appealed ad infinitum.