A Connecticut legislator has proposed a bill that would allow the appointment of an advocate to act on behalf of an animal during court proceedings.

Connecticut State Rep. Diana Urban proposed the bill, known as HB 6310, "An Act Concerning Animal Advocates in Court Proceedings." It would permit a veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture to be appointed as an advocate for an animal whose welfare or custody is the subject of a civil or criminal court proceeding.

"HB 6310 would give the option for an advocate in court for an egregiously injured animal," said Urban, a Democrat from North Stonington, Conn. "This would enable the animal's injury to be identified as a red flag for future violent behavior. We are putting together a public/private partnership with the state Department of Agriculture and nonprofit rescue groups including Connecticut Votes for Animals to be available to speak for the animals in court."

Also on NBCConnecticut.com: New backlash over Conn. state budget

Urban was joined at a news conference Thursday by Asa Palmer, a North Stonington high school student who discovered two of the cows on his family farm shot in the face in January. One of the cows had to be euthanized.

"If this was in place today, Asa Palmer could request an advocate for his young cow, 'Angel,' who was shot in the face and left with her jaw hanging off," Urban said.

Two men have been charged with shooting Palmer's cows.

The bill, which is awaiting action in the legislature's Judiciary Committee, has the support of other lawmakers.

Also on NBCConnecticut.com: Caregiver charged after elderly woman is found on snow bank

"Much like our children who cannot advocate on behalf of themselves, innocent animals that are abused or worse, killed, deserve that same right," said Rep. Brenda Kupchick, a Republican from Fairfield, Conn. "Violence of any type is unacceptable and we must do whatever we can to give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves."

It was not clear if or when the Judiciary Committee would take action on Urban's bill.

Karen Warren / AP file

Anthony Chiofalo, accused of embezzling $9 million from his former employer Japanese equipment manufacturer Tadano America leaves a Houston court on Jan. 7. Chiofalo had just turned himself in after about six months on the run. His lawyer says at least $1 million of Chiofalo's assets, which he needs to pay restitution to Tadano, have been stolen by a former investigator in the Harris county district attorney's office.

It is a tangled tale that could perhaps be best told through a graphic novel.

A former Texas police investigator appeared in federal court Tuesday accused of stealing comic books worth hundreds of thousands of dollars -- from a man who was himself facing charges for stealing millions of dollars from his employer, which he then used to buy the valuable classics, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Lonnie Blevins was an investigator for Harris County involved in the case of lawyer Anthony Chiofalo, who was charged last May with bilking his employer out of $9 million.

In the course of the case, authorities seized Chiofalo’s high-priced comics and other collectibles — including a first-edition Batman comic book worth about $900,000 and an original Green Lantern comic valued at $300,000.

But after a months-long federal investigation, Blevins was arrested in the disappearance of some of those assets which he allegedly sold.

Blevins, who left the Harris County District attorney's office in December, resigned from his subsequent job with the Bexar County D.A.'s office on Monday after learning of the charges, his lawyer, Dick DeGuerin told the Chronicle.

The FBI believes Blevins stole the Chiofalo’s comic books from a storage unit containing evidence from the fraud case, and that he sold some of them to dealers in Chicago for $70,000, according court documents obtained by local TV station KTRK.

According to witnesses interviewed by the FBI, Blevins asked for the money in small check amounts, the report says.

Chiofalo's path to the present has many twists. He was charged last May for stealing millions from Japan-based crane manufacturer Tadano America, by getting his company to pay millions to a phantom law firm and then pocketing the money. When Chiofalo's wife, 51-year-old Susan Chiofalo was arrested, he fled Texas.

Chiofalo was was on the lam until December, and by coincidence staying in Newtown, Conn. at the time of the horrific grade school shootings. As police swarmed into the town, he left and turned himself in at a police station in Rhode Island.

Now, under a civil judgment Chiofalo is attempting to pay restitution to Tadano, according to his attorney, Paul Doyle.

Doyle said that how much his client is able to repay in the civil case could affect Chiofalo’s sentencing in the criminal case against him.

"We have been trying to cooperate and provide the company with restitution, but have not been able to," Doyle said.

Doyle says that the county did not follow inventory and security procedures for the seized assets, and there appear to be dozens of comic books missing — worth more than $1 million, he said.

Doyle says he is drafting a motion to get Chiofalo’s case dismissed, because of the alleged misconduct by the Harris County DA in handling the assets and other aspects of the case, including the arrest of Chiafalo’s wife, 51-year-old Susan Chiofalo, for alleged involvement in the theft. She is out on bail, and her case is pending.

Meantime, Chiofalo remains in the Harris County jail, unable to make the $18 million bail.

Blevins is out on bond.

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

MSNBC

Samir Khan (left) and Anwar al-Awlaki, both U.S. citizens, were killed in in Yemen by an American drone strike.

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists who have been targeted by American military drone strikes, three men -- all killed in the fall of 2011 -- were U.S. citizens.

And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later. 

Since the attacks, family members have called the deaths unjust and sued the U.S. government, calling the killings unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, became well known for his fiery anti-American sermons posted throughout the Internet.

Samir Khan, who'd lived in both New York and Charlotte, N.C., produced a magazine called “Inspire” that became known for its extreme jihadist views.

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.  

Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.

In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”

Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.

“Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”

The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding Abdulrahman's death, and at times has struggled to explain it. 

Read more: Memo details legal case for drone strikes

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children," former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. "I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

During his presidential campaign, Republican Rep. Ron Paul criticized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, saying: “Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. ... But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.”

Anwar al-Awlaki’s ties to the United States go back to his father Nassar, who came to the country to earn a master’s degree. His son was born in New Mexico, and though the family returned to Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki came back to the U.S. for college, eventually becoming an iman.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, he became a popular spokesman for moderate Islam, and was often used to juxtapose perceptions that Islam is a religion that spreads hate.  But less than a decade later, he was hiding in Yemen as a name on the CIA's kill list.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said in an audio message in March 2010.    

Conversely, Khan was never interested in the peaceful side of Islam. The New York Times reports that as a teen, Khan’s attraction grew exponentially to militant sites on the Internet after 9/11. Parental concerns and intervention from community leaders proved unsuccessful. Khan was 25 when he died in Yemen.

In July 2012, Samir Khan’s mother, Sarah, joined Nassar al-Awlaki in a lawsuit against four senior national security officials.

“I don’t really necessarily agree with some of the things Anwar said against the United States, but does that mean they should kill him outside the law?” asked Nassar al-Awlaki.

Update: A fourth American-born citizen, Kamal Derwish, was killed by predator drone in Yemen in 2002. Derwish was not the primary target of the strike, but was riding in an SUV carrying an al-Qaida leader.

Rich Pedroncelli / AP

California hunters will no longer be able to use dogs to hunt bobcats and bears. Here, Josh Brones, president of the California Houndsmen for Conservation, walks his hunting dogs, Dollar, left, Sequoia, center and Tanner right, near his home in Wilton.

With every new year comes a hodgepodge of fresh local laws — many serious, some silly, and others so obvious it makes you wonder what took legislators so long.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has compiled a year-end list of some of the laws that go on the books Jan. 1.

Among the winners: California bobcats and Illinois residents who overshare on Facebook. Losers include randy police officers and sex offenders with Santa suits.

In Maryland, same-sex couples will get the right to marry. In California, clergy who oppose gay unions don’t have to perform them.

California also outlawed hound-hunting of bobcats and bears after deciding it isn’t a fair fight.

"There is nothing sporting in shooting an exhausted bear clinging to a tree limb or a cornered bobcat," state Sen. Ted Lieu said when the bill he authored was passed.

Also now prohibited in California: law enforcement officers having sex with anyone in custody, including prisoners who have been arrested but not yet booked.

California and Illinois have both gone to bat for social networkers who want to keep snarky status updates and bikini photos under wraps, barring employers from forcing job applicants or workers to hand over passwords for Facebook and Twitter.

New Year kicks off on Christmas Island, begins rolling west
Beer now considered alcohol, not food, in Russia

Illinois is also looking out for military re-enactors, expanding an exemption from gun laws to include weapons with barrels less than 16 inches long.

Other new Illinois laws: a ban on shark fins and a law prohibiting sex offenders from handing out Halloween candy or dressing up like Santa or the Easter bunny.

Florida is putting the brakes on swamp buggy drivers who want to tool around on state roadways; they can’t, unless local law explicitly allows it.

But the Sunshine State has some good news for drivers who flash their headlights to let oncoming motorists know that police have set a speed trap up ahead. They can no longer be ticketed for it, come the first of the year.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler
• Homicides plummet in NYC, leap in Chicago
• Snowstorm disrupts hundreds of Northeast flights
• Video: High profits seen in 'green rush' for legal marijuana
• At 1989 parole hearing, firefighter shooter wondered if he might kill

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Lisa Bul / AP file

Robert Kosilek sits in Bristol County Superior Court, in New Bedford, Mass., Jan. 15, 1993. Kosilek, now named Michelle, has since undergone hormone treatment for gender-identity disorder.

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday ordered the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide sex-change surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder, ruling that failure to do so violated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment right to adequate treatment.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, born as Robert Kosilek, who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for murdering his wife in 1990. Kosilek who identifies as female, has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison.

Wolf found that surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek's "serious medical need."

"The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care," Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

According to The Associated Press, Wolf is the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

"This is a very big victory," Kosilek's attorney, Frances S. Cohen told NBC News. Although the ruling is not binding outside the state, she said: "I think it will be very influential beyond Massachusetts."

It was not known whether the Massachusetts Department of Corrections would appeal the ruling.

After Kosilek first sued the department 12 years ago, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery. In 2002, Kosilek started a trial of hormones, with the intention of reevaluating the need for surgery. She sued again in 2006.

The department was supposed to reevaluate after one year, according to Cohen.

"In 2006, it became clear that they were not doing this in good faith," she said.

According to the judge's statement, Kosilek's anguish from gender identity disorder caused him to "attempt to castrate himself and to attempt twice to kill himself while incarcerated.”

Prison officials repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing the surgery would make Kosilek a target for sexual assault.

But Wolf found that the department's security concerns are "either pretextual or can be dealt with by the DOC." He said it is up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

"The DOC has the discretion to make good faith, reasonable decisions concerning security if the surgery genuinely creates or increases any risk to Kosilek or others," he wrote.

The Massachusetts ruling came just two weeks after the American Psychiatric Association published its updated position strongly endorsing access to treatment for transgender and gender variant individuals, noting that they "can benefit greatly from medical and surgical transition treatments."

"There is increased awareness that this kind of care is not particularly special," said Kristina Wertz, director of programs and policy at the nonprofit Transgender Law Center in San Francisco. "It's just medically necessary care. Our prison systems have an obligation to provide medically necessary health care."

This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Fire in California's San Gabriel Mountains burns for third day
• Man survives 4 days in Utah tunnel with broken leg
• Isaac's remnants bring torrential rain to East Coast
• Closing arguments begin in Drew Peterson trial
• Missing Fla. tycoon reportedly left watch, ring at home
• Video: WWII veteran, 92, kills burglar with single gunshot

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Pool / Getty Images file

Chief Judge William B. Sylvester presides over the accused movie theater shooter James Holmes' first court appearance at the Arapahoe County on July 23 in Centennial, Colo.

The judge in the case of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes ruled on Monday to keep nearly all relevant court documents sealed from public view, and keep a gag order in place, saying disclosure of records could damage the investigation, and the defendant’s access to a fair hearing.

Arapaho County Court Judge William Sylvester denied most of a legal motion by 21 news organizations to open up the court records on Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people, injuring 58 more in a shooting spree at the midnight premier of the latest Batman movie at a theater in Aurora, Colo. on July 20.

The consortium, including NBCUniversal Media, was seeking access to a range of records in the Holmes case — including affidavits of probable cause, arrest warrants, search warrants, and request for or court orders for production of records — citing the public’s right of access to public records.

Holmes "stands accused of a shocking mass murder" as well as arming his apartment with explosives apparently intend to kill first responders, said the 85-page motion to unseal the records.

"The public has an obvious and legitimate interest in knowing on a timely basis the actions being taken by the government officials… responsible for the prosecution and trial of the Defendant. Yet, virtually all records now on file with the Court in connection with this case are under seal, entirely unavailable for public inspection."  

In its 85-page motion, the media group was also asking the judge to lift a gag order that prevents the University of Colorado from discussing the case. Holmes had recently withdrawn from a PhD. Program in neuroscience when the attack occurred.

That request was denied.

"Simply put, there is a very real potential for untold harm to the case, and that cannot be allowed to occur," Sylvester wrote of university records related to Holmes. "The investigation of this matter continues and the court FINDS that any release of the University of Colorado records at this time would interfere with the investigation and may cause irreparable harm."

There existed "no less-intrusive alternative exists" to the gag order, the ruling said.

The prosecution argued that the investigation was still in its initial stages, and there were still hundreds of witnesses and victims to interview.

The defendant argued for documents to remain sealed, because "this case is precisely the type of rare instance in which pre-trial publicity alone has the potential to actually deprive a defendant of a fair trial," according to the ruling.

Sylvester ruled that he would release some court documents in the case.

Members of the public will have access to a list of documents filed, as well as some submitted by attorneys, including Holmes' defense attorney's request that their own experts be present for scientific testing of evidence, according to the Associated Press, which is part of media consortium seeking to unseal documents.

Steve Zansberg, the attorney representing the media consortium said that Sylvester's partial release of documents brings "much needed transparency to this judicial proceeding," according to a statement cited by AP.

But he added: "We are disappointed that the affidavits of probable cause remain under seal at this time, but are hopeful that the Court will revisit that issue sometime in the not too distant future," it said.

Holmes is charged with 142 criminal counts, including 24 counts of first-degree murder in the attack at the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" and possession of explosives.

After arresting Holmes —  who had dyed his hair bright red, and referred to himself as "Joker" according to information released by the police at the time — authorities found the suspect's apartment was booby-trapped with a jumble of explosives and incendiary devices set to be triggered by tripwires. It took experts several days to disarm the devices.

No clear motive has surfaced from the limited information that has been made public.

At a hearing last week, lawyers for Holmes asserted that their client is mentally ill.

In Scott Robinson, a Denver defense attorney not connected to the case and a legal consultant to NBC News, says references to Holmes' mental illness by his attorneys and their allusion to a university psychiatrist he had contacted signal that the defense team likely will pursue an insanity strategy.

"By alluding to Holmes' mental problems, it's clear the defense is sowing the seeds for a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity," said Robinson.

Appearing in court last Thursday for the third time since his arrest, Holmes had the same dazed demeanor that he has had in previous court appearances, according to the Associated Press.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Big debt threatens security clearance for troops
• Wife of former congressman dies after being run over by her own car
• Report: Ex-Navy sub commander faked death to get out of affair
• Evangelist Billy Graham 'doing fine' at hospital
• Family: Cops didn't have to shoot knife-wielding man near Times Square
• Video: Multiple cameras show man driving wrong way

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

An Indiana man can sue his dad for accidentally driving into him, causing significant leg injuries, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

The state’s high court on Monday overturned a lower court ruling that said Robert L. Clark Jr. was prohibited by state law from suing Robert L. Clark Sr. for damages for injuries the son suffered in the Sept. 5, 2007, incident in Adams County.

According to court documents, the younger Clark, age 46, was a passenger in a car being driven by his father. When they arrived at their destination, the son got out to help his father park. He walked in front of the vehicle and motioned to his father to drive forward into a parking space.

Once the vehicle had pulled in, the son raised his hand to signal his father to stop. Instead of pressing the brake pedal, the father’s foot hit the accelerator. The car lurched forward, pinning Clark Jr. between it and the next vehicle.

The son suffered significant leg injuries. He and his wife filed a lawsuit against his father in November 2008, alleging negligence.

Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

The Adams County trial court threw out the case, saying that under the state’s “guest statute” drivers are not liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or the death of the drivers’ family members. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and said the son could sue.

The Supreme Court, in a 3-2 opinion, agreed with the appellate decision and overturned the trial court ruling.

The justices said:

The Indiana Guest Statute prevents certain designated passengers from recovering damages for injuries resulting from the ordinary negligence of the motor vehicle operator, where such passenger was ‘being transported without payment in or upon the motor vehicle."  Ind. Code § 34-30-11-1 (emphasis added).  We hold that, as to injuries inflicted when such a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver's attempt to park, the passenger is not "in or upon" the vehicle and thus is not precluded from bringing a negligence action against the driver.

Read the Indiana Supreme Court decision

More content from NBCNews.com:

• String of security scares at Batman movie screenings
• Miracle baby of the Aurora tragedy
• In Aurora massacre, trial may not shed much light on motive
• Gunman on UConn campus commits suicide
• Mystery of Utah's 'goat man' is solved
• Day care video shows 9-year-old terrorizing tots

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

Claudia Mercado, left, holds her son Indigo Lopez-Mercado as Angelica Lopez right, holds the couple's other child, Isabel, as they gather for a news conference on the lawsuits in Chicago on May 30, 2012.

Twenty-five couples are challenging the constitutionality of an Illinois’ law that bans same-sex marriage, saying their only legal option of civil unions gives an inferior status to their relationships and denies them equal rights under the law.

The couples, some who have been together for decades and have children, filed separate complaints in Cook County Circuit Court on Wednesday, asking for the law that went into effect last year to be thrown out. Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois are representing them.

“Both complaints assert that the marriage ban deprives Illinois same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry and their right to equality under the law," Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, told msnbc.com.

“Some of our clients approached us ten years ago in connection with their yearning to marry here in Illinois and we’ve been telling them up until now it’s not time, and today it’s time," she said. "I think as a nation we are now at a tipping point, it’s a national moment.”

The ACLU said in a statement that the couples described how it felt to be “relegated to a legal status that sends the message that the state regards their relationships as inferior” and said the “freedom to marry will remove the stigma and other problems associated with civil unions.”

“Our relationship is not about some legal benefits and protections, but about love for one another,” said Tanya Lazaro, lead plaintiff in the ACLU case with Elizabeth Matos. The couple recently had a second child and have rejected getting a civil union. “We love each other; we are committed to one another. Anything short of marriage does not recognize that love and commitment.”

Lamba Legal helped draft the civil union legislation, which Taylor said "was an important first step to provide some measure of legal protections for Illinois families who had nothing up until then."

But today, she said, "these couples have been living their lives in civil unions for a year now and they have experienced confusion and hurt and private bias, and they shouldn’t be forced to wait any longer."

Anti-gay marriage group: We'll be on Maryland ballot

Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains
Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
In North Carolina gay marriage vote, it's Bill Clinton versus Billy Graham

Six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while 31 states have constitutional amendments that effectively ban gay marriage (this tally does not include California, where federal judges have ruled the amendment unconstitutional though further appeals are expected).

In mid-May, President Barack Obama said he supported same-sex marriage, becoming the first American president to do so. A Gallup poll released around the same time showed 50 percent of Americans saying same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 48 percent opposed. Support for gay marriage fell slightly in that poll from a record high of 53 percent in 2011, the first time a majority of Americans favored gay marriage. Opposition was 45 percent in that poll.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Tennessee mosque work continues after judge voids building permit
• 'D-i-r-i-g-i-b-l-e': 6-year-old nails her first word at National Spelling Bee
• Video: Couple comes to waiter's rescue with $5,000 tip
• Son of lesbian moms: Boy Scouts must end gay discrimination
• Snake-handling preacher dies from rattlesnake bite in West Virginia

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

/

Eleasha Gall, director of behavior and training at Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles, interacts with Tux, a one-year-old Pit bull, in an effort to promote behavior to avoid dog bites.

Dog bites cost insurance companies about $479 million in 2011, accounting for an increasingly large chunk of payouts under homeowner’s liability policies, according to a recent study.

While there was a slight decline in the number of dog bite claims, the price tag per case has risen 54 percent since 2003 — to an average of $29,400 in 2011 — making up more than one-third of total liability claims paid out by homeowners, according to the Insurance Information Institute, which conducted the study. 

Follow @msnbc_us

Follow Kari Huus on Twitter and Facebook.

"These increases can be attributed to increased medical costs as well as the size of settlements, judgments and jury awards given to plaintiffs, which have risen well above the rate of inflation in recent years," the institute said in a release.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year and about 800,000 of them seek medical attention. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency room and 16 die, according to the CDC.

Kevin M. Phillips, a Beverly Hills based attorney who specializes in representing dog bite victims around the country, told msnbc.com  that studies suggest that the popularity of pit bulls in the United States are likely a contributing factor in the rising cost of claims paid out by insurance companies. 

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs," concluded a study published in the Annals of Surgery in April 2011.

In some places, the law now provides different consideration for dog breeds like pit bulls, said Phillips. For instance, in Maryland, pit bulls are now deemed inherently dangerous, unlike most other breeds, said Phillips.

"If you own a pit bull and the pit bull hurts someone, no one has to prove it’s dangerous. It is presumed to be so," he said.

Traditionally, a homeowner liability policy covers dog bites, but some insurance companies are modifying how they write policies.

A CDC report on dogs involved in fatal human attacks between 1979 and 1998 — which the center specifies is not intended for policy making decisions — is nevertheless used as a guide for some insurers, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. At the top of that list are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers and chow chows.

"Insurance companies started experimenting with cutting out the coverage for dog bites. Homeowners have got to confirm they have the coverage," said Phillips.

For some breeds of dogs associated with attacks, you may actually need a special canine liability insurance, he said. Without it, a serious dog attack can run up medical bills and compensation worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the pet owner.

"If your dog bites a child on the face, which is where a dog bites a child, it can wipe you out," he added.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Arrest over disappearance of Calif. teen Sierra LaMar; cops suspect murder
• Man survives plunge over Niagara Falls
• Video: RFK Jr. absent from estranged wife's memorial
• Obama to tornado-ravaged Joplin: 'You've grown up quickly'
• Former Rutgers student gets 30 days in webcam spying case
• 3 workers killed by explosion at abandoned oil well in Arkansas

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

ANALYSIS: As the jurors in the federal criminal trial of John Edwards begin their second day of deliberations on Monday, we don't know whether the outcome of their work will be a conviction, an acquittal or a mistrial. But based on trial observation and the attorneys' closing arguments, the keys that might motivate any of the three most likely outcomes are surprising:

If Edwards is convicted
If John Edwards goes to prison, credit could go to two unexpected sources: Cheri Young (the wife of former Edwards' political aide Andrew Young) and the quintessentially "old school" evidence of handwritten notes.

As I wrote at the end of week one, there can be little doubt that Andrew Young's credibility as a witness was in tatters by the end of defense questioning. Yet for all the success Edwards attorney Abbe Lowell had turning Young into the apparent culprit, Young's wife, Cheri, masterfully turned the tables — and the trial's attention — back on the defendant. By the end of her testimony it seemed that the hundreds of thousands of dollars the Youngs kept rather than pass along to Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, was a pittance, and that no amount of money could make up for what the former Democratic senator put Cheri Young and her family through. Without her star turn, it is hard to imagine the government's case getting back on track after Andrew Young's evisceration on cross-examination.

The other key for the government if prosecutors prevail could be two handwritten notes, one each from the two funders of the Edwards-Hunter sex affair cover-up.

• Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
• Full transcripts of closing arguments (.pdf)
• Analysis by Hampton Dellinger

In April 2007, heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon wrote to Andrew Young on the occasion of news reports on John Edwards infamous $400 haircut: "(F)rom now on, all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me," she wrote. "….It is a way to help our friend (John Edwards) without government restrictions."

Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hill, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of North Carolina.

A few months later, wealthy trial lawyer Fred Baron included a barely legible cover note in an envelope with $1,000 in cash intended for the Youngs and Hunter: "Old Chinese saying: use cash, not credit cards!" it read.

Prosecutors highlighted the notes in the indictment, their case and closing arguments. And based on their requests for evidence during the initial day of deliberations, it appears jurors are focusing on the notes as well. If the jury convicts, these notes — rather than more modern communication modes such as email, texting or even video or phone recordings — may be the basis for the conclusion that Mellon, Baron and, above all, Edwards had the requisite criminal intent to sustain a conviction.

If Edwards is acquitted
If John Edwards walks out of the L. Richardson Preyer Federal Courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., a free man, the two witnesses he should thank most may be a surprise: his protégé-turned-nemesis Andrew Young and the 2008 financial officer for his campaign, Laura Haggard.

• Full list of prosecution exhibits
• Full list of defense exhibits

While Young identified Edwards as the orchestrator of the cover-up, he also testified that Edwards repeatedly assured him the arrangement (money from Mellon and Baron to the Youngs and Hunter) was perfectly legal. While many observers expected Young to claim that Edwards told him the cover-up was likely (or certainly) legally improper but an absolute political necessity, he said Edwards said the opposite.

Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com

Analysis by Hampton Dellinger

Chris Keane / Reuters, file

Cheri Young, a witness in the case against former U.S. Senator John Edwards, arrives at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, North Carolina on May 1, 2012.

More than anything else, it was Young's testimony about Edwards's exculpatory statements that may have persuaded Edwards not to testify. And Young's words made it more difficult for the government to prove Edwards possessed the requisite criminal intent to "knowingly and willfully" violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. Lead prosecutor David Harbach confirmed how helpful Young's testimony about Edwards was to the defense in an aside in his closing argument:

"By the way," he said, "if all Mr. Young was doing was sticking to the government's story, as Mr. Lowell suggested that he was, … don't you think he could have done a lot better job of that? He said that Mr. Edwards told him that he had checked with lawyers and the checks were legal. That's what Mr. Young's sworn testimony was. That is a fascinating thing to say by someone who had just tricked the government to immunizing him by being willing to say anything that the government wants in order to sink the defendant. That doesn't fit."

Edwards' statements — presented by Young — professing a belief that support for a mistress could not constitute a campaign violation were buttressed by Haggard. The earnest staffer, who oversaw the filing of the campaign's finance reports, was given a small opening by presiding Judge Catherine Eagles to testify that she did not believe the Baron-Bunny monies were contributions.

In closing arguments, Lowell returned repeatedly to Haggard's opinion, as well as former FEC Chair Scott Thomas' testimony. Thomas addressed the topic of whether a third party payment to another third party for personal expenses associated with an affair could be covered by FECA, noting that it had never arisen in his decades of dealing with the statute. The upshot: How could John Edwards have thought money for his mistress could be illegal when not even experts such as Haggard and Thomas thought it was covered by federal campaign law?

If Edwards is convicted, but the verdict reversed
Finally, there is the possibility that the jury finds Edwards guilty, but a reviewing court (either the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court) throws out his conviction.

Gerry Broome / AP, file

Andrew Young, former aide to former U.S. Sen. and presidential candidate John Edwards, leaves federal court in Greensboro, N.C., on Monday, April 23, 2012.

While prosecutors and the presiding trial judge appear untroubled by the novelty of the government's case, it may provoke greater interest on appeal. Lowell has made much of a Fourth Circuit decision, North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake, which he believes strongly favors his client's claim that if Baron and Mellon sought to aid Edwards as a friend as well as a candidate, their "mistress money" cannot be considered a campaign donation.

Judge Eagles' jury instructions define this pivotal issue differently: "The government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money was to influence the election. … The government does not have to prove that Ms. Mellon (or Mr. Baron) had any intent or knowledge as to exactly how the money would be spent, or that the money was in fact spent on the campaign." Eagles also limited testimony from Haggard and Thomas, and denied defense efforts to introduce evidence that the FEC concluded that the failure to report the Mellon-Baron money as campaign contributions did not violate commission rules.

If a conviction is reversed, an unexpected but pivotal factor may be the defense's decision not to call Hunter, Edwards or Edwards's daughter, Cate, to the stand.

Here's why: The less evidence there is at his trial, the more the trial judge's rulings will stand out on appeal. By calling so few witnesses, and by not testifying himself, Edwards limited the trial record in a very deliberate way — one that emphasizes the impact of Eagles' rulings and makes it less likely a higher court can conclude any error was "harmless" if it finds mistakes. Still, if Edwards is found guilty and the conviction is upheld on appeal, the regret he will likely take to his grave is not taking the stand.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Analysis: Possible outcomes for John Edwards
• Great-grandma: Ready to 'lose' my life protesting
• US war veterans return medals at NATO protest
• Father of 30, by 11 women, wants state child support
• Marijuana grows openly in California towns, not just for medicinal purposes
• Video: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gets married

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook