George Villanueva, charged with first-degree murder in the death of an NYPD officer, will not leave jail for months of pretrial hearings.

Instead, he'll be beamed into the courtroom via video as lawyers discuss his case in front of the judge.

Villanueva's case is part of a surge in court appearances done by video in New York and around the country, as cash-strapped communities look for ways to boost efficiency and cut costs. The tools are used in courts large and small, and the savings for some are staggering: $30 million in Pennsylvania so far, $600,000 in Georgia, and $50,000 per year in transportation costs in Ohio.

"We've had to trim our spending wherever we can and still provide what we think is effective constitutional justice, and we're doing that with the help of modern technology," said Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille.

Advocates say the virtual hearing is easier on defendants, who don't have to get up at 4 a.m. to be shuttled with other criminal suspects to court, only to wait hours standing and handcuffed for an appearance. Judges say their cases are moving faster. And civil liberties groups say the practice raises no red flags.

Phoebe Prince was a recently arrived Irish immigrant, 15 and emotionally fragile, when high school bullying over two boys she dated apparently drove her to hang herself with a scarf in her Massachusetts home.

Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old violinist with a bright future. He jumped off the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River after his roommate at Rutgers University allegedly used a webcam to spy on his same-sex liaison.

They never met each other, but together their ordeals put a spotlight on the harm caused by bullying and helped strengthen laws to crack down on what had until then been treated as a rite of adolescence.

"This prosecution has also shattered the myths that bullying is just part of growing up, that it affects only a small number of kids, and that kids can work it out themselves," said David Sullivan, a prosecutor in the Prince case. "The era of turning a blind eye to bullying and harassment is over."

Last week, five teenagers charged in the Prince case admitted in court that they participated in her bullying. In plea deals with prosecutors, they received probation and were ordered to perform community service. If they successfully complete their probation, the charges will be dropped. A statutory rape charge against a sixth teenager was dropped.

The California Supreme Court has lifted legal deadlines for smokers who later develop diseases like lung cancer.

Lawyers who filed the lawsuit say Thursday's unanimous ruling in San Francisco will likely allow new smoker suits to be filed against the tobacco industry and keep alive lawsuits that may have been thrown out because of expired legal deadlines.

The case before the court involved former smoker Nikki Pooshs, who was diagnosed in 1989 with smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1989 and a couple of years later with periodontal disease.

But Pooshs didn't sue the tobacco industry until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2003.

Cigarette makers argued the suit should be dismissed because California law gives people two years to file suit after discovery of an injury.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.

In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.

The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.

Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.

"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the decision would hamper the rights of consumers to be protected by state laws.

"Class actions are an effective way to ensure consumer protection, but today's opinion by the Roberts court continued to move in a direction that undermines this access to justice for hard-working Americans," Leahy said.