The attorney for a 16-year-old accused of stabbing 21 other students and a security guard at their high school said Thursday he wants to have a mental health expert evaluate the boy and hopes to have the case moved to juvenile court.

For now, Alex Hribal is charged as an adult with four counts of attempted homicide, 21 counts of aggravated assault and a weapons charge, and is being held without bond in the Westmoreland County juvenile detention center.

In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," attorney Patrick Thomassey acknowledged that his client stabbed the victims, and said any defense he offers will likely be based on the boy's psychological state, which he hopes to have an expert evaluate soon.

"I would assume so, yes, depending on what the mental health experts tell me," Thomassey said.

He said that, under Pennsylvania law, he will have to convince a judge that Hribal can be rehabilitated in juvenile court, which would have jurisdiction over him until he's 21. If convicted as an adult, Hribal faces likely decades in prison.

The attorney told several media outlets that Hribal was remorseful, though he acknowledged his client did not appear to appreciate the gravity of his actions. Thomassey said he is still getting to know his client, saying he spoke with Hribal only for about 20 minutes before his arraignment late Wednesday.

The European Union's top court says key legislation allowing governments to collect data on citizens' communications for law-enforcement purposes is invalid.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on Tuesday ruled the so-called data retention directive is too far-reaching and offers too few safeguards to protect people's right to privacy, creating an impression that "private lives are the subject of constant surveillance."

The legislation allows the storage of phone calls or online communication records for at least six months to help prevent serious crimes such as terrorism. The data typically reveal who was involved in the communication, when and how often, but not its content.

The court says the 2006 legislation represents a "particularly serious interference with fundamental rights."

Suspended state Sen. Leland Yee is due back in federal court for his alleged role in a San Francisco political corruption and organized crime case.

Yee could enter pleas Tuesday to one count of conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, and to six counts of engaging in a scheme to defraud citizens of honest services.

The San Francisco Democrat is accused of conspiring to connect an undercover FBI agent with a Philippine arms dealer in exchange for campaign contributions, and of trading political influence for cash.

Yee and 19 others were formally indicted last week after being arrested on March 26.

Other defendants, including Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow, whose charges include money laundering and trafficking, are scheduled for arraignment Tuesday.

The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.

The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

The Law Offices of Tenecia P. Reid, located in Northern Virginia and is here to provide you the best legal service to you and your loved one. With years of experience in divorce cases and family matters, Tenecia is both strategic and aggressive. We will give you an honest assessment of your situation and together discuss the ways we could help achieve the goals and outcomes you want.

Specializing in family law for her entire career, Attorney Tenecia P. Reid stands ready to skillfully guide you through the divorce litigation process. 

Divorce litigation can be frustrating, confusing, and emotional, so it is imperative to have an attorney who both listens and treats you with respect as you face major life decisions. Widely experienced, Attorney Reid has negotiated and litigated cases that include complex marital assets, tax issues, business valuations, underwater joint mortgages, adultery, abuse, protective orders, and bankruptcy issues.

Attorney Reid is also intimately familiar with the laws governing fault-based divorce cases, and can help you to determine whether you have one or more fault grounds against your spouse and how you may prove them.

Ms. Reid will be able to confidently assess your case and situation to help you obtain the best possible results. Don't hesitate to call today!

The fiercest rivalry in the world of smartphones is heading back to court this week in the heart of the Silicon Valley, with Apple and Samsung accusing each other, once again, of ripping off designs and features.

The trial will mark the latest round in a long-running series of lawsuits between the two tech giants that underscore a much larger concern about what is allowed to be patented.

"There's a widespread suspicion that lots of the kinds of software patents at issue are written in ways that cover more ground than what Apple or any other tech firm actually invented," Notre Dame law professor Mark McKenna said. "Overly broad patents allow companies to block competition."

The latest Apple-Samsung case will be tried less than two years after a federal jury found Samsung was infringing on Apple patents. Samsung was ordered to pay about $900 million but is appealing and has been allowed to continue selling products using the technology.

Now, jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday in another round of litigation, with Apple Inc. accusing Samsung of infringing on five patents on newer devices, including Galaxy smartphones and tablets. In a counterclaim, Samsung says Apple stole two of its ideas to use on iPhones and iPads.