A woman on Thursday admitted having her antique dealer husband killed 20 years ago in front of his girlfriend's Manhattan home, then collecting millions in life insurance after his death.

Barbara Kogan pleaded guilty in Manhattan state Supreme Court to first-degree manslaughter, conspiracy to commit second-degree murder and grand larceny. She faces up to 25 years in prison on each count at her May 19 sentencing.

Kogan, 67, was charged two years ago with murder in the Oct. 23, 1990, death of her husband, George, who was shot three times in front of his girlfriend's Upper East Side apartment building.

Prosecutors say she got her lawyer, Manuel Martinez, to hire a hitman to kill Kogan during their bitter divorce fight, then collected $4.3 million in her husband's life insurance.

Kogan's attorney, Barry Levin, said she entered the plea to spare her two sons from being forced to testify against her at trial.

"It had been weighing heavy on her mind," Levin said. "She decided she wanted to put this behind her."

Though long suspected, Kogan wasn't charged until 2008, after information implicating her emerged at Martinez' trial. His prosecution was delayed for years while he was held on unrelated charges in Mexico. Martinez is serving a 25-year-to-life term for the killing.

A hearing resumed for the last of five lawyers accused of ethical violations in the handling of Kwame Kilpatrick's text messages Wednesday with testimony from the former mayor's lawyer Samuel McCargo.

McCargo, who was among the first of the lawyers cited for ethical violations, told the Attorney Discipline Board that Assistant Corporation Counsel Valerie Colbert Osamuede never was shown documents that detailed what the text messages purportedly said. He also said she never saw copies of the actual messages before they were delivered in secret to another of Kilpatrick's lawyers.

McCargo, who has yet to receive his punishment for being found guilty in March on five counts of professional misconduct, also said Colbert Osamuede probably didn't violate the state's Freedom of Information Act by withholding requested documents that showed how the text messages were kept a secret part of an $8.4 million whistle-blower lawsuit settlement in 2007.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors violated constitutional free-speech rights, the first time it will consider a video game case.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by the state after a U.S. appeals court based in California struck down the law, which also imposes strict video game labeling requirements, as unconstitutional.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in the case and then issue a ruling during its upcoming term, which begins in October. It will be one of the most important cases so far for the upcoming term.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the state argued that the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment do not bar a state from prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18.

The law, which was adopted in 2005, has never taken effect because of the legal challenge.

The law prohibits the sale of an interactive video game to anyone under 18 if the game was so violent it was "patently offensive," according to prevailing community standards and lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Michael Gallagher, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers, said the group looks forward to presenting its arguments and defending the industry's works.

A lawyer for a Dallas man trying to divorce the man he married in Massachusetts told a Texas appeals court Wednesday that his client is entitled to a divorce because he had a valid marriage.

But the Texas Attorney General's Office argued before the three-judge 5th Texas Court of Appeals panel that the marriage isn't recognized by Texas, so they cannot get a divorce. Jimmy Blacklock, an assistant Texas solicitor general, said the men's union can only be voided.

"The parties lack standing to file a divorce case because they're not married," he said.

The Dallas men wed in 2006 in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, and separated two years later.

Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed a Dallas state district judge's ruling in October that granted a divorce to the men and said the state's same-sex marriage ban violates equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Abbott is also appealing an Austin judge's ruling this spring that granted a divorce to two women married in Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply Monday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

In arguments tinged with questions of religious, racial and sexual discrimination, the court heard from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law as an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.

Hastings, located in San Francisco, turned them down, saying no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with the statement of faith.

A sheriff's deputy in Washington state is suing Burger King and a franchise operator over a Whopper he says a worker spit on.

Clark County Sheriff's Deputy Edward Bylsma (BILZ-muh) says in the lawsuit that he stopped for a meal at a Vancouver, Wash., Burger King early one morning in March 2009 and got an "uneasy feeling" about two of its workers.

When he checked his hamburger, the suit says, he found a big gob of spit. DNA testing matched the saliva to one of the workers, who eventually pleaded guilty to assault.

The federal court suit filed Tuesday in Portland seeks at least $75,000 and names Burger King Corp. and franchise operator Kaizen Restaurants in Beaverton.

Burger King and Kaizen said in a statement Wednesday they have "zero tolerance" for the workers' actions, and that both employees have been fired.

A bookkeeper in Wichita has been sentenced to four years and three months in federal prison for embezzling more than $948,000 from a law firm where she worked.

Thirty-four-year-old Vicki J. Olivarez pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of writing checks and forging signatures on the checks while she worked at Pistotnik Law Offices.

In her plea, Olivarez admitted that from 2004 through 2009 she wrote numerous checks on the firm's client trust account and deposited the money into her personal accounts. She used some of the money to make payments on property she owned in Andover.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten also ordered Olivarez to forfeit $948,041 including her interest in the Andover property.