The U.S. Supreme Court is taking a close look at a question individual investors have long asked about their mutual funds, but the courts have largely ignored: Why am I getting charged twice as much as big institutional clients?

Sure enough, the money-management services that different classes of fund clients get aren't the same. Institutions like pension funds and foundations may not need toll-free customer hotlines. They don't require as many of the prospectuses and other fund reports that individuals often throw away, even though they're printed and mailed at great expense. Individuals move relatively paltry sums in and out of a fund, piling up higher transaction costs than big clients.

Still, the investments a fund makes are often the same for both groups, and the returns similar — though individuals' higher fees take a bigger bite from their results, regardless of whether markets are up or down.

So it can be galling for an individual to pay an expense ratio of, say, 1 percent of cash invested as an annual fee, versus 0.5 percent for an institutional client enjoying what is in effect a bulk rate.

Courts have been reluctant to consider such disparities, and have rarely sided with investors. Instead, the comparisons that courts have allowed focus on whether a fund's fees are so far out of line from what similar competing funds charge as to be unreasonable.

A man who agreed to testify against his friends in a fatal gang attack on an Ecuadorean immigrant pleaded guilty Thursday to hate crime charges, telling a judge he knew from the start they wouldn't "get away with it."

"Throw away the knife," Nicholas Hausch says he pleaded with Jeffrey Conroy as they and five others ran from the scene.

Conroy insisted he had washed the blood off the weapon in a puddle, Hausch said, but he doubted they could fool authorities so easily — he had watched too many "Law and Order" episodes to believe that.

"I said, 'We're not going to get away with it,'" Hausch told the judge.

Hausch, 18, pleaded guilty to four counts to settle a nine-count indictment, including conspiracy, gang assault, assault as a hate crime and attempted assault as a hate crime in the Nov. 8, 2008, killing of Marcelo Lucero.

The case has focused attention on a decade-long animosity between the largely white population that settled on Long Island after World War II and a growing influx of Hispanics, many from Central and South America suspected of illegally entering the United States.

He has agreed to testify in upcoming trials against the six others; the district attorney will then make a sentencing recommendation, but Hausch still could face a minimum of five years in prison.

South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an ethics investigation into Gov. Mark Sanford's travel must be made public, clearing the way for lawmakers considering impeachment to review a report on the probe.

Sanford's lawyers had tried keep a report on a criminal investigation by the State Ethics Commission from being released to the House of Representatives as leaders there decide whether to move forward with impeachment efforts.

The commission's investigation was launched after Sanford returned from a five-day rendezvous with an Argentine lover in June that prompted investigations by The Associated Press into his travel practices. The AP found Sanford used state airplanes for personal and political purposes; used pricey commercial travel despite a state low-cost travel requirement; and didn't report private plane trips given by friends and donors.

Sanford's spokesman and lawyers, as well as Ethics Commission Director Herb Hayden, did not immediately respond to questions.

The governor said shortly after the investigation began that he would waive confidentiality rights, but his lawyers later argued he only intended to allow the scope of the investigation to be released. Attorneys wanted Sanford to have a chance to respond to the report before lawmakers saw it.

South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an ethics investigation into Gov. Mark Sanford's travel must be made public, clearing the way for lawmakers considering impeachment to review a report on the probe.

Sanford's lawyers had tried keep a report on a criminal investigation by the State Ethics Commission from being released to the House of Representatives as leaders there decide whether to move forward with impeachment efforts.

The commission's investigation was launched after Sanford returned from a five-day rendezvous with an Argentine lover in June that prompted investigations by The Associated Press into his travel practices. The AP found Sanford used state airplanes for personal and political purposes; used pricey commercial travel despite a state low-cost travel requirement; and didn't report private plane trips given by friends and donors.

Sanford's spokesman and lawyers, as well as Ethics Commission Director Herb Hayden, did not immediately respond to questions.

The governor said shortly after the investigation began that he would waive confidentiality rights, but his lawyers later argued he only intended to allow the scope of the investigation to be released. Attorneys wanted Sanford to have a chance to respond to the report before lawmakers saw it.

Attorneys for John Allen Muhammad released a May 2008 letter on Wednesday in which the mastermind of the deadly 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area proclaims his innocence.

The rambling, handwritten letter was made available because of requests for a statement from Muhammad, his attorneys wrote on the Web page of their law firm. The letter was filed in federal court in connection with Muhammad's unsuccessful attempt to block his execution, the attorneys said.

Muhammad, 48, is scheduled to die by injection on Nov. 10 at a Virginia prison.

In the letter dated May 8, 2008, and rife with misspellings, Muhammad writes of discussions with a new team of attorneys and of assurances that "exculpatory evidence" that he claims was withheld from his trial "will prove my innocent and what really happen ...."

The letter adds: "So all you police and prosecutors can stand-down-'rushing' to murder this innocent black man for something he nor his son (Lee) had nothing to do with ...."

Lee Boyd Malvo was Muhammad's teenage accomplice, who is serving a life sentence. Muhammad fostered a father-son relationship with Malvo but the two were not related.

The Michigan Court of Appeals says a man who had a teenage romance with a girl he later married doesn't deserve to be on the state's sex offender list.

Robert Dipiazza had a consensual relationship when he was 18 with a nearly 15-year-old in 2004. A teacher contacted authorities because the age of consent is 16 in Michigan.

A third-degree attempted criminal sexual conduct charge was eventually erased from his record, but he still had to register as a sex offender. He says he had trouble finding jobs and became depressed.

The state appeals court on ordered a Muskegon County judge to strike his name from the registry, calling it cruel punishment. Dipiazza and his girlfriend were married in April and had a baby during the summer.