Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board

In Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991), the United States Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of New York's "Son of Sam" law. Id. at 108. The "Son of Sam" term for the law came from the name by which David Berkowitz, a serial killer in New York in 1977, was known. Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 108. Acting to prevent Berkowitz from profiting from his notoriety while his victims and their families were left uncompensated, the New York legislature enacted the statute that was commonly called the "Son of Sam" law. Id. The law targeted any entity that contracted with an accused or convicted person to produce a depiction of the crime the person had committed or the person's thoughts, feelings, opinions, or emotions regarding the crime by way of several identified works, including a movie, book, magazine article, or radio or television presentation. The law required that the entity submit a copy of the contract to the New York State Crime Victims Board ("the Board") and turn over any income under that contract to the Board. Id. The Board was then required to deposit the funds in an escrow account, from which victims of the accused or convicted person could recover after obtaining a money judgment for damages against that person in a civil action. Id. The law defined the term "person convicted of a crime" as including "any person convicted of a crime in this state either by entry of a plea of guilty or by conviction after trial and any person who has voluntarily and intelligently admitted the commission of a crime for which such person is not prosecuted." Id. at 110. The publisher in Simon & Schuster contracted to finance and publish a book in which Henry Hill told the story of his organized crime career. Id. at 112-13. After the Board learned of the publication of the book, it determined that all monies paid or owed to Hill under the contract were subject to the provisions of the "Son of Sam" law. Id. at 114-15. The publisher sued the Board, seeking a declaration that the law violated the First Amendment. Id. at 115. The Simon & Schuster Court noted at the outset that "a statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech." Id. In Simon & Schuster, the Supreme Court noted (and at oral argument, counsel for Gravano conceded) that "there can be little doubt . . . that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that victims of crime are compensated by those who harm them." 502 U.S. at 118. In addition, said the Court, states have "an undisputed compelling interest in ensuring that criminals do not profit from their crimes." Id. at 119. The Court recognized the equitable principle that "no one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime." Id. The Supreme Court also noted that "the force of this interest is evidenced by the State's statutory provisions for the forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime." Id.