Filed 2121102
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
BARRY KEENAN, 1
>
Petitioner,
i SO80284
V. >
> Ct.App. 2/l B128379
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS >
ANGELES COUNTY, >
> Los Angeles County
Respondent; > Super. Ct. No. SC053294
>
FRANK SINATRA, JR., >
>
Real Party in Interest. >
We confront a claim that California's `Son of Sam law" facially violates
constitutional protections of speech by appropriating, as compensation for crime
victims, all monies due to a convicted felon from expressive materials that include
the story of the crime. We conclude that these provisions of the California statute
are facially invalid under both the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the
federal Constitution1 as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,
and the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution (art. I, $ 2, subd.
The California law was first enacted in 1983 as Civil Code section 2224.1.3
(Stats. 1983, ch. 1016, 8 2, pp. 3581-3584.) In 1986, the law was renumbered as
section 2225 (Stats. 1986, ch. 820, $0 7, 8, pp. 2730-2733), and it has since been
amended on several occasions (see Stats. 1992, ch. 178, 6 2, p. 882; Stats. 1994,
ch. 556, 5 1, p. 2823; Stats. 1995, ch. 262, $ 1; Stats. 2000, ch. 261, $ 2). As
currently in effect, the law seeks to prevent a convicted felon, or a profiteer, from
exploiting the felon's crimes for financial gain while victims of crime go
uncompensated.
One prong of the California statute, in effect since the law's inception,
imposes an involuntary trust, in favor of damaged and uncompensated crime victims
as "beneficiar[ies]," on a convicted felon's "proceeds" from expressive "materials"
(books, films, magazine and newspaper articles, video and sound recordings, radio
and television appearances, and live presentations) that "include or are based on" the
SNIPPETS:
We confront a claim that California's `Son of Sam law" facially violates constitutional
We conclude that these provisions of the California statute are facially invalid under both
federal Constitution1 as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
I, $ 2, subd.
The California law was first enacted in 1983 as Civil Code section 2224.1.3 (Stats.
that include the story of the crime, by its operative provision, section 2225, subdivision ).
Since 1994, the law's involuntary trust provisions have also applied to "profits" received by
the United States Supreme Court held that a somewhat similar New York law violated the First
(Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd.
As indicated in detail below, this case does not, in fact, present a challenge to section
Finding the New York law facially invalid, the Simon & Schuster majority reasoned that the
it confiscated all profits from expressive works in which one made even incidental or
Again Sinatra, Jr., urged that section 2225 solved the overinclusiveness problem identified
New York's Legislature sought to prevent Berkowitz and other notorious criminals from
New York claimed a compelling interest in preventing criminals from retaining the profits of
The chilling effect of financial disincentives was recognized again in United States v.
|
