Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members Of The New York State Crime Victims Board

502 U.S. 105 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

New York passed a law that prohibited criminals from taking advantage of their notoriety to profit from their crimes. The statute was intended to ensure that monies received by the criminal under such circumstances shall first be made available to recompense the victims of that crime for their loss and suffering. The law eventually required that any entity contracting with an accused or convicted person for a depiction of the crime to submit a copy of the contract to respondent Crime Victims Board, and to turn over any income under that contract to the Board. The Board is then required to deposit the payment in an escrow account for the benefit of and payable to any victim. After five years, if no actions are pending, 'the board shall immediately pay over any money in the escrow account to such person or his legal representatives.' A person who has never been accused or convicted of a crime in the ordinary sense, but who admits in a book or other work to having committed a crime, is within the statute's coverage. David Berkowitz, the person who provoked the law, was found incompetent to stand trial, and the statute at that time applied only to criminals who had actually been convicted. Berkowitz voluntarily paid his share of the royalties from the book Son of Sam, published in 1981, to his victims or their estates. This case began in 1986 when the Board first became aware of the contract between petitioner Simon & Schuster and admitted organized crime figure Henry Hill. Hill admitted to a large number of crimes in his book. Hill and another named Pileggi wrote Wiseguy, which was published in January 1986. Within 19 months of its publication, more than a million copies were in print. A few years later, the book was converted into a film called Goodfellas, which won a host of awards as the best film of 1990. The Board notified Simon & Schuster and ordered Simon & Schuster to furnish copies of any contracts it had entered into with Hill, to provide the dollar amounts and dates of all payments it had made to Hill, and to suspend all payments to Hill in the future. Simon & Schuster complied with this order. The Board also ordered Hill to turn over the payments he had already received and ordered Simon & Schuster to turn over all money payable to Hill at the time or in the future. Simon & Schuster brought suit in August 1987, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a declaration that the Son of Sam law violates the First Amendment and an injunction barring the statute's enforcement. The District Court found the statute consistent with the First Amendment. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed.