Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board

Last updated
Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 15, 1991
Decided December 9, 1991
Full case name Simon & Schuster, INC., petitioner v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board et al.
Citations502 U.S. 105 ( more )
112 S. Ct. 501; 116 L. Ed. 2d 476; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 7172
Case history
Prior724 F. Supp. 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); affirmed, 916 F.2d 777 (2d Cir. 1990); cert. granted, 498 U.S. 1081(1991).
Holding
The New York Son of Sam law violated the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Souter
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceKennedy
Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, Son of Sam law

Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991), was a Supreme Court case dealing with Son of Sam laws, which are state laws that prevent convicted criminals from publishing books about their crime for profit. [1] Simon & Schuster challenged the law's application to profits from Nicholas Pileggi's book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family , which was written with paid assistance from former mobster Henry Hill. The court struck down the Son of Sam law in New York on the ground that the law was violative of the First Amendment, which protects free speech. Nevertheless, similar laws in other states remain unchallenged. The opinion of the court was written by Sandra Day O'Connor.

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the U.S. Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.

A Son of Sam law is an American English term for any law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. These laws have been criticized as violating the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The original and namesake law, from the State of New York, was itself ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, though New York and other states have since passed laws with similar goals that attempt to comply with the Court's decision.

Publishing Process of production and dissemination of literature, music, or information

Publishing is the dissemination of literature, music, or information. It is the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display their content. "Publisher" can refer both to an individual who leads a publishing company or an imprint and to an individual who owns/heads a magazine.

In the wake of this case, New York modified its law to apply to any economic benefits derived from criminal activities, not just proceeds from publications. [2]

Related Research Articles

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following a valid acquittal or conviction. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Murder Unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is a killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act U.S. law

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.

Vincent Bugliosi American lawyer and true crime writer

Vincent T. Bugliosi Jr. was an American attorney and New York Times bestselling author. During his eight years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions, and gained guilty verdicts in each case. He was best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate–LaBianca murders of August 9–10, 1969. Although Manson did not physically participate in the murders, Bugliosi used circumstantial evidence to show that he had orchestrated the killings.

A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.

Slayer rule common law rule

The slayer rule, in the common law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person he or she murders. In figuring inheritance of the decedent's estate, the slayer is treated as though he or she had died before the person he or she murdered, hence his or her share of the estate would pass to his or her issue.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

American prison literature is literature written by Americans who are incarcerated. It is a distinct literary phenomenon which is increasingly studied as such by academics.

Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 is a landmark case in which District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant's objections.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Payne narrowed two of the Courts' precedents: Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989).

Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It proscribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws. Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, where emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation, rather than on punishment or rehabilitation. Criminal procedure is a formalized official activity that authenticates the fact of commission of a crime and authorizes punitive or rehabilitative treatment of the offender.

Paul G. Cassell American judge

Paul George Cassell is a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in, and proponent of, victims' rights.

Child sexual abuse laws in the United States have been enacted as part of the nation's child protection policies. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), that the victim in a "sexual abuse of a minor" conviction must be less than 16 years old.

Murder of Karen Price

Karen Price was a 15-year-old Welsh murder victim who disappeared in 1981. After the discovery of her body in 1989, British facial reconstruction artist Richard Neave used her skull to create a model of her physical appearance. The reconstruction and the matching of DNA in the body to that of Price's parents allowed her body to be identified. The case was cited as one of the first instances in which DNA technology was used in this way.

Criminal law in the Taney Court

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

References

  1. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991).
  2. "Son-of-Sam Law". Gale Encyclopedia of US History. The Gale Group. 2006. Retrieved October 24, 2012.
<i>United States Reports</i> United States Supreme Court decisions

The United States Reports are the official record of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.