ill-gotten gains

In the summer of 1977, New York was terrorized by a serial killer popularly known as the Son of Sam. By the time David Berkowitz was identified as the killer and apprehended, the rights to his story were worth a substantial amount. The State quickly enacted the statute at issue, N. Y. Exec. Law § 632-a. The Son of Sam law requires any entity contracting with an accused or convicted person for a depiction of the crime to submit a copy of the contract to the New York State Crime Victims Board. It must turn over any income under that contract to the Board for deposit in an escrow account. The requirement applies to contracts in any medium of communication, including books. The Board holds the funds for the benefit of victims who bring civil actions within five years. After five years, it pays any remaining funds to the person or representatives. The statute broadly defines a person convicted of a crime to include anyone who has voluntarily and intelligently admitted the commission of a crime for which the person is not prosecuted. Since its enactment, the law has been invoked against Jean Harris, Mark David Chapman, and R. Foster Winans. In August 1981, Henry Hill entered into a contract with author Nicholas Pileggi for a book about his life. The following month, Hill and Pileggi signed a publishing agreement with Simon & Schuster. Wiseguy was published in January 1986. In January 1986, the Board notified Simon & Schuster of the contract and ordered it to furnish copies and suspend payments to Hill. By that time, Simon & Schuster had paid $96,250. It was holding $27,958 for Hill. 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. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court upheld the statute. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In February 1971 petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California investigating violations of federal gambling and related laws. The government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury's questions notwithstanding the grant of immunity. The court found both in contempt and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury's questions or the term of the grand jury expired. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt findings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom or whether transactional immunity is necessary.

During the night of May 20, 1963, two armed men robbed a Gulf service station in North Braddock, Pennsylvania. They took currency from the cash register and directed attendant Stephen Kovacich to place coins into his right-hand glove, which they then seized. Two teenagers who had seen a blue compact station wagon circling the block observed the same vehicle speed away from a nearby parking lot. They reported to arriving police that four men were inside, one wearing a green sweater. Kovacich separately described one robber wearing a green sweater and the other a trench coat. Police broadcast the description of the car and robbers. Within an hour officers stopped a light blue compact station wagon matching the description about two miles from the station. Petitioner was among the four occupants. He wore a green sweater and a trench coat lay in the car. The men were arrested and the vehicle was driven to the police station. During a thorough search of the car at the station, officers found two .38-caliber revolvers concealed under the dashboard, one loaded with dumdum bullets, the right-hand glove containing small change, and cards bearing the name of Raymond Havicon. Havicon was the attendant at a Boron service station robbed at gunpoint on May 13, 1963. The day after the arrest, police executed a warrant-authorized search of petitioner's home and seized .38-caliber ammunition, including dumdum bullets matching those in one of the revolvers. Petitioner was indicted separately for the May 13 and May 20 robberies. His first trial ended in a mistrial. At the second trial both Kovacich and Havicon identified him as one of the robbers. The items taken from the station wagon were introduced, and the ammunition from his home was also admitted. Petitioner received consecutive sentences of four to eight years for the May 13 robbery and two to seven years for the May 20 robbery. Petitioner did not appeal. In 1965 he filed a state habeas corpus petition that was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial was affirmed on appeal. He then sought federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The district court denied the petition without a hearing on the basis of the state record. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In January 1981, the New York Drug Enforcement Task Force received information indicating that Andres Segura and Luz Marina Colon probably were trafficking in cocaine from their New York apartment. Acting on this information, Task Force agents maintained continuing surveillance over petitioners until their arrest on February 12, 1981. On February 9, agents observed a meeting between Segura and Enrique Rivudalla-Vidal. Three days later, Segura telephoned Rivudalla-Vidal and agreed to provide him with cocaine at a designated fast-food restaurant in Queens. Rivudalla-Vidal and Esther Parra arrived at the restaurant at 5 p.m. Agents observed Colon deliver a bulky package to Parra in the parking lot. Agents stopped the couple as they were about to enter Rivudalla-Vidal's apartment, found Parra in possession of cocaine, and arrested both. Rivudalla-Vidal cooperated, admitted purchasing the cocaine from Segura, and informed agents that Segura was to call him at approximately 10 o'clock that evening. Between 6:30 and 7 p.m., agents received authorization from an Assistant United States Attorney to arrest Segura and Colon and to secure the premises because a search warrant probably could not be obtained until the following day. At about 7:30 p.m., agents arrived at petitioners' apartment and established external surveillance. At 11:15 p.m., Segura entered the lobby and was arrested. Agents took him to the third-floor apartment, knocked on the door, and entered with him when Colon appeared. Agents arrested Colon and three other persons found in the apartment. They conducted a limited security check and observed in plain view a triple-beam scale, jars of lactose, and numerous small cellophane bags. None of these items was disturbed. Two agents remained in the apartment awaiting the warrant. Because of administrative delay, the warrant application was not presented to the Magistrate until 5 p.m. the next day. The warrant was issued and the search was performed at approximately 6 p.m., some 19 hours after the agents' initial entry. In the search pursuant to the warrant, agents discovered almost three pounds of cocaine, 18 rounds of .38-caliber ammunition, more than $50,000 cash, and records of narcotics transactions. Segura and Colon were indicted for conspiring to distribute cocaine and for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. They moved to suppress all evidence seized from the apartment. The District Court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On March 17, 1962, an armed robber entered the business premises of the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland, took some $363, and fled. Two cab drivers followed the man, described as a Negro about 5'8" tall wearing a light cap and dark jacket, to 2111 Cocoa Lane and notified police. Within minutes police arrived at the house in patrol cars, knocked, and after Mrs. Hayden answered entered to search for the robber. Officers spread through the first and second floors and cellar. Hayden was found in an upstairs bedroom feigning sleep and was arrested after other officers reported no other man was present. An officer searching the cellar for the man or the money found a jacket and trousers of the type the fleeing man was said to have worn in a washing machine. Another officer was attracted to an adjoining bathroom by the noise of running water and discovered a shotgun and a pistol in a flush tank. A clip of ammunition for the pistol and a cap were found under the mattress of Hayden's bed, and ammunition for the shotgun was found in a bureau drawer in Hayden's room. All these items of evidence were introduced against respondent at his trial. A Maryland court sitting without a jury convicted respondent of armed robbery. After unsuccessful state court proceedings, he sought and was denied federal habeas corpus relief in the District Court for Maryland. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.