Son of Sam laws are state and federal statutes that let the government seize money a convicted criminal earns from telling their crime story — or, under most modern versions, from any source — and redirect those funds to the victims. About 27 states have some form of the law, and a separate federal provision applies to certain federal convictions. The name traces to 1977, when New York passed the first such statute after serial killer David Berkowitz, who called himself “Son of Sam,” reportedly stood to collect tens of thousands of dollars for his story while his victims’ families received nothing.
Where the Law Came From
New York enacted Executive Law Section 632-a in 1977 after Berkowitz’s arrest sparked public outrage over the idea that a serial killer could profit from book deals while the people he harmed got nothing.1New York State Archives. Executive Law Section 632-a Case Files The original statute required any publisher, producer, or similar entity to notify the state’s Crime Victims Board whenever it contracted to pay an accused or convicted felon for the story of their crime. The Board held those payments in escrow so victims could pursue them through civil lawsuits.
The law covered books, magazine articles, films, television and radio productions, and live entertainment. Other states followed quickly, each building their own version of the same basic idea.
Why the Original Version Was Struck Down
The first New York law lasted about fourteen years. In 1991, the Supreme Court invalidated it in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board. The case grew out of former organized crime figure Henry Hill’s cooperation with author Nicholas Pileggi, which produced the book Wiseguy and later the film Goodfellas. When New York tried to seize the publisher’s payments to Hill, Simon & Schuster challenged the law on First Amendment grounds.
The Court held that the statute “singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income.”2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Simon and Schuster Inc v Members of NY State Crime Victims Bd, 502 US 105 (1991) The law swept so broadly that it could reach a former inmate’s autobiography that mentioned the offense in a single paragraph, or a historian writing about events decades earlier. Compensating victims was a compelling interest, the Court said, but the law was not narrowly tailored enough to survive strict scrutiny. Every state with a storytelling-focused version had to go back and rewrite.
How Modern State Laws Work
After Simon & Schuster, states retooled their statutes to avoid targeting speech specifically. The most common fix is to apply the law to any assets or income a convicted person receives, not just money from telling their story. A victim can pursue a claim against a book deal, but also against an inheritance, a lottery win, or any other windfall. Because storytelling income is treated the same as every other kind of income, the law no longer imposes a special burden on expression.
New York revised its own statute along these lines in 2001. The redesigned law got a real-world test in 2019, when the state seized roughly $320,000 that Netflix had paid Anna Sorokin — known as Anna Delvey — for the rights to her story about defrauding New York banks and hotels. States vary on which crimes trigger the law, how long victims have to file, and what happens to unclaimed money, but the broad-income structure has largely replaced the speech-targeted approach.
The Federal Son of Sam Statute
The federal government has its own version under 18 U.S.C. § 3681. It authorizes courts to order forfeiture of profits from crime narratives in two categories of federal offenses: espionage convictions under Section 794, and any federal crime that resulted in physical harm to someone.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture Unlike most current state laws, the federal statute still targets narrative-based income specifically, reaching contracts for books, films, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and live entertainment.
After a federal conviction, the U.S. Attorney can move for forfeiture, and the court orders any contract payments owed to the defendant redirected to the Attorney General. The money sits in escrow in the Crime Victims Fund for five years, during which it can be used to satisfy court judgments for victims and pay federal fines.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture After five years, any remaining balance can be directed into the Crime Victims Fund permanently.
What These Laws Cover and What They Don’t
The clearest targets are book advances, film option deals, paid television interviews, podcast licensing fees, and documentary participation payments. The common thread: the income exists because of the criminal act and the notoriety that followed.
Several things people often assume are covered usually aren’t:
- Criminal memorabilia. Most Son of Sam laws do not reach the sale of crime-scene photographs, autographs, or personal items associated with the offender. A handful of states have amended their laws to include memorabilia; most have not.
- Third-party creative works. If a journalist, filmmaker, or author produces a work about a crime without paying the offender, these laws don’t apply. They target payments flowing to the criminal, not independent storytelling.
- General employment income. Wages from an ordinary job are not subject to these statutes. The laws isolate crime-related income from regular earnings.
The memorabilia gap has drawn criticism as online marketplaces have made it easier to sell items connected to notorious crimes. Because most Son of Sam laws were built around storytelling income, extending them to physical objects takes separate legislation.
How Victims Actually Collect
Son of Sam funds don’t flow to victims automatically. In most states, the state agency holds the money in escrow, notifies known victims that funds exist, and then victims must file a civil lawsuit and obtain a court judgment for their damages. The escrow preserves the money while those claims work through the courts.
If multiple victims file, the court decides how to divide the available funds based on the nature and extent of each person’s losses. Administrative costs for managing the escrow are sometimes deducted first. States set their own deadlines for filing, and some now direct unclaimed money to a general victim compensation fund rather than returning it to the offender. At the federal level, forfeited proceeds sit in the Crime Victims Fund for five years so victims with court judgments can collect; a court decides what happens to any leftover balance.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture
When a Conviction Is Overturned
If a conviction is later vacated and no retrial follows, the constitutional picture changes. In Nelson v. Colorado (2017), the Supreme Court held that when a conviction is invalidated, the government must refund fees, court costs, and restitution it collected because of that conviction. Requiring a defendant to prove innocence by clear and convincing evidence just to recover their own money violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee.4Legal Information Institute (LII). Nelson v Colorado
The harder question is what happens when the money has already been paid out. Nelson involved funds still in the state’s hands, and the Court did not directly address whether a defendant can claw back restitution that victims received and spent. Lower courts have split. Some have held that once victims receive money in reliance on a final judgment, the government has no obligation to make the defendant whole. Others have left the question open. For someone whose conviction is overturned after Son of Sam funds were already distributed, the path to recovery remains uncertain.
Cases That Shaped the Law
A few situations illustrate how these laws play out and where they fall short:
- David Berkowitz (1977). The case that started it all. When publishers approached Berkowitz, New York rushed to pass the original statute, and payments that would have gone to him were directed to his victims instead.
- Henry Hill and Simon & Schuster (1991). Hill’s cooperation on Wiseguy led to the Supreme Court decision that invalidated the original law and forced every state to redesign its approach.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Simon and Schuster Inc v Members of NY State Crime Victims Bd, 502 US 105 (1991)
- O.J. Simpson. After his acquittal on criminal charges but civil liability in a wrongful death suit, a court ordered the profits from his ghostwritten book If I Did It turned over to Ronald Goldman’s estate. The Goldman family ultimately obtained the rights to the book itself.
- Anna Sorokin (2019). New York used its revised law to seize about $320,000 Netflix had paid Sorokin for the rights to her story. The case showed that broader modern versions can survive the constitutional challenges that killed the original.
These examples suggest a pattern. Son of Sam laws work best when the money is clearly tied to the crime and the state acts before funds are spent. They work worst when the connection between the payment and the crime is indirect, or when constitutional questions about free expression complicate enforcement.