## Facts

- In 1963, Barry Keenan participated in the kidnapping of Frank Sinatra, Jr.; Keenan was convicted and imprisoned.
- Decades later, Keenan contracted with writers and media entities to sell rights to expressive works recounting the kidnapping, including print and film projects.
- Frank Sinatra, Jr. sued under Civil Code § 2225(b)(1), a “Son of Sam” provision that diverted a convicted felon’s proceeds from expressive materials “based on” or “includ[ing]” the story of the felony into a victim-compensation trust.
- The superior court issued a preliminary injunction restraining payment of Keenan’s share of proceeds and denied Keenan’s demurrer and motion to dissolve the injunction.
- After the Court of Appeal denied writ relief and upheld the statute, the California Supreme Court granted review on Keenan’s petition for writ relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Civil Code § 2225(b)(1), which redirects a convicted felon’s income from expressive works because they include the story of the crime, is a facially invalid content-based burden on speech under the First Amendment and California’s liberty of speech clause.
2. Whether Keenan was entitled to writ relief directing the trial court to sustain his demurrer to the § 2225(b)(1) claim and dissolve the preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held Civil Code § 2225(b)(1) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment) and under article I, section 2(a) of the California Constitution.
- The Court concluded the statute imposed a content-based financial penalty on protected expression and failed strict scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored to the state’s asserted interests.
- The Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Court of Appeal to order the superior court to sustain Keenan’s demurrer (as to the § 2225(b)(1) theory) and dissolve the preliminary injunction freezing proceeds.

## Legal Principles

- A law that targets or diverts proceeds from expressive works because they contain the story of a crime is a content-based regulation of speech.
- Content-based financial burdens on fully protected expression trigger strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored.
- Even where victim compensation and preventing criminals’ unjust enrichment are compelling interests, a statute is facially invalid if it is overinclusive (burdens substantial protected speech beyond what is necessary) or underinclusive (fails to address comparable non-speech-based profits).
- The availability of alternative, content-neutral mechanisms (e.g., restitution and ordinary judgment enforcement) bears on whether a speech-targeting scheme is narrowly tailored.

## Conclusion

Civil Code § 2225(b)(1) was invalid because it selectively confiscated income from speech based on content—works recounting a crime—while sweeping broadly beyond what was necessary to compensate victims, requiring dissolution of the injunction and dismissal of the statute-based claim.


Keenan v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 4th 413 (Cal. 2002)