[CPProt.net] Book thieves want right to sell tale

[Ton Cremers]

Book thieves want right to sell tale

JUDGE TO DECIDE WHO MAY REAP PROFITS

By Beth Musgrave
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

It was an unlikely crime -- the brazen strong-arm robbery of rare and 
valuable books from a university library.
And they were unlikely criminals -- four high school buddies from the 
suburbs down on their luck and short on cash.
Sound like the stuff of Hollywood? Or a crime novel?
Maybe.
A federal judge in Lexington will soon decide whether the four men 
involved in the real-life 2004 heist of rare books from Transylvania 
University should be allowed to keep the profits if they decide to 
sell the book, TV or movie rights to their story.
Prosecutors say any profits should go to the men's victims or to pay 
legal bills. Lawyers for the men -- Eric Borsuk, Warren C. Lipka, 
Charles Allen II and Spencer Reinhard -- say the men haven't received 
any offers to sell their story, but any prohibition on doing so would 
violate the First Amendment.
"To my knowledge my client has no plans to profit from it, but if the 
order is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional and we have to fight 
it," said Patrick Nash, Allen's lawyer.
During the men's Dec. 6 sentencing hearing, U.S. District Court Judge 
Jennifer Coffman asked prosecutors and defense lawyers to submit 
briefs on whether the court could enter an order prohibiting the men 
from profiting from the sale of their story.
The four men, who pleaded guilty to various federal charges last 
year, will report Jan. 17 to begin serving more than 7 years in 
federal prison.
Prosecutors say a federal statute allows the government to ask the 
judge to have proceeds from the sale of the story placed in an escrow 
account with the U.S. Attorney General's office. The money could go 
to the victim or to pay for legal fees of the defendants, according 
to court documents.
Defense lawyers say the statute the government is relying on is no 
longer used and the U.S. Supreme Court has already overturned a 
similar state law, saying it violated a criminal's First Amendment 
rights.
But a lawyer who represents B.J. Gooch, the special collections 
librarian who was assaulted by two of the men during the robbery, 
says the federal statute does not violate the First Amendment.
"It's not precluding them from telling their story, it just prohibits 
them from profiting before the victim is compensated," said Lee 
Rowland.
Gooch has sued the four men in state court for unspecified damages.

During the men's sentencing hearing, Gooch told Coffman that she was 
dismayed that Reinhard, a former Transylvania University student, was 
selling paintings -- some of which were inspired by the Transy theft -
- at a gallery event in September.
Michael Mazzoli, Reinhard's lawyer, said he could not say if his 
client has sold paintings depicting the crime. Whether the sale of 
paintings or artwork related to the Transy theft would be covered in 
a prohibition would depend on Coffman, Mazzoli said.
Mazzoli argues that the statute federal prosecutors are relying on is 
no longer used after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar New 
York state law called the "Son of Sam" law, named after New York City 
serial killer David Berkowitz.
Fueled by rumors and fear that Berkowitz was going to sell his story 
for thousands of dollars, the New York legislature passed a law in 
1977 that required that any proceeds from the depiction of the crime -
- either through books, movies or television -- be placed in a crime 
victims fund. The money would be used to compensate victims and then 
could be used to pay for a defendant's legal fees, the law said.
Berkowitz never profited from his crime. But the issue came up again 
in the case of Henry Hill, a noted mafia figure who later joined the 
witness protection program. Hill's biography Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia 
Family was later made into the 1990 film Goodfellas.
The New York State Crime Victims Board heard about Hill's contract 
with publisher Simon & Schuster in 1986 and asked Hill to turn over 
his proceeds to the victims fund. Simon & Schuster challenged the 
"Son of Sam" statute and took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
which unanimously ruled that the statute violated Hill's First 
Amendment rights.
John Tackett, one of Borsuk's lawyers, said Gooch can still be 
compensated in the civil courts without a federal prohibition on the 
sale of the men's story.
"We're not challenging the fact that she can receive money from civil 
judgments," Tackett said. "The statute is a violation of free speech 
by regulating the proceeds and channeling it through a victims fund."