Koon’s Profits Focus of Feud in Sacramento

As if he hasn’t been in enough controversies already, former Los Angeles Police Sgt. Stacey C. Koon is now at the center of a political dispute between Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and a ranking Democratic assemblyman over a law barring criminals from profiting from their crimes.

Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg of Sacramento called on Lungren nearly three weeks ago to use the state’s so-called “Son of Sam” law to block Koon from making money off the sale of his autobiography and a related fund-raising campaign that has attracted nationwide support.

Isenberg argued that they are based on illegal deeds for which Koon is now in prison--violating the civil rights of Rodney G. King in the police beating that eventually led to the riots of April, 1992.

Lungren waited until late Thursday to respond, Isenberg said, and then said in a letter that since the constitutionality of the Son of Sam law has never been tested, he wants to wait until a better case comes along, but that he will “continue to review” the matter.

On Friday, Isenberg accused Lungren--a staunch law-and-order advocate running for reelection--of ducking the issue, due to what Isenberg said is Koon’s popularity among those conservatives and police associations that make up Lungren’s potential base of electoral support.

Lungren has heretofore been a vocal supporter of the Son of Sam law and is leading the campaign to amend it so it can be used more broadly, after a controversy erupted recently over whether convicted murderer Charles Manson could collect royalties from T-shirt sales and a song he wrote that was recorded by the rock band Guns N’ Roses on an album released last year.

“It seems to me that if the law means anything at all, everyone has to be treated equally--the crooks you like and the crooks you don’t,” said Isenberg, a member of the Assembly’s Criminal Justice Committee and chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee.

“It’s hard for me to believe you want an expansion of the law if you are unprepared to apply the existing law equally to everybody who is convicted of a felony and makes money off their crime,” he said in an interview.

A constitutional law expert agreed, saying legislators enacted the law to prevent felons from profiting from their crimes and so their victims could be reimbursed, and that it clearly applies to the Koon case.

“Convicted felons who happen to be Los Angeles police officers should not be treated differently from any other convicted felons with respect to applying the law,” said Robert Pugsley, a professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles.

As for why Lungren hasn’t given a definitive response, Pugsley said: “I can only assume his motivations are political, that it would be unpopular for the state’s top law enforcer to go against law enforcement personnel, even though (Koon) has been convicted of a felony. To be evenhanded, Lungren should definitely consider applying this law.”

Under the law, which has been on the books for about a decade, Lungren would petition a civil court judge to set up an involuntary trust for the benefit of Koon’s victim--in this case, King, who was beaten by police officers under Koon’s supervision after a car chase in 1991. The proceeds also would be used to pay legal bills associated with the case. Such trusts under the law could be used to collect profits from the sale of books, movies, T-shirts and even interviews and TV appearances.

In his March 21 letter to Lungren, Isenberg asked the attorney general to set up such a fund immediately.

“You are a strong and vocal proponent of anti-crime measures and I assume you object to Mr. Koon exploiting the commercial value of his felonious conduct,” Isenberg wrote.

“I acknowledge the sensitive nature of this subject. However, the fair and uniform application of our laws requires your office to fully investigate Mr. Koon’s activity . . . and make a public pronouncement on your decision of whether to proceed against Mr. Koon.”

On Tuesday, Isenberg sent another letter to Lungren, reminding him of his previous vocal support for the Son of Sam law and its proposed expansion. “As we attempt to expand,” he wrote, “it is critical that we aggressively enforce the existing law.”

Lungren responded in a letter, also dated Tuesday, which Isenberg said he received late Thursday. Assistant Atty. Gen. Carole Ritts Kornblum, who wrote the response, said the state Justice Department is still taking the matter under consideration, but doesn’t plan to spend time or resources going after Koon’s book profits or fund-raising activities.

Koon’s publisher said Friday that the book, published about 18 months ago, has sold at least 28,000 copies, and that the letter in which Koon asks for financial help is still bringing in money from supporters around the nation. Isenberg said the fund-raising money would be fair game under the law, because Koon promises to send a free copy of the $19.95 book to anyone who sends $30.

Koon’s publisher, Alfred S. Regnery, would not say how much money Koon has made from the sale of the book, but that most of the profits were made soon after the book was published. He said Koon had a common publishing arrangement that gave him as much as 15% of book sales income, and that the fund-raising campaign continues to generate donations as well.

If the book has sold 28,000 copies at $19.95, each, 15% would amount to more than $80,000.

“I happen to think Stacey Koon got a very raw deal and that he has been punished for something he’s not guilty of,” Regnery said. “A lot of people would disagree with that. But this politician (Isenberg) seems to want to please those people who want to perpetuate this case and the glorification of Rodney King.”

Lungren aides said the attorney general is not hesitating for political reasons, but that he is simply wary of testing the California law because a similar New York state law was struck down by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1991 as violating constitutional guarantees of free speech.

Lungren spokesman Dave Puglia said an effort is under way to amend the law, and that should be completed before it is used, to make the law “constitutionally bulletproof.”

Indeed, there have been other cases in which the Son of Sam law could have been used in California. A Los Angeles gang member and convicted felon named Monster Kody, for instance, has received more than $100,000 for his autobiography.

Kornblum said that even though the California law is more narrowly written than the New York one, it remains “highly susceptible” to a constitutional challenge, which would involve “long and expensive litigation” that should be confronted only with a strong test case.

And because the law provides that the state’s legal fees be paid from any profits made by the convicted felon in question, she said, there would be little or no money left for King.

However, Lungren and his staffers have insisted at other times--including in legislative testimony just a few weeks ago--that the law is constitutional as it is now written, because it does not suffer from the same weaknesses as the New York law.

Koon, convicted last year on federal charges of violating King’s civil rights, is in a federal prison in Dublin, Calif., serving a 30-month sentence. His book, “Presumed Guilty, The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair,” focuses on events the night King was beaten in 1991. As the top-ranking officer at the scene, Koon was ultimately held responsible for violating King’s civil rights, after he and three officers were acquitted of police brutality charges in a Superior Court case that set off the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

Isenberg and his aides also challenged Lungren’s decision not to pursue the case because of the expense involved, citing the attorney general’s often-stated conviction that legal principles should be protected no matter the cost.

“We chase down street criminals for a small quantity of marijuana,” said Isenberg aide Gene Erbin. “But we don’t go after this guy for hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits?”