Flynt’s ‘Jail Babes’ Video Venture Tests Limits of Law

Another day, another 1st Amendment war for Larry Flynt.

While the Hustler magazine publisher has made headlines lately for exposing the sexual peccadilloes of prominent Republicans, he also is testing the limits of taste--and the law--with a new business venture.

Flynt’s new line of adult videos features women who have been incarcerated for various crimes, from bank robbery to narcotics possession. The first video in the “Jail Babes” series shipped in late December.

But Flynt, who did time himself for contempt of court, may face a legal obstacle with this latest project: California’s “Son of Sam” law, which blocks felons from profiting from their crimes.

Named for the New York serial killer who sold the story of his 1977 murder spree, the law allows either the attorney general or a crime victim to file a civil action to recover income made by criminals who peddle their tales.

While California lawmakers may not have envisioned adult videos as a vehicle for criminals to reap profits when the statute was enacted in 1983, the Flynt production underscores the potential breadth of a law that already casts a shadow in a Hollywood fascinated with true crime stories.

Told of the video series, Deputy Atty. Gen. Peter Shack said, “I’d certainly want to look at it, because there may be somebody profiting by virtue of their criminal activity. There are questions to be answered.”

At the least, legal experts said, money Flynt has paid the felons could be subject to claims.

“Whatever fee or royalty they are paid is clearly subject to the provisions” of the law, said Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law. “I’d be surprised if [authorities] weren’t interested in nipping this in the bud immediately.”

Alan Isaacman, Flynt’s longtime attorney, said he doesn’t expect to face any legal challenges. He said the videos--in which felons recount their crimes in interviews before having sex--are not covered by the law.

“We’re basically paying these women to do some acting work,” not for their stories, Isaacman said. “They’re telling a story along the way. In our view, the ‘Son of Sam’ statutes weren’t designed for ‘Jail Babes.’ ”

Whether the law allows for such a distinction is unclear. The statute applies to all income from any product whose value is “enhanced” by the notoriety gained from committing a felony.

Preventing Flynt from paying former bank robbers and drug dealers could prove difficult. Lawmakers revised California’s “Son of Sam” law after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s version in 1991, and the new one has yet to be tested on appeal. The only three cases undertaken by California authorities have led nowhere.

Under the law, the attorney general can stake a claim to a felon’s profits, then have the money placed in a trust or, eventually, into a state fund for crime victims.

Former Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren filed California’s first two “Son of Sam” lawsuits in 1995--including one against “Billionaire Boys Club” killer Joe Hunt, who had set up a 900-number where he discussed prison life--but the state eventually dropped both cases.

Lungren later sued Richard Allen Davis, the convicted killer of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, to recover money he was to be paid for a ‘Hard Copy’ TV show interview. That suit is on hold and is likely to be dropped, authorities said, because investigators were unable to track the money.

The latest case filed under the law remains unresolved. Frank Sinatra’s family invoked the statute last year when it sued Sony Pictures to block its effort to buy the story of Barry Keenan, who masterminded the kidnapping and $240,000 ransom of Frank Sinatra Jr. in 1963. A Santa Monica judge has issued a temporary injunction barring Sony from paying Keenan, but the parties may still face off at a trial.

“In the big picture, we’ve got a big problem as a society if we can’t enforce this law,” said Richard Specter, attorney for Sinatra Jr.. “You don’t want to give incentives to criminals.”

While Specter has accused Sony of offering Keenan a contract worth up to $1.5 million, most “Son of Sam” cases involve far less money. Ex-cons cast in the Flynt video were paid up to $700 each, company officials said. But state lawyers could potentially take up the case to establish a legal precedent, Shack said.

Both the Sinatra case and any action filed over the Flynt video would be decided against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which arose when New York crime victims tried to recover profits from “Wiseguy,” the best-selling Nicholas Pileggi book about Henry Hill’s life in the Mafia.

Pileggi’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, sued the New York State Crime Victims Board, contending the law was unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.

In its decision, the high court found the New York law was too broad because it applied to a criminal’s works on any subject--not just the crime committed--and because it applied to people who had only been accused, not convicted, of a criminal offense. Other states with similar laws on the books rewrote them in an effort to comply with the court’s decision.

While the California law has passed muster with the judge in the Sony case, it remains unfair in the eyes of the felons in the “Jail Babes” video.

“I don’t feel like we’re capitalizing on it,” said Donna R., 22, who robbed a Bank of America branch in Portland, Ore., in 1994. “We’ve done our time. And I think [the video] is a good thing to shed light on what happens behind bars.”

While experts wrestle over the legal questions, Flynt’s company, LFP Inc., is watching to see whether the video will sell. LFP has so far shipped 3,000 copies of “Jail Babes,” which retails for $40, company officials said.

“We could have gone out and gotten some teased-hair blond . . . porn bimbos from the Valley and dressed them up as jailbirds,” said Mark Cromer, a writer who pitched the concept to LFP. “I think that’s why it’ll sell. This is the real thing.”

Donna D., a 49-year-old convicted prostitute and forgery artist from Pomona, said: “When someone tells you a girl has a criminal record, what’s the first thing that goes through your mind? That she’s a hot babe. We’re the forbidden fruit.”

(One aspect of her story could not be verified, however. She recounts in the video that she shot a federal agent in the leg during a 1974 U.S. Secret Service raid, but federal law enforcement files contain no record of such an offense.)

Before the crime-related video series, Flynt had limited his company’s involvement in the adult video business, which posted $4.1 billion in sales and rentals last year, according to the trade publication Adult Video News.

Flynt had licensed the Hustler name to Van Nuys-based Vivid Video, but had kept out of video production, company officials said. Video remains a tiny part of LFP, whose primary source of income is Hustler and 27 other magazine titles.

As part of his new venture, Flynt also purchased an existing “Jail Babes” Web site, which operates as an introduction service for consumers who want to correspond with women imprisoned nationwide. And LFP’s Cromer said he expects the “Jail Babes” magazine--which will pay both paroled and still-incarcerated felons for pictures and writings--to hit newsstands in May.

“It’s a fascinating fetish,” he said of women behind bars. Before Flynt’s foray into video production, he added, “nobody was out there tapping into that bad-girl mystique.”