Despite Court’s Ruling, ‘Era of the Screaming Headline Docudrama Is Behind Us’

Although victims’ rights advocates say the California Supreme Court decision Thursday clears the way for criminals to profit from their stories by selling the book, TV or film rights, representatives from Hollywood and the publishing community say the ruling comes a bit late to benefit offenders as fully as it might have years before.

Producers and agents say the appetite for dramatic “ripped from the headlines” productions has greatly diminished since its hey-day in the mid-1990s, when TV viewers could choose from three made-for-TV movies all based on the case of “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher, as well as competing Fox and CBS productions regarding the Menendez brothers.

In recent years, industry officials say, round-the-clock television news coverage of high-profile trials on cable channels, such as Court TV, and prime-time newsmagazines have largely supplanted dramatized accounts of true crimes.

“These stories don’t necessarily create projects the way they used to,” said Patrick Faulstich, a former movie and TV executive who founded the literary management company Accurate Representation. “I think the era of the screaming headline docudrama is behind us in the network movie business. The category was subsumed by the 24-hour news service. If there’s a big story out there, there’ll be thousands of hours of coverage on Court TV, on MSNBC, on CNN. Also, the ‘20/20s’ and multiple installments of ’60 Minutes.’ ”

Even as industry observers cite the downward trend in true-life crime stories, producers and publishers acknowledge their discomfort with lining criminals’ pockets.

Los Angeles literary agent Mitchell Hamilburg recalls once being approached by a convict named Nuel Emmons, who wanted to co-write a book with his friend, convicted murderer Charles Manson.

“I wouldn’t do it,” Hamilburg said. “I just couldn’t represent him. I can’t do stuff like that.”

Grove Press subsequently published the work, “Manson in His Own Words.”

Other TV producers say they have done true crime projects only if the victims benefit financially.

“The public has come to realize in these years that it is not in their interest to reward people for their antisocial behavior,” said Lawrence Schiller, who produced “The Executioner’s Song” for NBC, a 1982 account of Utah murderer Gary Mark Gilmore that starred Tommy Lee Jones.

Schiller placed funds from “The Executioner’s Song” into a college trust fund for the children of Gilmore’s girlfriend.

Producer Howard Braunstein also earmarked funds from his USA Network movie about Ellie Nessler, a vigilante convicted of shooting her son’s molester in a courtroom near Yosemite, for her two children.

“The money was for their future,” Braunstein said.

Thursday’s ruling was the high court’s response to a lawsuit filed by Frank Sinatra Jr., who tried to prevent convicted kidnapper Barry Keenan from profiting from the screen rights about his role in Sinatra’s 1963 abduction.

Columbia Pictures executives purchased, for $485,000, the rights to “Snatching Sinatra” from New Times Los Angeles and Peter Gilstrap, who wrote an article with that title in 1998.

Keenan’s attorney argued that the law violated his right to free speech, and the court ultimately agreed. Columbia has since dropped the project, and thus far no other major studio has expressed an interest in acquiring it.

Several publishers said Thursday the issue is foremost in their minds when they consider whether to take on an imprisoned author.

“As a book publisher, our service to the community is to provide information,” said Peter Osnos, publisher of New York-based PublicAffairs books, which publishes works by leading public figures and journalists. “I would never [publish a book] for somebody who was a dreadful pedophile, but I don’t think it’s a good system where people are prevented from telling their story.”

Times staff writer Beverly Beyette contributed to this report.