-To Sld..ld or lot To SJd..ld:
.l Q1IIl1fied. Be.po... \0 tM
~.i;io.
ot .....,.rao.-. Pri....u. .
. . Hoaol'l fie.i. (ID 499)
Ca~
4. Br1ald..
ne.l.
Direetor
Dr. H.rMr\ H. .11:\O.
Mue1•• I_ta_
Mq. 1914
TABlE OF CONTENTS
\10........................................
1
tor Prin.lep. •
5
CHAPTER I.
I-'rod..
CRlP'l'ER II.
T.. BMkcroud of ta. ClU'1"'e.t Dri:"
ea.................................. 14
Ear~ ca......................................... 14
Pre-Braasiurc eaae............................... 19
TIM S.e. covt Braazbvc Deeuio.............. 25
p08'-Braasawrc coart ca.......................... )0
CHAP'l'ER IV.
pro-Bki.ld Arcw-e.ta............................... 37
CBJ.PTER v.
~-Bai.ld Ar.....ta.............................. 44
CHAPl'ER VI.
C...1wa10.......................................... 49
BIBLIOGRAPHI...................................................... 54
CHAPTER In.
R.leTaat Coart
CIW'TER I
u-
J. pretI. fti •• i . _t trH to c&tMr __ wi '\Jan't \laNa~ of
t.:l.aa~ iManerati.........t pl.q 1\8 Hle~.
TM
,.epa as a wMle au't .attor. For w ute tlaolIPtt.l &lid
om.eu1... dee18i.........tMr it M at tM 10eal .....l-Doanl
...t1JIc or ill . . ft\be lMeta-tu ,.eple __ iUO.ru.t.i.•••
It -w.. ...... •t \at iJlt.mati.o. are lllli:Mci \0 .t.t1.W
.peto_., 't:M people Mft .. ...... ot .'Yal-tUtc tM wrilI .t
'\Mil'
ud.
1
S• •tor S__ l ini..
prom... ".WZ'UM..
TIle ••. . , . ot _va.'t aid u.tvU law (""r ldd.••
a COftn.at .., _ ....t. ad
AMrieu tora.t ......1
."joe"
\0 tM1r cl1rooUo.) ....rli. t.M
.a\. TAM. enNpU, aad \M Jottorso.... M-
11.t '\U.t. .......aW .lM.....to will
D7
\M poeple.
d_ '\0 .lna1a tuM
~
t1.1Ilar17
..
~
'\lie
&rud
..lI8Oquonl,T. ....
tN.-
to 1 U 1u.r..t. ill ... ri&Jlt to
jv:y qa....-&Jd 1. 1M jwdiet.al. .atopard8
D7 ta. Fifill
,.tio.. It 1. ..... re.ol1l\1.0• • t
,..li.
rl..... ......
iJIporiut 1atere.t 1. tao .ato:re-.o.t ot lan-par-
paraaWed tM aM.eel
pNbc
_'YO lAd to
n ....
toM ,..11. . . . t 1. addi'\1••
t . . tae . . . t
u.b wi.. d.oo18i....
I . . . . .r ... port... tJd.. iIIporiu.\ .tv.Mtl•• , ta. pre..
__ t aft tM trMd._ '" ,nat
y.t.
,..ple t.m
ud Sixta . . . . . . ."
\M..
t. \M Co..t.1-
Jd.Pl,J' t.a,.rtu.t. aM. otWa op-
l"'re.......t ia an 1...1.,. 1. tiMt 18... ot
1daot.)aer
W
pus a •••• u" .ld..hI. law 1. . . UJd.'H4 state., tMa prencl1JIC jo1ll"M-
.. ----_ ..... _... _-_ ... -_ .....
2
1d.al ••W1"M8.
TIarM p_ral
...,ti•••r
.0U'8" .r ..\i•• 1. \lie tederal. area are ,...i.le:
law. Di••••aten . . . . ..u.U.-.J. rip",
.. aDa.hte .111.14
M ...~ id••1d.ft..." •• • t
••w ... lIT a
a .evee .t iater-.U•••r iateru.t.i.. iw.lt
__per8•• ia tM ••va••r lIia'_r 'Wrk . .t.re a ,re••• d; 'AI
.t ...., pwr.e.tal .ruB; ad.epti. . ot a qwal.1.ti.... .Jal.l.cl law. wld.ell
.t-
t.n a ••.u.t.i.M1 prJ:ri.lep w ...l i.. iu.Ut.Leati.•• • t a ..... • t
iJIt.l"";\i.•• (Ull
,..at.:q
U. iat--.ti•• i • •lt)
lrT ,.......-tiac a
.,..iti. _.t1111. ti......r apMit1.aJ.q uti... eirnu...... ;
...,'\i.•• ot .. t ...ral Ui.14 l.a at all,
cia!
,rens.
re~
.... tM
bateM .,.. \M jaIIi..-
w!ta ,.••i.la . . . .ti.. ptcIel.iae•• 2
C.:acrea.i.M1 ...... • t a;q a...l_to
.... ItT i ... a.".n.ra, u
1t1~
mpt ual
or ......
law.
qualitied
AltM1lcA a quli-
wi tlt. . . .r all ..... t.iaGJlial .1tati... lik.q
ie ...v wi:"". tJae t1lrM arue... • t
uk. Mat . . . .r
ap.alat.i.•• 18 .......
lUIlik.:q it _t iapu.1.1e;
l.ci.lati •• Au a . . . c:reater .......
.tied .Id.la law
.1Ii.u
•..,... . to
, .....r.eat. tao a1:tv.ti... ldIiell _
pia teatiMlI1' troa
j.uru.li.ta-....... Di••
u.t.q to De ••..,.recl i . a qulitied law--are taoa. ot tit. jwiiarga., partie1ll&rq crud .1V7 ia...ti,atio.. 1111'11 aot .:ull1diac
are ...t
.ial
.iT.l1 aM. eriJdJl&l .......
i . 'tis .....i . ia:
Tlaeretore, t.ae q_tiea Di•• will be addres ••d
1. Yiew .t tM iA.reui-c17 _tN .l.aa1l lIetwo. tao
w
. . . .pta ot tM pOli.'. ript
kJMnr aM tM
.rr.....
ot tH pre•• 1f'1d.••
1_,,"s tU.t rip'll, ... til. pOli. i_wrest ia law .arere. ._t ... parti~
- - -- -- - - - - - - - ~
~
~
~
~
21fT» C• ..v.....ra7 Oftr PropoIJed. 'lftnuts SJlield t Lec:iJlati•• ,"
Ctamali••' Dipst. Mq, 1973, .",. 138-9.
%At
·ularq
tM cr&1li jIzrJ' ,...... ud. j1uI1eial .at.1\W."U parut.ee4 tM
..... .., tlle Fittll UIi stxt.a .be. . . .ta to tu Co..ti. t.U •• ;
&e-
aM. ........
,...ac• • t a law cruttac wol.te te.tuoBial priviae- .... __pers ... ia
law "eul4 pre....:q
laiPl7 1UIl.ik.l.y, a.l Mea... &117 qualitiecl aki.U
j1lliieia1 iuestd.catd.e.:
sllould a sllield law quJitiN 1.
••.,.r
r.,ara te
.lai • •t., "nal0. &lid. s • .,. ot testilloRial priYilep ia rea,.•• to a
judieial 80poe_ be pas...
117
1:ll. UII1 ted states Cncress, er sJloW.ci tlIe
jwIi.ia1 qsta .oat.i.Jlu to cUteici. tile issu ••
all
ilIII1"f1d:aal eas.-b,....as.
'Nai. wi tlIl pessi_a pida... trea tlae exentift DraMA!
IV' •••lui•• t.aat a qu.l.itied sld.iJd law .1lHl4 ..
arn:"d. at .,. a
....m ....'ter
preeeS8
ft17
.opied. ia tae arr.......t ot tki.. paper. T1le
ari.n,. r.Yiea
tlae prea••t ai ~1I&ti•• Ri.ll lias t_terN
\lle ciri..,. tor ted.ral sllield lecislatt•• ,
.u,.._
preM.8;
-.,.w .......
JI1inc
part,inlar atte.tt•• te to
tao sture .t tesu.lI1al prinlep;
tao ftl'N.t .tat•
• t ....,.ra•• '. priT.lle,. ud..r • .-a, ted.eral. ud state 1Da; a _ri.t
• ..,aris.Jl .t tile proposed. ....pers •• '. prl:ri.ap vita taat atterUti .tJa.er
prete••i ... ;
&JIll a renew ot tae pro.leu 1uolftd i . wr1tiAC a qulifiM.
.ki.lei law.
'l'lMt tilircl ._pter di........ t i ••AreaolociAl ord.r t
urt ....s ia-
••
ftlYiJIC testillnial. u-uit,'
t.r __ peree.. 1. crud. .ter1 i ....sticati...
IJIIIl .tlIer trial 8i tuatiou.
TIle tourtll ellap'ter .-.arizes tM u.jor arp.-
• eats ta"or1q ...,tte. ot a qualified. sld..ld. law, aM. ta. .ti.rt.ll e_pter
• ...ariz.. arcuaeata taYGrilIe e.iltiJluati•••! jaliieial re.ol.ti.a •• a
....-b;r...u. 1tuis wi ta
,...i_18 exe.utift
Tile last ellapter ..tes
l i.....
te .. t • • •t
fIT . . . .l . .i
iJlpertaat aM
p i u .••
•• &JIll
tJa... peiats wAin
I De-
relnaat.
BMa• • tlle arc-••ts aad lit.rature ••
w.a
tepi. are vel'BiM_,
4
I JIa.... lim.tecl rq st1lli7
w iJLfo1"ll/l.ti•• prJ..tM,
ter tile Mst part, lIP t.
or lMt." a.two, 1973; Uti. te pel..... wId..k I tIIi.U: -e" ..
cuaDle
ill 1'1ew ot tlae1r relatio. te tlte ,.a11. iJlteresw
Gnrt use. are ret.rre4 \e .,. ............. ciate
,.ure.,
diet . t e1te t.Ma
'lIT .1t.ati•• tora.
ar-
wlIiu I .......
. .ted..
preper17
le~
.1Il7. as ....,
aM. I _1IlAl like te .. • • •iate.t i .
:a..aue d.i rui•• _III pora.. ia toM lepl. file.l4. ••
tM d.e,1rUUiV ot alli.U leci,lati•• is equa l1 acl or SVPUaH
1t7 tao
dinai •• - I I I pers• • ia tlae .... aMia. I JIaft...t ol.aea1tieci arpauts
.,. prete.sioft. AItd 'Mea... t1le proposals tor sla:i..l.d lec1_laU•• eurreatq
..tore Ce.,reas are so muaereu, variN, .... sus..,ti1tle t. .JIa:ace ..tore
reull1111 taa.l tora, I ...... dealt
.~
witla tae
._ral
tlarWIt
.t qualifieci
lecislati•• rat.Ur tlIaa wi til aetuaJ. ,08818111t1•••
Seater Erri.ll, CAi.i.rJIu. of t1Ie Seute Jwi141i&r7 S.... . tttee •• Coa-
, "tutioul Ripts, Us etaW tMt s1d..U 10cillatioJl 1s tao _ t titfinlt area i .
••a.t'eaer
~
write a 1t1ll. 3 AI ... re-
ot t1lia • ..,lex t8pi. t I .... tHreuc1alT "oratud. tJae S• •tor'.
- -~
vJlio _ ....ftr att.-pW te
~
- -- --- - - --- ~ ~
CHAPTER II
AltAeucJa act_lati•• ,re,..iac te.t.iJ&.Jd.a.l 1..mV ter • ..,... . .
__ pen... 1t.u .... ,re,..'" .1Il t .. t"'era.1leTe11.tendttaatq a1. .
1929, tJae 92- C.qrea. . . ta. firat • ..,. t. take tJae ..tter aer1eu17:
til. S.P"M Cnrt ... i.1•• i . ta. Braultur,-Pappu-Caliwll
,oli.
_.te
it ar....... W
eu... ....
tM
i. 197J te Jaeariap i . . .til tile H.... ....
to.. S• •te. 1
Sneral
real. . . . . . . . . .1W
..... ,..li.
UIl
t.r til. ree••t ria. 1••••,..... W,
lateNst. TlIe i ..reu" Nterti., aU"i.ac tu late 1960'.
a._
earq 1910' • • t ·uU-e....1ia. .at." •....ter-nlt... • ..tintl.a
• •_ .. l'Uial
,..1' ern,.. ,retMtera ..... inc ••ra . . .
j1Irl.. ... .nrt.
cr....
i . . .U,atiac .r prea..llUac 'Ii.laU.. .f tM law te
•.,.......,.1'8...
wU llipt UTe perti __ iat.r-.ti.••• 2
AMteraa. ' " f••••r .t law at staat. . UJd..,.nt 'b7 t
.lata• •
,..ita .......
1' 0:-
,luat.1••:
preas ••.,... . lIaT. . . . . resVa:1... larceq ...au.,
Bi._ri.~,
pri.r te tM S.pre.. C.1lrt· ••••i.1•• 1. ~ BraaslturC ...... .
\Mil' lepl. peatve .....1' ta. Fint AM. . . . . ..... all . , . . &ft1i
tre_ln_ q• •t.t••", fi• •
k.ra ... M.ft a .lear a.lIl
............., W 1.... ,)
11.,.._ •••
y.t ut111970, ... t craM. jU7 • •,... . .are 18..... at \lae 1..&1
--- -- - --- - - -- - -- - -~
l·TM C.dreftl'87 Oftr PrepMM. . . . . . . . 1. SJaielAl l Leci.la1d•• ,"
C.W-a1....:J. Di.C!!t. Ma7. 19'1J, ,. 1Jl.
~.u.,
,.
!!!.
lYl.
J"S1d..lA La" De.i.i•• Near i . C-ere•• ?" t T1ae Q!111, AprU, 19'73. ,.
38.
6
... stat. 1.....1.; ta.re ....... a ark. . i_1'II". 81_ tut ~.4
ru• ..,. _ .......vrM ........ • 1
..
allecM "ut1-JD"M8" atttt.... • t 'tile
lilt. . e4a'5 aiavatie., i. wki.1I tll. .laarp .t .i.... 1'II,.rtiq ....1iIrea a
real .ttert t. .lump tlae ,ev.rJI8e.t-prns Nlatie..ld.p hwl....taJ..q, UIIi
w ....rt
' .....rae.tal au1aetit,- t. q1li.t
ta. ark. . i_1'IIu.
IIq lie
.riti.s.'
reaM.
t.r
tM CalAiwll pertt•• • t tJI.. Sw.preae Cev1i'.
1972 .alIi... nIliac. w1li.11 .tatu tU.t reperters
t.aue
o.tur
aft
net ....U tlltl.~
trea craM jU17 illquir1ea. Ma.Jv __pera... • ..- t.ar t.aat fislliac
expetiti.... .,. "lasT lawetA..ra .... i ..,t j_p..... pr•••utera'! will
ru1llt. 6
TM Prl.aar7 ........rtai.aq _jer, . . . .ra et tM presa i . taat witll-
e.t . _ ald.eli Pl'"isi...... tat ••ueq••at ..aurUM et .nti..Jltialit7 •
.1 iat.:zw.Ue. will
••1Il'M8
......rap wId..k
nUT ... , n tau 1iJd.tiJtC tlle .reaAltJa et . . .
.u 1M pren. . &DIll taus ta.
,1:I..li.'. iJlteru.t.t...
A ••r-
el.la.l7 .. tAis . . . .n is ta. t ..lime taat repertera tauel••• IIIl1' . .1....
leiS
"-P1l' iat.e taeir iJIVHt4.cat.i.:t'. repertillC if a • . . , . . . (ua ,.ssi-
.le . . . ..,t .1tatte.) 1. . . .t.re 1:&• •
FeUral rules
.t
Mi..... reqaire
wit......
te _ _I' all q_s1oi.u
aakei .t til. w1dle testit.Yiac. 1d.tIl '\M . .rtain well....ti. . . . . .pt.i.e..
k.... as priYileps.
TMs. exeepti.e.. 1aa.,. Me. . . . . te •••vap tlae ae-
eial relatie.1aips ia ldd.u tMir parli •• staat. wit. ta. re.epi.1:ie.
tluLt
all
- --
1ajv;y te tJt.ese relati• •1aips .au. . .7 tere_ ti ••l.ave et .eD-
~ ~ ~
~
- - -- - - - - ~
~
~
4TM C.u.i1 .t State Geftr.e.ta I SlIji.eU La!!; 4 "uri. •• ~
Pnttttie• • t 1m S!V!H. ," til O.11M••' tt Te.jib.
LuiJlCi;e., K...t.q, H.......r. 1973. 3.
.t tit
PD."
5.na-u
P_ra t
pp. 281-2.
"ra. Ripta
6rr...t 4 • .bbl.r,
MaT. 1973.
p. 9.
.t R.perters,"
c• •PpMl..
Mq
2.5, 1973.
"H.les iD t.lae 'I. . . . . '. S1aieli,n De PrlmssiD.
7
tiHlltiLliJlteraaU• • •..:La .. a creatAr less tuft tJlat i1W\1!'1"M t.. jut.i••
.,. crutiltC a pri'f'il.ece.
UDiler tlIe FeUral R1Iles .t CriJlinal PrHH\U"e,
tM pri..:i.leps .1 wit.ss.s are cnel"lMMi .,. . - . . law as illterp:retANl
tU ••urts;
1lDIIer t1le Fetleral R1Jles .t Cirtl Pree_ve t prlTileC" are
.t t:lae state in wlaie. a ••vt is leeatN, . . . .tate
, .....raei .,. tae l.avs
ald.eU laws are ....rft4i.
tae feHral .eurte .ealAi
A
.7
.su.-aal
H. ..,..r, in ..... a••e ..e .t s1a1el.d. l.cislati••
.1IatIce ........ st4.pulaU••• 7
pr:l.rllece t.r anspers... is ..t rH.pizK at tile
feUral le..1 UDlier ei tMr ...... er 8'tat.ter.r law.
I . .pera.. are t:laere-
tere suj..t .... a paJtalt;r t.r rehsinc te auwer a S\WpMD&t test1t.rt .r
tla. pe1&1.t7.q •••ist
AllSWr a:q q1le8t1... ;
.at ter .enteapt .t
I. 1970, a set
.t a
tiR....../er iapris.n-
.eurt.
.t
pitl.l.iaes are is." .,. tM URitM. states At.terae;r
Ge_ral J.lm M1 _lMt11 replatinc tile is8. . . . et 81l.,..nas t. tM news
aedia.
'rAese C'liHli... pre••r1..... prier _pt4.aUeJ1S wit. t:lae pre8s
n.a..er
a • ..,.._
1188 ••ateaplatM t
.peeitiM t.lle preeM.ures te .. tel-
1........ sultpoeRU wre utwal.q iss... , aM. eal.latl ter "all reue"l.e
atteapts ••• _ e.taia iJIt.ru.tie. tna " __preas s.v.es _tere tltere is
t..
U1' .e.i_ratien et sUpMnaiJII tAe pre... ,,8 ' ..eNiJII te Repr C.
craate.,
Assistant AtterM7 Geaeral 1D
.lIarce
el
Otti.. et lA,al
Ceusel, a su,... u.1Wl net .. requesW ulus t.ae iateru.tie. is
••• esseRtial te a s • •esstal iDY.sticatie. ot a serteus
.riM,
tae interu.ti•• is Ret aftila'ale !rea • __press seure.sA and. tile
is l.iJIi.W aDIi reas••lIla in tiM ani s ••,. ••• '7
so:,...
- - - - - - - ---- - - - - - ~ ~
~
C.-
7S.·...._ ttee •• AUiDistrat.i:,. Pruti.. anci PrMMve te tlle
Jdt.tM _ tM J1IIiic.&rT et tlle United states Seaate, TlIe N!Y'!!!,ts Pri.yil!p,
Waallinct4tn, D.C., 1966, 2-5.
s..'l'lIe
Q_stien et FN.eral N.....n·s Shi.U LecislaUen," The Cgms-
aie·' Din.t, Mq. 197). p. 111.
9Su:r.ri. J. Uncar, "TIle Battle f.r Pres. FreM._.n
Jaau&r7. 197). p. lt4.
'l)e
Prure,sift.
(1
W
l'owever I Crat'lton notes t' :at in fi vc of tl:drteen easel! ci tt."j in diseussio."1S
of the l,ndeJioos r success. t.he
Attc.rna~'
Gecuri ty Division or the Justice
Civil r:_ie:hts Division h.ai;l not even re£en-ed the .tter to
Dep:!l.l"'br.(~ntfs
the
:r nternaJ.
(;e:leral l:'leforo
j_ss';Ja~,!oo
()!"
vis:l.on requiriZ1f': the Attorne:y CeneraJ.'s
the suhpoenas (contrary to a proe1l'larar~);
"irrliv:idua,l fl;'Yle:ral district judtes are not. 1n a
JldM
he also aids that
~
posi ti.on to c.:eter-
disclosure in a partlcular instartee involvos a
uhotJl'~r
natioml :1..:rt..;reot t (also
~"U"escl·:r!ed
,.,ompelli~l(
for l.sStaaOO$ of a su['p'lena). ,,10
F'edaral su1.::poenas of' "'lfnmpersons, however. are o,t'ten seen as a
lAt~ 0. r ~t diX!liniebint) prol:.rloll. l l ;; tate and l.ooal author! ties are
As ot
Dltceml~.
1911
twen~,,-five
states lulrl MorttNl
S<mlG
rom of
shield l.aw. 12 '!1dfj n:1)~oerrt.s a..., increase in reoo~ tion of I1ffl4'8per1
son'. :pr1vilere of six r ....ttOi1 since ~~h, 1973. ) 'r'he a\1S ditre,- in
prot~ct ~
details, thou,-h most state trtatuV;r: allw a. nowperson W
source or intol'l8.t.ion 1n the oourts. 14 In states lackii'\! a sM.eld
or
m v1).E'f'fJ;
at."
1n ...t N!JIOI ted . . . . . a newsperson has aeen unsuooessf'ul
in secur111l" proteet1cm for his source arKl/or infomation in the ahsance
~
-.
~
- - - - - - -- - . - - - ~
~
lCs.nrord .J. tTrl'!lU". "The 'attlc for Presr;
Ja..,ual"j'. 1.9'73. p. 45.
11.11 ::-iE:;ht Over ;'reOO.oru anl 1'rl vilet;e t II
12f1Sh1eld laws Passed ~JY G :;t&tas 1n
IYeo_ter
2'~.
19'1:3. ,. 16.
l),tSh:leld ,ill ~ir:nM Into
'laroll 31. p. 6(,.
U gMt,
raw
"')"e4dOOl,tJ
lB..
'13. n
D~ ,ro~.ressiye.
'·arch 5. 1973. p. (5.
f4itor
in ·~ortb Dakota,"
w
Puelh".r.
1~st.!er
Ami fWr=
14.sUL~QI'Iw.ttee Oil AdIIin:i.stntive Praetioe am. Prooedure to tho Coadttee on the J\KU.o1ary of tho United !1 tates Senate. :'ho ;" ~"!MLn 's PriVileq.
Vashi~ton,.
li.C.. 19(,6, 1.
9
.1 a stat1lte (Met. .t tus. triM te assert a .-en law pri.nIece .r
sbi.JA 1aterpret.at4. . .1 tM Firat lJMhw1Mat).
A tecleral
shi.u
15
law is nn H1nc s"Cllt, tan. _t _rell' te .eYer
a JdniJIaJ. nmUer . f teUral
a»ues;
i t is alB• •.upt te prewnt ldIat
S.ater s.ue1 ErYin lIu tel"Mll tu ""DtuiDc UIIi • .ruet.1nc1l
pretati.ns IiftJl
.,.
laek tMre.t) ani
~r­
state .evts ,16 ~ pre-eapttnc state lawa (.r the
a:u..tna a pret.ssien wAie. etten wrka .n a
na.ti.Dal
1.ve1 te wrk \DIller atienal recuJ,ati._.
Tllere is tisacreeaent
wti1.~,
.Il
-''tller nell lecislati..n ••ulAl, . . .t.i.-
pre....,t state lec:1alati.n. Altulllh tat Depa.J."Went .t JWI-
ti.. aai tae Suprae
c.vt
appear te think: tltat 8 . . . a prJ.vilep--vAile
eenstituti.~ lecislatule .,. C'DC"Ss-..1l1Ii _t pre-eapt state
la8 ,
17
.tJa.rs Mline tlIat ...... pre-apti.n weulAl . . J.ecal 1iIl1Ur tAe
interstate .........lau. (as a crut .t power ciTen te the tM.ral
cnerr-nt t. replate &DIi. prcateet interstate
4lue
,""SS
.-.m....U • • ).
,laue .1 tlIe FeurteeDta .......nt. 18 A less
.r tlIe
l1keq crellDll
fer pre-eapUen a:i.Pt .. tM First AMni_at. 19
TlIe
Aaerieaa ... EJacll.sh EM,wU,lti a .t
t.u..:
- ... ------.- ..
~--
Law _tiMa privilep
as
.. -.-----
15J.... A. Gust .... Alan L. stuzl.er. ftTlae Censt4:t..t1.1Ial Arc-nt
N.rt1ptuttrn Upiftra1tx LP Ruin
f.r N. . . .n C. . .I ' i DC TMir S.ve.s,"
(Marek-April, 1969), 20-1.
16"SId..lJi Law DMiai.11 lear in CGCN8B?·, The 9Pll, April. 1973. p. 31.
17Fre4 P. Gralaaa and. Jack C. Lai.u, lin. FtNleral ShielJi Law We H.... ,"
C.l..... J'W!'up BID... (MaNa-April. 1973), 576.
18.nae c.w.il .1 st.te G.....~.te, Sii,lI Lp!: A R!Itrt On
Freej- .~'. Pr!W14.p .: New SftN!2t: p i tu OltU.Ot;i.M tt
Test4.ty, Leifi1C'iiil; KerrtllOq, N• .,....r, 1973:
5.
19nstantcaa Faftl"S Altselu'te Prl:ri.le" fer Jeumaliats ,"
26 t 1973. p. 57.
FeDra&r;T
BreaU-tiM.
10
TM . . . .ptie. et priTi1ep in ta. law••• ilrt __t an inrliviciual Jtq
wi th ~ tl' .~t an ...t wldoh is a I.cal wronc. amL, ltut fer
his privilep, wulAl arterd a eNd _use ef ution acainst lIia;
all taat is required. in order to raise t..1M privilece and. entitle
lI:ia to preteetien, Mine that he shall aot he.aestl1' ift the us.harp
_t scae dut7 whieh the law re••¢zes. am shall Mt lte p~~
.,. at. desire to inj'Ul'e the person whe is att..teci -7 his aet.
The aphasis on a lecal.l1'-reoocnizeci dutT is alse present in a repert is-
sue« lt7 the Senate Sult••Di.ttee on AdJdn1straUve Prutioes in 1966:
TM reason for tho exist.ee ot tMse exoeptiens i . that ...ieV
ever the centuries has testered the social relatienships in which
these people stani •••lt has ...... reClopized at law that the injury .0118 to thea which wuld. result !rea enforced cUs.l.sure ot
oonf'icilential interu:tien _UlAl -.e tar creater than the less to
justice oceasionH. lay craatinc the privilece.21
Thus. a relationship is proteotecl -7 privilel8 net enl1' tor its own
sake. aut for the service these relationsbips pertera tor see1ety.
vilepd. relationships
prin.i~
patient, and. priest-parishioner:
Pri-
inelttde those of l.a.wyer-olient, cieeternone of these is aNelute.
Dean John HeDl7 Wiplore, a jurist and. protessor of law recocnized. as
an authority on ovi"e..o, _tiMs the lep.]. privilege thus:
(1) Where lap.]. uvice of alJ1' kiDi is soucht. (2) tr_ a protessional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) tb.e o_lIDieation relatinc te that purpo.e. (4) . . . in .onti_nee (5) .,. the
olient, (6) are at his instanoe "l'IIIU8nt~ PNtecW (7) !rea
jisclesure 8y hillself~r 1ty the lecal adviser. (8) eDept the
pretectien 1M waived..
The aeciieaJ. priTilep is net reoecniz- in eo.en law, _ut it is
nn reeopized in prutiee 1ty states with the exeeptien of oases a.ealiltC
- - - -- - - - - - - - ~
~
~ ~
- --
2~ld. L. Nelson, eci.. FreWIl
Warren Court (New York:
21Peter G. Miller,
or :the Press !r!a HaJj lten to the
The Bo••s-Merrill CoapaI)1', 1ne. t 1967), p. 126.
IINew8Jlan l
The Quin, Jul,y, 1971, ,. 14.
s Privilep:
An Issue
er
Press
Free4_,"
22su1toe.m:ittee on AcIIIinistraUve Practice and Preeeciure to the C.-ittee on the JUliieiar;y or the Un1 ted states Senate I The ''!'IMP I s PriyileP.
Wasbincton. D.C. I 1966, p. 10.
11
with wrkaen's oeapensation anIi sa.nitar,- l-ci.lati.n.
Whil••lerioal ,ri-
vile .. (alae -.mree'cniZH umor __.n law) is saneU.De4i .1' law in at
l.ast twat,..-ene states, the iasue has n.t Men watN. 23
III ercler te p.qe tM lecality ot a Mvapers.n's testiaenial privi-
lece. i t i. illStruetive te ...,are tlae relati.nsJaip ot reperter-s.uree to
MtJa Dean Wi,..re'.
lo~
.ther .u•• pri:ri.leps.
n.etM req1lireaents t.r privilep ani to the
Wiper. eite. teur tund.aaental aonlliti.ns ne...-
8&l7 te justiti.ati•• • t a privil.,e:
(1) the •••Ul1i.ati.n IlUt 'rici-
Rate in a ••nti.onee that it will net .. diHles.. ;
.l_nt JlU8t .. e ••onttal to n!Ull
relati.R8l1ip;
ana
(3) tA. x-.laU.naAip Jlust . . .ne wMea, in sMi.t,..'s
relati.nship tr_ dis.l••ure ot tile
"n.n. t
ntial
satistutor)" uintelUUMle" .t tao
.pini.n, .qllt te H I'SMul.u.sl7" t.sterM;
aD7
..rtfi•.
(2) t..
,aiD" .,.
.... (4) any inj'ur7 to tao
.~.ati.n
aut .. creater tu.a.
the judie1alpprMo•••
The arpaent acainst plaeiDC the reperter-s.uree relati ••Ai.p lIitAin
Wiper.' s . .tim. ti.D . ite8 several peints:
(1) while . .t.ll parti.s to a
relati••hip are ne1"Jl&lq kHwn aJIIi the • ...uni.at.1on prin:te. in this
.... the iel.nt! ty .t .ne part,.. i . Mant to H preteetea as ta.
_ti •• its.lf is i.toni.. t.r pu.l1••ti.n;
tiali't7 i. net ••s.ntial;
( 3)
(2)
the .leaent
.-.ni.-
.t ••n.tid..n-
sMi.t,. t S .pini.n is diffi.ult to ...tel"lli.De.
&nil seei.t,.' 8 interest in testorine tll. relati.nslilip t.r its ewn sake is
. . .tful;
an4l (4) the ._uni.ati.n is a~ dis.lea...
T.. point is
also .... '\hat tM prJ.. vilep in tais .... Hl.nes to the new,.ra... al.ne.
while in ether ....s the .li.nt. pati.nt. er parishi.ner al.ne ean. waive it.24
- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - ~
~ ~
23Th. In'ter:u.ti.aal Preas InsUt.te, PrIle.,i'Ml St.rev api " '
The Internati.nal Press Institute, 1962). p. 173.
JturMl1,t (Zuri.h:
~ • .-.tto••n JAlMn18trati ve Practi. . . . Pr....ur. te tae c...t ttee .R tmt Juiiear.r .t the UnitM states S.nate, TA. Ntypep" Priyil.ece.
WuJU..ncteJl, D.C., 1966, 15.
12
Yet it an .. arpM. tlaat ".a'WI. a tree pr... i8 se iIl,.rtant to
tAe .....rati. tel'll et ,e.,.erJIMnt. tlais privil.e,e ditters tra ether '"-
.....ta. Dr. FrMri.k S. Si."rt. who ia traineci in law ani the auther
.t "eks .n
j.urnaJ.i_'.
18,al as,..ts . . .l i....a that newspersens' pri-
nl.ep ..... • ... wi tlUn Wipere'. sti'ulat1e...
,.tnun
(1) interaaU.n is
.-.m..atH with
He.itea the t.llewinc:
tM unIleratalllli1nc that the
aeare.·. i ...nti t7 will net . . tii..lesell (a • .uNe aust trust the reperter
..tere he will 4ti.s.l... inter.atien);
(2) tlae relatiensld., .armet exiat
wi thellt th8 ••ati.eDtial ele.at (a .eure. 11111 . .t ••aria. in a reperter
...... Us vi.latM the preneu17 netee "'rataDlllinc);
(3) the c..unitT
hu a amnc interest in te.terin, the relatinahi, ..cause et its neM.
ter all ava1.la.ltle int.ru.ti.n en whic. te .... it••••isiena;
aDi (4)
the dis.ai_tien .t news a_tiaes lMutwichs aeei_v's interest in 11ti-
,ati.n (th. ,eim . .inc taat the JUltli. lwa creater interest in pininc
interu.Uen. net _re11" the
DaM
at an inti.viiual. t.r .tar iapertant
..Uviti•• aueh as 18lislati.,......isi.n-.a1d.nc. aai
,uli••••i.i.n-weki_
in pneral ele.tt.Il8). Si.Nrt ala. notes that in ..at eases a j.l1rD&list
c.ulJi aDIi. perilape shhlAl .ati.n his seuree wi th.ut hara to &DiPn.. ltut
the ,riYile,. sh.ulAl De cranteti in th.s. eases ill'f'.lvinc hara to t.a
aeur••• 25
Ma.nT ,reDleu are inv.1ve1l in
ti.D.
1lra.tt1n, &nJ' qualitiell sM.lII l.ecisla-
Chief --DC thea are wDL.h newapers... sMula . . . .veNti. iMl\lll1nc
••nsi.erati.ns .t recuJ.ariV .t a,18,..nt, lecitillaey .t the -.iia. ani
....ther an ••• upati.JIAl. .r p.craphi.• •bance atleeta the pretMti.n.
25th. Interaati.nal Press Insti tate. Prtt••I i. .l SHreff agl tlw
J.l!TP'118t (Zuri.h: The Internatienal Pre.. Iastit.te, 1962) " . 1'75-'7;
Jere. . A.. Barren ani Deaalti M. G1ll.aer. MM. CM!!J!i.ati.n Law; eMU p i
C_nt (St. Paul: We.t PualisAinc C..,...,., 1969). ,. 238.
13
.A.netllar t . . .r is wllether the pretMUen inelu1les iatenu.tien" nll as
the seuree t ani it ae what
pu_1i.all.M.?).
Preaeri~nc uaert.ien ... waiver et tAe pr.hileCe llicht alae
etter tittieultiee:
a 1 a1.e"?
117
t,.,. et infer_:t.ien (Wlpultlia." as _11 as
lU1Iier wlaat .aireuut.anMa ee.w. tM priYileCa . .
wh_ (the newspersen, the sel1lrM, el' Mta?)?
respensiltility lie ter pre'f'inc that tha pri9filece
:au
witla wh_ ....
Men preperl;r in-
vet..? when .... tM pdTila,. . . waiTN., ani .,. vb_? !DIll peraaPl',
.ensi•• rine the creater ,re_lea et ••ltpMna a_._ at. the atate UII1. lHal
1e"18 et pvel"llMnt, &Di. the la.ek et eensiateD87 "'DC the etaw. in
.ShU .averace, ahwla t"'ral leaielatien pre....,t tbat et the statea?
CHAPTER III
EarlY Cyes
Cues invelvinc te.tiaenial priYilep ter newaperae. an .Wtl at
leut as tar . .It as the lat. 1800's • .A. He. Yerk
nns~r
Mitv, in
Pe.,l. ex r.. PM1,. v. Franeaer (1874) t re:t'u8eli te «iselese the writer
e! a liMleus .te17 en the creunU that it wulAl vielate etl1.. replathe .eurt ru.lei that prJ.v:U.ep .eulJl ..t N M.s. . en a pe1107
t.tens;
suj..t t.e ehaap
~
Miters er
Mmer8
at will.
In PltMlpr v. state (1886),
Pleipr rehs.. Nth te testi.:l7 ani te reveal the writer et an arti.le
aitN in a .... et erJ.llinal l i..l;
the a.ereia _1lr't.i;sai. that. while be
.eulAi have r.tu.. te a:uwer a questien, . . . .ulAl . t refuse te testi.ty.
Ia tAe Caliterma .ase et P.eple v. Durant (1897), a .e!enlla.nt ..e.N
et IDIrier elai... that his stateaent r.CaNiDC the l ..atien &nil aarUr e!
the vi.tiJI--.... te a
~perter--was
ptivia,..;
tM ..urt ruletl that tM
reu.rk was . t ene havine leeal .enti.enee. .A.Di in Ex parte La1l1"'8" et
ale (1897), a Calitemia Miter arMI. r.perter rehsM te reveal seure.a et
inte:nu.t.ien te a State .enate irrveetiptinc .barp. et ltriM17 e! senate
.....rs;
the.eurt upheU the unspersell8 1 .enteapt ei t&tiens, statinc
tbat vi tnu... were . t jWltiti.. in au.h a r.tusal UJ1IIIer the C'" et
Civil PreeNure.
1
- - - - - - -- - --- --- - ~
~
~
lsu....tttee en ADiniatrative Pruti....... Preee.ure te the C...tttee en the J1Iiiei.&ry el the Unitaei states Senate t Tat Hm_ls Prj.vile,e,
Waahinct.n, D.C., 1966, 20-1.
~-----------------------------
1.5
Prlvilap c..e. were intel'llittentl¥ seattere4 threucheut tl:t.e ea:rq
1900 IS.
An u.eptUle privilep was .....ri.... in the WashincteD .as• • t
W• ..nwus. v. Pale. (1906):
A privia," ._uni.ati.n is ene wB1eh tM pualiaher has a le,a!
ri,ht te .ak. t whatever lIq . . i te eharuter .r i te ett..t upen
.ther peraellS. Thus the all.eptie. in pleaAiincs in eiv:U oas.s
er in an in1iietaent in a erim nal ...e; statea.nta in pu1tll..
jeurnals .eeneemi~ III&tters ef pn.lie interest, .... in ,e"
lai't.h. and. wi theut actual
tr-. persenal knewlMce er en
a.pparentlT relia1l18 infenaatien; .tre. .enti••ntial ciisclesures t
wi theut actual uliee, at Il8.tters whieh the pulisher has reaaenule ueunt t.r "li.vinc tAt lie true, ani which it is his duty
to iDlpart to the re ..... rs ter the prete.tien et their l iv.s er
prepert7--tall within the class at privile,. . e. .unieatiens. 2
mali...
Privilece was net se leniently' Malt with, tunMver, in the cas. In re
Grunew (1913), in wbieh a New J.rsey reperter--WI"ttinc ....ut craft in a
vilJ..ace Hard. et trustees--testitied. .ut re.f'u8e« te reveal h:is sevee,
claiJlinc a pritil.p;
the oeurt ru1M that h. plead.e4 a privia,e
"vb1eh finlis ne .euntenanee in the law, II ani Mtle4. that such a privil.ece
weulJi allAw a transcresser et the law to ,e unpunisb.eci.. J
The Hawaii cas. In re Wqne (1914) Uied. a new arcuaent a.cainst a
newspersen's privilece. When a ,raDIi jurr finliiac was .... pulio lIetere the tiae it was te lie anneuneed., the leak was reperteci te a c.urt
that everruleti the newspaper oi t;y Mi tor's eententien that pri vilece
au..wea him to retu.e. te IIlis.le.e
aua
the seuroe et the leak.
The
eeurt
that the eanen et jeurnalistic ethics teraillGliDl dis.leaure is
SDjeot to ,ulifieatien, and "IlUSt ;yielAi. when in .entliet with the
intereat .f justiee. n4
-- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- ~
2.rhe
~
Internatienal Press Institute, Prtte"i'Ml Setl'H7 IDi the
The Internatienal Press Institute, 1962), p. 121.
J'PM'Jist (Zurich:
I
3sultceaitwe en Afiministrative Practioe ani PrecNure to the Cean.i ttee en the Judiciary et the Uniteti state. SenatA, Tb! NmMn's Priyilec.,
Washincten, D.C. t 1966, 20.
4
I'Dia. 22.
16
The ~ ease te reach the Ulli tM. states Supre. C.urt in wbieh a
reperter elai .... the Fifth AIlendMnt (preventine self-ineriBrinati.n)
was that .f Bl1r«ick v. United. states (1915).
Tbe Miter .f the New I,rk
Triltune • appearinc bef.re a cranri jury imesti,atine all.,.. eot..'
t'rauds, refUsed. te iiscles. the s.urea .f his artieles .n the aDject,
cl.ai.llinc the Fifth Aaana.nt.
presiential )NU"d..n t.r
~
He was bela in e.nteapt when be retused. a
.ft.nse he micht have .!lIIIdttM. in a•• urine
.r pultlishinc the uti.les. ltut the Supreae Ceurt revers.. the 1ewer .ourt
ani ruled. that the oontempt charce sh.ulJl . . GiSl1iase. . . . . . . • De oann.t
.. t.NeG. te ucept a parden. 5
.In Jesl3n v. Pe.p1e (1919), a C.1.r.. Miter as helAl in e.ntem.pt
.f e.urt f.r ref'usinc t. sq whether he hU. written an artic1. wbich at-
taek" the intecrity .t certain cra.r.Mi jurers investicatinc a aunicipal
depart.-nt.
The ••urt rul..e4l that a witness ••u1ti n.t reruse te testify
. .eause such testiaeny
~
affect 1ecislati.n in w}:d.h he is interestefi,
.r Hcause h. re.ls the ...tter te .. private ltusiness.
In the Texa. cas.
Ex parte Tq1.r (1920), Tq1.r was held in c.nteapt r.r retusin& t. ap-
pear in an Illineis c.urt f.r a suit, ani f.r refusinc then te test.i.f7
Hf.re a Texas n.t.8.r7 pulic as arranpd. .,. the Illineis e.urt.
The
Texas c.urt said that it was wi thin its juriH1eti.n te h.ner the Illl.n!is
••urt request. and. that Tq1.r bad a tiuty t. testify unl.ess the c.urt
t.und privUece. 6
The case
.t P..ple
ex re. M..neT v. Sheriff .f New Y.rk C!Wlty (1936)
involved. a reperter who wrete a awry staUnc that a ,.11.., l'uke;,t. . . e.n~
-- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ~ ~
-----------------------------.------------------
17
timdnc "'spite a crani jU17 investicatieil;
when cal.l.H upen te testify,
he ref'ueeci t. reveal the names a.nri UAresses ot these .ntionea in his
article .ani moCed. an extensien ot
]t%'inlece
te newpersens in licht et
J.eca1 ani soeial relatien cievelo}lllllents. The New York oourt ru.le4l that,
McaUM liuch a privilep was net recocn:izM. .,. ._en law or previeus
.Alaerican court cleeisiens, only the lecislatm-e--net the oeurts--eouJ.a
exteni the privilece •7
After enaetMnt et a newspersen's privil.ece statute, a New Jersey
paper attacke4. a oit1' pverning lte81' .ter a.l.lewinc existence o.t .rothels.
The
question in State v. DeMvan (1943) was net the identity ef the souree
er the writer(s) , but whether a shield statute
call.y carried an article te a newspaper.
sheuld ite strictl¥ construed,
a.n;i
C8Vere4i
a Jt8rsen whe physi-
The court ru.l.M that the statute
that in .ouattul oases the c. . .n law
pr1nciples sheulcl net .. chanced 8.I\Y' .ore than specitiuJ.l;r indieatetl •
the intent or
sbie1ti.
~
law;
t.berefere, the oarrier was net aeveretl a1' the
The court t hewever t II8IIle ene even .ore iIlpertant retleotien en
the su.ltjee"
or
newsperson1s privil.ep:
Such a privilep ••• leaves the witness tree te tell or net to tell
as he l'Itq choose. Thus, it d.epenlis , net upen the issue, ex- upen
the :ruJ.es ef eviaenee, or ~n the jwipent ef the .eurt er ether
iltpartial ar~ ter. aut upen the uneontrelle4l utermination et the
wit.rlltss whether he will hel, er biDlier an inquil"1; ani that oonciiti.n is traUlht with such serious consequences that it eucht
net 1.. applit unless the tuts are clearl1' within the purview ef
the statute.
In the Flori_ ease Clein v. State (1950), Clein pu»lisheci atories
recartinc occurances ot a crao:l jUJ7 rea ciealinc with MiUli C8.iUlinc.
He was s,..one. to testify ..tere the crani jur,y ani ci tea ter oontempt
when he refused
to reveal bis source. The Fleri'" SlipreM Ceurt belci
- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - ~
7nnd, 23.
8zaiA, 27.
~
~
18
that jau:rnalists d.a net have a testimenial privilep, ltut have the same
duty to t.estify as ather oitizens.
The a.urt reitereated the itiea that
the Canen at Jeurnalistic Ethics must yield in the interest at justice t
ant that private interest must yield in that at the puDlic. 9
In re Heward (1955) d.ealt-'1Iith a balMas cerpus preeee8.:inc in Calitamia, in which a petitianer seucht reliet !rem a .anteapt amr.
The
district ceurt at appeals held that tha.e parts at the petitiener's stary
relatinc te a unien leader's speech in quetat1en arks 814 nat ii.olase
the sauroe ani thus the re,erter bad waived. his prin1ece UMer a state
shield statute.
The ciisirriot oaurt reversed the
rulinc. 10
The case at Brepn v. Passaic DaiJ;y News (1956) threws .out an
shield. sta.tutes.
Delellliant Allen SlIith at New Jenel'ts Passaic DailT
News wrete an article the insinuatian at which was that Brecan. a ,eli tioal
cand.iu:te t bH ,atten inte a peli tical arcu.nt whioh 1_ ta a fistficht
with the oitl' ciaC warden (wh. retusfMi te either lI&lce up ar keep quiet).
The trial ceurt taund this swry te 1te talse a.nIi detamatery.
that the swry bad Men pUBlished in ,a.. faith:
Sai th pleMi
that it was true;
that it was fair .a_nt .....ause at Bra,an t s oarriitiaoy.
ani
Smi th retusMi
te
reveal hi,s saurea, sqinc he had. re.eive. tha intanu.tian avar the phone
frell n a reliule .auroa" ani that the intaJ'llatian was later veritie..
The
oaurt ruJ.ea. that the shielJi statute al New Jersey was net I18.D1ia.tery and.
that a newspersan .aula reveal a saurea;
that a state shield. law sheulG.
nat .. interprete4 as pretectinc a seuree .t talse
and. that SlIith t
1t7 ciisc1asinc his infar..:U,an
- - - - - -- - -- ---- -~
~
~
~
am
1n~eleus
in.t8l'll&tian;
a.oi 1.7 e1aiJrin,; a "relia1.le
19
souree"--the relialtility or wbieh the :reperter alone .0ulAl juqe--bai
waiv_ his privilece.
l1
Ace.reline to Justice Heber in a conourrinc opinion:
The d.efenliant .a.nnet invoke the statuW17 pri vileee to. renller .onclusive bis Mm evaluation of the .haraeter anIl quality of the
source. This is ltasio to aue prHess. Othenr.ise. oross-exami.nation relevant to a orucial issue wouJJi. lie cleni... The statute
was n.t ieBien" to rea.oh this situation. 12
Pre-Br!.IlIDurc; Case.
Durinc the peri.. !rOIl 1958-1968. the Supreme Courts of ColorUo,
Hawaii. Pennsylvania ani Orepn. ani the Court ot Appeals tor the SeeoDii
Cireui t
w1'8
8Mnc
these
uDJinc
privilep cl.a.:i.ms UllUr the auspices or
the First Aaendment. 13 All cases iM1cate that the .ourts reoocnizetl
two opposinc interests:
the no.. tor ooapulsory testimOIV" to raeili-
tate an etteetive jUliieial system, ani the need. for a tree fl_ or news. 14
One ease was that ot Garland. v. Torre (1958). triM in New York.
Sinpr JUIiy Garlanli suN. the Columltia BroUeastinc C..,an;r. elaiJainc that
CBS haAi oreuhM a ••ntrut
am.
baa lWie false ani d.efamatory stateaents
aMut her whieh were pultlishee. in the New York Hep'. TriDune column of
Mario Torre.
Torre's colUlllIl attr1Dute4il to a CBS "network executive" se-
vera! statements ia-cine te Garland's career. When CBS cieni" Garlan:i's
claim, P"-tr1.al «iscevery proceNincs were lteCUll ••urine which Torre was
asked. te t.estify.
were the "exact
Torre testifiea. that the
_riB"
~
Urn.,
l i..lous cOllJllents
uset over the phone .,. her CBS intol"JD8.nt. ltut she
- - - - - - - --- - - - -~
al1e,.~
~
~
-
26-8.
12rltia, 43.
l3Jues A. G_t ani Alan L. Stamler, "The Constitutional Arcument
tor Newame.n Coneealine Their Sources." Northwestern Um.versitx Law Review
( March-April. 1969). 19.
l4:rDid. 24.
20
ref'us'" te reveal her swrce.
PHceedincs were then ini tiatecl in a district
.ourt, where Torre acain refuse« te «isolose her aourn ani was beli in
criminal oentempt 8lJIi jaileci.
Torre then appealK te the United States
Court of Appeals.1S
Torre presented. three major arCUIIlents:
1) that te 0-.,.1 Uisclesure
of a confitiential source veulAl encreaeh upen the First AaeDillent .y
iM,.-
sine an l1impertant practical restraint en the flow of news _to the pu»liC;1I
2)
that socieVls interest in a free ani unrestricteci... flow or news iIlpelle4.
the court. te pend.t at least a qualitieel pnteotion for souroes,
and. 3)
that Rule 30 of the FMeral Rules of Civil PrecM.ure indi:cat.ed that no
4iscles~ attempt sheuld
In a unaniJuus
M mad.e. 16
rulinc.
the appeals .ourt answered Torre t s arpments
To her tirst propesition, the ..urt repliM. tha" 1'reeMm or
as toUws.
the press had
histori~
aeant treea. treat previous restraints on
pu»-
lioation ani .freeci_ from censorship, .ut that such freedom--iapertant
as it Idcht
.eep~
"--was not alasolute.
The duty of a witness te testity was as
rMte« in Uni te<i. States law as the cencept of tre__ ef the press:
"What 1lUSt. H d.etel"Jlinei is whether the interest to lie served. .y c"pellinc
the testimony of the witness in the present case justifies some i.Jlpairment
of this First Amel'lliD8nt tree.... 11
The essential! ty of c_palling testimelV"
te the "rallric of our SOCiety" was aeeme4i "hyonll controversy," even if
s'UCh testiMlV' iJIlpince on the First A.rn.emment or cause lI8.terial sacrifice,
invasion Gf privacy, or the fiisappearaace ot the richt to rell&in silent.
AceoNine
.~
Chief Justice Ruches, "the jt8rsonal sacrifice .-involved. is a
l.5Jerome A. Barren ani DonaJ.a M. Gil.lmor, Mass C...m.cation Law;
Cases ani Corwnt (st. Paul: West PuAlishinc C~t 1969), pp. 241-2.
l6rid4l, p. 242.
---------------------
21
part ot the necessary centri_ution et the indivitlua1 to the welfare ot
the pu_lic. n17 The First .Amendment, then, "must cive plaee te a para..unt ptali. interest in the tair Uainistr&tion or justice t n espeeia.l.ly
when the iisc1esure was net one inteni." to torce a IIwholesale disclosure" of a newspaper' s sources ner one in wbich the source' s ifienti ty
was of uulDtful relevanee. but instead "went te the heart or the plain-
tirt's claim."
The court held that the Constitution conferred "no richt
te refuse an answer. nlB
In respense to Terre's secend. claiJll. the court statAd. that without
a state shield. law there was no reason te depart tr.. precedent and
cecmze a privilece.
by
tiDilin« that there
1'9-
The court also dismissed Torre's thiri contention
bad Deen no altuse of Rule 30.
19
In the Hawaii oase In re GHtif'uer (1961). the plaintirf was seeldnc
reinstatement as a JDeIllMr of the Honolulu Civil Servioe
C~ssi.n
and.
had. ask". a photouapher ror the seuree or a remark he baAIi heard which
indicated that the plaintiff's ouster baA aeen illegal
ana. araitrary.
The photeuapher pleu a constitutional privi1ece. _ut it was rejecteci.
20 The court held.
and. he was held. in contempt .,. the state Supreme Ceurt.
that:
••• (a) private litic;ant's richt to testi.ollT is not limiteci -"
fact that his cause arises out or or involves offieal action.
am :asre fact that eonticiential intormation relates to aciministration or ceverBllent afferiB newsmen no privilece ac;ainst diseloslnc SOUl"Ce or such intormation. 21
17Ioi••
lSrlai4li, pp. 242-3.
19r1tici. p. 243.
~,
2Orra..nk A. Aukofer, "Holes in the 'Newsman I s Shield.'." The Proms,iva ,
1973t pp. 22-3.
21subcammittee on Aciministrative Practice and. Procedure to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate. The Newsman' s Priyi1ec:e t
Washington, D.C., 1966, 33.
22
The Pennsylvania ease In re Tayler (1963) invelv•• a shielAi statute
unIler which a newspaper was net requirM.--Detere an investicatin« aranci
jury--te prMuce seurees et intermatien ter steries en allecH cerrupt1.en
in 8i ty ,everrwent.
Re-.ert L. Tayler, presillent et the Bulletin Cellp8.D;,Y
and. Earl Sel.,. t Bulletin City etli tar, were suapMnaeIi .,. a ,rand. jury in-
vesti,atinc Jehn J. Fitzpatrick, a termer De.eratie ward. leSAler. anti his
state_nte en allecH cri.Ms.
Tayler and Se]j7 were instruet.ea te arine
tapea, netes. expense recerda, aM ether ...terials repriinc Fitzpatrick
Deeause an artiele in the Bulletin bM tliscuaseci an interre,atien et Fi tzpatrick in the ettiee et a Ilistriet atterney wbe allepllly refusell ta
release puaUe transcripts te which the paper ha& ether aeeess.
Tayler
a.n1l Sel.,. appearell Mtera the Crani jury aut retuse4 te answer all ques-
Uens put te theil, Sa;yl.llI answers wulAi illentity their aeureaa.
They
were ci tell fer .enteapt. .envieted.. sentenceli ant tinea when they ref'uaell te answer the questiens after they were aretl4ht Mtere a jwlce;22
the ceurt's ratiena.le was that the state shielll law's preteetien et seureas
iill Wtt inellMlle ee.pwery Iliselesure et .MUIl8nte er ether materials. 23
U~n
appeal, the state Supreme Ceurt reversecl the eenteapt citatien,
makinc feur I18.in paints.
The first quetei a 1937 statute whieh inelutie4
Meuments as well as persens u:naer the .etini tien et .euree;
tba eeurt
uviaell that the statute sheuld. De eenstruet1 lilterally in any ease et
ieultt. aiDee newspapers are "pre "ne pu.Uoe. lI24 In its se"_ paint.
the ceurt--while -tine that a persen may M his uta er
~ssien
waive
---- - - - - -- - - --- - --~
22Iaill •
3J-S.
23Jereae A. Barren anIi DenalJl M. Gillaer, Mus C!!!Unieatien Law;
Cye. ani C. .nt (st. Paul: West Pualishinc C-JI8.I'1". 1969), p. 244.
24SliH-tttee en AUainistrative Praotioe anti. Preee4lure te the C~t­
tee en the Juliieiary et the UnitM. states Senate, The Newsman'. PriVilec&,
Washincten. D.C., 1966,
J6-?
23
a fAstiMnial privilep--peinteG. out that a newsp8'r.on' s wai. ver applies
only fA state.ents Jl8Aie lty an
inf'o~r
whi.h are actually pulisheel, rwt
te other state_nts maO to the nwsperson.
The .ourt in its thini peint
state. its ..lief that noither Taylor nor Sellty haAi wa1vM. their privilece t a.I1II. in the tourth peint the ••urt therefore tounlli th_ not in oonte.pt. 25
The Applioation of Cepecia (1964) to the UnitM. States Distriot Court
are.. when ltaseNll. pl.a\Yer Or1anlli.o Cepe4a suM.
'Nse.",.on
8.11
~
aacazine tor l i..l,
arti.le lty Timo1:.q Cobane in whieh un1.entifieGi San Francis.o
Giants' .tficials were quote. as fA an
~nent
tru.o ot Cepe4a.
A upe-
si tion was taken in New York tor the Calitornia-lIas" easo and Colume t
retusinc to answer questions recariinc his sources was ci te4 tor .ontempt.
The aain question was whether a teaeral or state law shoul4 4etendne privile,e in this case, sinee California had. a sbielei law ani New York (the
.tate in whieh l!!!k Mintaineel otfices)
ii. not. The oourt .etel"lline4i that
the law ot the plaoe ot trial shou1li .etendne the valifii ty ot a prinIece.
It then note4i that the California shielei i i i not .over periMicals;
that
while no Calitornia preee.ent on extension of the 'Wl8peoified. privilec.
enstH unci.er this particular law, another state shielAi stat.te was helAi
not to o.ver macazines;
ana
that Cohane thus di. not tall wi thin the pri-
vil.,. as speoifically iefinei unier the law ot the trial state. 26
Brocan v. Passai.
Daily News
previ.eel the prece.ent tor Beecroft v.
Point Pleasant Printinc ani Pulilishinc Company (1964) t a liMl ease in whioh
a .e1eDllant newspaper wa.nte« .everal questions uk.. lty the plaintiff
struck tre the re.oni.
----
~
- -- - -
25rlti.,
~
38.
26.!.iel, 44-53.
~
An eil. torial hati aceusH the plaintitf ot per-
-- - -- - - -
24
fel'lli.nc Jleliee chief .uti_. in an ill_Cal, partial ani tiictaterial manner
tlwitheut recarli te the richts ef the pw.lic, centrary te law and. in vielatien et his eath er eff'ice. n27
A superier eeurt sai. that aisclesure
ef seureas at pre-trial hearines may lite necessary te ci ve the plaintiff
an e,,-rtuni. ty te review the lDaokcreund ef wi tnesses fer any pred.i.,esitien te uliee.
raith,
ara
It ruleli that a newspaper arcuinc fair e..-nt,
~e"
reasenaltle Hlier ..eut the truth er puu.ahe8. ...terial u,en
which a suit i .
au.. has
wai vea
any
pri vilece
ana is
thererere require.
te answer questiens aMut faets ani seuroes. 28
The ease er Estes v. Texas (1965) is relevant in this al,scussien
Noause ef the reasen fer the ceurt rulinc te N.r televisien cameras £rea
ceurt preceeciincs;
the ceurt reiterate. the arcument that while the First
Amanrblent preteete8. tre..em ef the press ether n evemaine: interests
~
justify lUdtatiens en newscatherinc.,,29
The Orecon ease ef state v. Buchanan (1968) &rese when Annette
Buchanan, II8lJ&Cinc Miter er the Uni versi ty er Ore,en stuient newspaper,
answrea a crani jury su.,..na ltut retus.. te liisclese
story en marijuana juse.
vilece
118.8
the sourees ef her
Her plea ef First .Aaenaent pretectien ter pri-
rejeotea a.nIi. she was cited. fer .enteJapt, cennoW, ani
finea.
The state Supre_ Court uphel8. the oenvietien, Mti1'1l that fre__ ef the
press pretects the PUD1iC as well as the pultlisher;
seuree is net essential te ire.... ef the press:
ef
a~
that a.ne11iYWity ef a
anIi that in the altaenoe
.....n law er statutery preteetien, a newspersen has no richt te
27181., ~.
26:r.i,., 39-42.
29JaMS A. Guest aM. Alan L. Stanzler, "The Censti tutienal ArCllMnt
fer Newsaen Cene.aline Their Seurces, n Nerthwestern University lAw ReView
(March-April, 1969), JJ.
---------------------------
2.5
refuse te di8.1ese a seuree in £aee ef a .eurt enter.JO
Durinc
Several. lesser .eurt ".isiens sheulJi aJ.se M nete4li here.
the years 1969-71, l.Mrer .eurts
seurees.
rule« that reperters na" net reveal their
A feaeral fiistriet .eurt rulinc in Levin v. Marshall (1970) is
alae relevant fer ita fiifferentiatien e£ sult,..nas issu" te newspersens
recaNine 1n:r.r.atien
cathere..
1n the1r verk £r_ these issuea te ether
oi tizens, ani its placement e£ the lturien ef shevinc n... fer sultpeena.
issuance and. eeaplianee upen the cevem.nt.
This .eneept--requirinc
Cevernaent preet e£ the need fer fiiso1esure--was evi.ent in a ...i.1en
1ty the Wiseenain Supreme Ceurt in 1971.
Fellewi.nc an ex,lesien at the
University e£ Wiseena1n vb1.h kill.. a researcher, unclercreunri newa,aper
Miter Mark Knepps vas ask.. te appear ..tere a cr8l1li jury te fiiscuss a
atery elaimi.n,; that these respensiD1e fer the ....inc baa discussed With
bill that exp1esien and. future ,lans.
Kneppe, etterN.
~uni. ty
unlier the
Fitth A.meIlliMnt. retus. . te testify a.nIIi was jail... fer centempt.
The
ceurt ruled that Knepps bai a .enst1tut1enal deht te refuse usc1esure
e£ his seurees, altheuch 1n oases inve1vinc serieus breuhes e£ pultllo
enter a nevspersen must yieli te the Itpultlic's everrifiinc nee4 te knew.,,31
The Sum_ Cem Branz-urI Deeieien
In ,June, 1972 the UnitM. states Supre_ Ceurt banie4. tiewn a jeint
rulinc ell the case. e£ Paul M. Branzlturc v. Jehn P. Hayes, Jwice, eto.,
et al..;
In the Matter e£ Paul Pa,pas, petitiener;
- - - -- - - - -
~
- - - - -- -
~
ani tJnite4l States,
--
30Jereme A. Barren and. Dena.lJi M. Gill.aer t Mass Ce_unicayen Law;
Cases and C..,nt (st. Paul: West PuDlishirll CUl}I8JlY t 1969), p,. 236-7.
3lDavid. Gerlien, "The Centi•• noes Newsmen Must Keep, II
alis. Review (NeveDer-DecemMr, 1971), 16.
Ce1U1l.ia Jeurn-
26
petitiener, v. Earl Calciwe11.
A1theuch the ietails ef these oases will
H ciiscuss" se,ara:te~, the ceurt cieeisien en these three eases will lie
suaarize4i as a whele.
Paul BranzburC, a reperter fer the Leuisville Ceurier-Jturnal, haci
written .an article ,4iesorl.inc cenversien ef marijuana to hashish. in which
he state.i that
ane~ ty
had. 'ileen, prolliseQ to his seurces.
WMn subpoenaed.
Branz.uriC refuse.. te give the naaes ef these persens he haAl altserv".
The
oeurt held. that Kentucky's privi1e,e statute protect.. the seurce but net
infW'lJatien.
appeals
4~eurt,
Branzlturg triea t. cet a writer mandamus frem the state
aut the ceurt said that the privi1ece statute did net al-
l_ a reporter to refuse to testify alMut events he persenally wi tnessM. 32
Paul Pappas t a televisien newspersen rer a Massachusetts te1evisien
statien, haAl spent several hours in a Black Panther Party headquarters
while ce"erine civil «iserd.ers in New Bedeni.
He refuse4 to appear in
answer Ut a subpoena issued. 'by a ,rand. jury investicatinc pessilD1e criminal acts ceBlllitteci
.urine
the diserclers;
his .etien to quash the SU1llDl8ns
vas cieniN ay the trial judee, ani the Supreme J.ucial Ceurt er Massachu-
setts uphe14i the .enial, stating that newsmen have no censtitutienal privil.C. t. wi thheU testi_ny-.)3
Earl Caldwll. reperter rer the
New ym Times,
baa oeverN the Black
Panther F'arty and. was subpeenaeci rer netes anri tapes ef
Party leMers
recariinc
i~erviews
their aims and activities Dy a Calirernia
with
cranS.
jury investicatine pessU.le vielatiens er several criminal statutes (assas-
sinatien threats acainst the president, interstate travel to incite a riet,
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 3211'Ihe Newslll8Jl's Privilep, II Harvani Law Reyiew (Nevem'Mr. 1972), 138-40.
33]:;,ici.
27
ete. ) • Ga.l.tbIell' s .etien t. quash the sUbpeena.--arcmnc that his relatienship with his seuroes weulJi iDe e1llia.ncered. even "by an appearance _tere
the crani jury--was Unied. 'Dy the Nerthern District er Califernia Ceurt,
altheuch the ceurt aceeptea. te an extent his
ar~nt
er First Amendaent
preteeti,.n _1' issuinc a preteetive erder exempting :frem Ilisclesure een:fidentia! infenaa.tien pelliing a
ana
II
shAnr.inc .y the aevernment er a cempelling
everriciinc natienal interest in requirinc Mr. Caldwell's 'testimeny
which cannet be served. ey any al_mative means."
The Ceurt er Appeals
rer the Ninth Circuit reversed this aecisien ancl exempted Cal.iwell £rem
appearinc at all. 34
In what bas ce. te be knewn as the Branzburc a.cisien, the Supreme
Ceurt afrirmed (5-4) the lower ceurt tiecisiens in the Branz_ure ani Pappas
oases anal reverse« the Caldwell d.ecisien. 35 The Supreae Ceurt rece,nizecl
the preteetien afterUG. the press lty the First Amendl'lent \Jut it G.1rrereci
rr- the reporters I concept er
the scepe ef that pretMtien.
AccerUne
te the ujeri ty epinien, the issue in these cases is whether requirinc a
ll8WS,.rf~en
te appear 1terere a state er reeter&! gr8J:'ld jury a.riqes the
freEHiem er speech anIi press
~te..
lay the First Amendment:
the Ceurt
heli that it d.ees net. J6
The Ceurt re jecteti the arcuments that an increase in the numaer er
press suapeenas, mutual press-cevernment distrust, er alleeN. ehanges in
reporting emphasis made a testimenial privilege fer newspersens necessary;
ani tha't. the liurien iapeSH en newscatherinc lay cempellinc reporters te
34r1lW.
35ntici, 140.
J6Patrlek Maines t "SbielJiinc the Press t n Natienal ReView, Mq 25,
1973, p. 575.
28
elisclese cenfiuntial seurees ard./er infel"ll8.ta.en eutweighed. any pulic
interest in Mtaininc infermatien. '5l
We perMive ne auis ter helding that the pali. interest in law
ent'ereement ••• is insufficient to everricie the oensequential. ltut
unc:ertain, lttmien en newscatherinc which is saia te result tre.
insisting that reperters, like ether oi tizens, respend to relevant questiens put te them in the ceurse et a valid. crani jury
investigatien er criminal trial ••• The evidence tails te ....nstrate that there weulAi lie a sicnitiea.nt oenstriotien et the flMl
et news te the public if this ceurt reaf'fil'llS the prier cemmen
law' and. censti tutienal rule reca.rclinc the testillenial eDlicatiens
ef newsmen. J8
The Ceurt oi ted. three reasens why a re}f8rter' s pri vilece olasbM.
wi th pulDlio peliey.
One t
oommen law ani statutery histery dealine with
the crille ef misprisien ot telenies shewed that "oeneealment et crime
ani
a~ments
te .. se are not leekea. upen with faver. II
Twe, reco,-
nition e:f such a privilege ceuJA create a private system et infomers net
su'bjeot t.. an;y centrel c_paraBle te that exercised ever pelice infermers
lty oeurua ani. eleoted otfioials.
But three ana most important, the Cev-
ermaent has a "._,.llil1«l1 interest in "investicatien of crime by a Ua.n8.
jury (which) impl_enUa a fundamental ,overr:aental rele ot seourin,; the
suety of. the person and. property et the oi tizen. II J9
a &ran«
~jury
The Ceurt tel t that
shoulAl, Meause et this importance to law entorcement, H
tree to tletermine its own. neecl fer .vialenee;
a craDli. jury needs every
personS evidence in enter to fulfill its role.
The Court's decisien--
that a w:i.tness' examination oan not lte eBstructed. 'by the requirement et a
tourdatien tor questiens put to reperters--is orucial te the recencilia-
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - ~ ~
37 11 '1'he Newsman's Privilege. 1I
Haryanl
Law Review (NevemlDer, 1972), 140-1.
JS.rhe Council ef state GeverIllllents. Shield. Laws: A ReMrt en Freeei_
aI ,the Press. Pnteotien er Nog Seurces. and. the ODUcatien te Testify,
lexington, Kentucky, Nevemlter. 1973, 7.
3911 The
Newsman t s Pri vilece t II
Harya.r!i
Law
Review (NevemlMr. 1972), 141-2.
29
tien et the ceurtts ieoisien with the principle that First Amendment
rlchts
JU,y lie
intrlnce. upen ne .ere than necessary fer lepl purpeses.
40
Altheuch the iDqMrtance .t the granti jur.r .f'unctien was the main 1'8asen that the Ceurt rejecte4l even a qualifiM. privilep, twe ether facters
sheulAi alae Be neteci.
One, Uministratien ef a qualitiei shielJi weulJi in-
velve sU:estantial practiCal. and cerweptua.l pre.leas, said the Oeurt j
ani
tve, a qualifiM. privilep UllAier which a juice wulci d.etermine whether a
situatien justified WlUSldnc a seuroe weuJJi
4l
&ensitive eenn.ential infel"Jlall'b.
~
ease the miDi. et a
The Ceurt, h.wver, fail" te accept the arcument tbat--witheut a
privilece--news,atherinc wulel De hillliere4 Dy oenstraint ef seurees.
It
netH. that the trMitienal lack et privia,e haAi net stifl_ seurces and.
it &rcuM that
cent. "
any
evicienee te the oentrary was "speeulative"
Th:ree 8Jiciitienal reasens fer their nrfusal were oi ted:
ana
"4iiver-
eDe, a
seuree micht net expect a reperter te lie suDpeena.e«, er te testify ever
e.jectiens;
tve, a s.urce micht lie part ef a tissi.ent CT8JIP whese neeel
fer public exposure eutwilic;bs fear et disclesure j
and three, a seuree
. t implicated. in a crime, ltut fearful ef reprisals 87 these incriminatM
'by their sterles. micht prefer te rely en law enteroe_nt efticials rather
than
re,.rters ter protectien. 42
Newspersens were net lett entirely wi theut censti tutiena.l preteotien
acainst tti.solesure -7 this _aisien, altheuch the soe,. ef that prewetien was left WlClear.
The Ceurt specified. that in instances ef
harus-
_nt the ceurts wulJi .. pula.le te P"teet "lecitimate First Amendaent
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - ~
4OrlDi.,
142-3.
41r1tici.
421bi«, 140-1.
~-----------------------------------------
30
-
..
interests" ef llewspers.ns.
It iescriDefi twe instances in which erand jury
utives f.r 8U.,..nainc a reperter mieht De questiened.:
investi,atiens
"insti tuteci. er c.naooted .ther than in ,e" fa! th, It and \I .f.ficial harass ...
ment .f the press undertaken n.t f.r purpeses .f law ent.reement Gut t.
disrupt a re]Mrter's :relati.nship with his news sources."
In these cases
a judicial .raer c.ula limit the crani jury's pewr te c ••pell testiJDeqy.
The g.... faith test t.es present tiif.ficulties. th,u«h.
It implies that
the 'Durcien .1' previnr; tba.t a grani. jury is acting in ether than ,... rai th
rests .n the reperter;
this preef
~
De ciifficult t. acquire, partly
Decause .f the very eranci jury characteristics peinted. .ut .y the C.urt
(Breuth .f investicative pewers, illpertance .f ietennininc the ne.. f.r
.nunee, reliance upen tips ant .ther avenues wheee relevance may De
difficult te eietermine).
The difficulty .t the preef is ••mpeUNi.ea. Dy the
fact that usually enell.nee .f Ha faith will n.t lie clear .r avail.a.Dle until after an investigati.n is c8llplete4 ani a newspers.n has alreaay been
barassefi. 4 3
One a8Iii ti.nal aspect .r this e.eeisi.n which sh.u1ci . . n.ted is the
C.url's statement in its llajority .pinion reeardinc Conr;ressional ,.wer
in the ms,tter or erantinr; privilege:
Congress has freeciom to determine whether a statutery newsman's
privilece is necessary and iesirule ani to fashion sta.nd.ard.s a.rlId
rules as narrow or as Dro" as deemed necessary t. address the
evil disoerned and. equal~1mpertant t. refashion those rules as
experience •••~ dictate.
Post-Bram.Bure Ceurt Cases
Since the BranzDure decisi.n, the fea.ral c.urts have ,enera.].4r pre-
-- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ~
~
43r.id. 143-4.
44rred P. Graham an« Jack c. I..a.oi.u, "The Fe4eral Shiela. Law We Need,"
CelumDia ,J!Vrne l i Sll RevieW (March-April, 1973), 28.
31
tecteGl rttperters in oenneotien with libel suits, Uand jury preceeGincs,
ana
or1minal trials. 45 The enly majer exceptiens te this trend were the
Supreme Ceurt a.ffirmatiens er lwer ceurt a.ecisiens in cases invelving
Peter Bridp and. Willi. . Farr.
The case er Peter Bria.,e v. New Jersey (1972) arese when Brici«e--a
reperter rer the Newark, News--a.ecline« te diselese te a grand jury the details et an unpultlisheci. interview with a Newark Heusinc CemJd.ssiener whe
sai. she
had been errerei a .riM in cenneoti.n with a vete en the appeint-
ment et t.he C8IDftissien' s executive directer.
Brid,e answered almest all
er the De8.y's ninety-.aa questiens except the five which went eeyeni the
publish.. news stery te inquire aHut the ciesoriptien et the man
erterine the lIriee.
New Jersey ceurts
1'8 jeotea.
alle,ecU.~·
Bri.,e' s arcument that in-
terrecatien IIlUSt De limited. te what has ..en pulilishecil, s¢nc that
revealing: his seurce in print Bricip had. waiv_ his prinle,e.
Ceurt let this aeoisien stanli (B-1), 46
~
The Supreme
retusine te review Bridee' s cen-
tempt oi tatien47 ana therelty a.enying his IUve te stay executin et a jail
.entence. 4S
William Fur, a reperter ter the Les Anceles Heralci Nr!mi ner t was assien- te eever the Mansen munler trial.
He
wrete a stery in JuJ.;y, 1970
eencerninc plans te murcier ether film celeltri ties but askeel his edi tar te hela.
it until Susan Atkins' oellmate had testified..
Hewever, in OcteNr the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 45Jeseph A. Calitane, Jr., "Shiellin« the Press,"
Mq
5, 1973, p. 22.
46sa:nreni J. Uncar,
January, 1973, p. 43.
The New Republic,
liThe Battle rer Press Freeciem,"The Premssive,
4711A:U er Nethinc?', N!1!Sweek, April 2, 1973, p. 57.
48The Ceuncil et State Geverments, SbielAi Laws; A ReNrt en Free4m
et the Press. Preteetien et News Seurees. and the Obligatien te Testify,
Lexincten. Kentucky, Nevemlter, 1973, 8.
.-
trial judee 'barred pulillication or ciiscussion with witnesses berore, durinc
and. after their testim011iY;
because this torm or
cae
rule was unusual, Farr
He o.tainei trial transoripts or the cellmate's testimeny £r-
testAhl it.
a .erense atterney, then ask. . that the juace .. notifietl that Farr haAi
such infermation.
Farr then refuse.. te reveal the source or his copy
when call_ Hrere the
the utter
~e,
inveking the Calirornia shielJl law;
was temporarily ciroppeci., the ju.iCe later summoneci
while
Farr again so
that the atterney who had. leakea. the transoript cou1i De punlahM. ror vi ...
lation o.r the
ymity.
Is.«
rule.
Farr &cain saifi he bali premise. his source anon-
In March, 1971 Farr left the newspaper te werk as an executive
assistant, te the Les Anceles district atterney.
M~,
He was then sUlllllonea. in
1971 te shew cause why he should not reveal his _uree sinoe be was
no longer owe reel 'by the Calirornia newspere-.' s shieli. 49
A series or hearincs then o.-need, in which Farr was 01 tea ror civil
the judge cleere. . an indeterminate sentanoe until the question
oontempt;
or his s.uree was answerefi.
California;
Farr appealed te the Second District Court or
his appeal was rejecteci, altheuch tbe court ciid. not iecide
whether Farr's privilege had cha.np4i with his
JOD, But ruled. 1nstea.el that
the shielei law was unoonsti tutiona.1 "cause it interfered with the p41W8r
or a juc:ige te govern his court.
Farr then appealed te the Supreme Court,
which re ,jected his appeal ani upheld. the decisions of the lower courts.,50
As ]Minted out above, however, these tw. cases are exceptions to the
trend. or federal post-Branz.ur, clecisions in 1972 and. early 1973.
reviews of ether cases--which
--
~
~nera1ly
uphold. newsperson t s privilege te
- - - -- - - - - - - - - --
~Em Cunningham, "The William Farr Case: In
Acain, n
Brief
The Quill, Deoember t 1972, pp. 9-10.
5Onna.,
pp. 10-12.
and Out of Jai1--And. In
33
sema extent--rollew.
In 1972 Thuas Miller, a freelance writer ror the LiHration News Service and. other undergroum. newspapers re.fuse« to ciisclose contidential inrormation recardin,; peJi tical ciissiclents berore a re.eral Crand. jury in
Arizona.
Although the Justice Department said Miller was net a reperter
and. therefore net enti tleci to protection under either Department CUicielines
or the C4tnstitution t an appeals court ruled. in December that Miller was
ina... a press memBer. 5l
RepDrter James Mitchell or Les Anceles Station KFWB answered. a county
crani jury sultpeena 'but retuseci to d.isclose the source or inforu.tion on
corrupt bail Hni practice..
Public reaction to the jailinr; or William
Farr oentriDuted. to the quashinr; or the subpoena in 1972.52
AltJ10uch a subpoena to raiio Station WEAl or New York ror tape reMri.incS or prisoner interviews
.uri~
the Tombs Prison Riot was
eventual~
quashed. j.n 1972,53 two I~ew York n8W8118n were oraerea. that year 'lty an ap-
pellate court to tell a special grantl jury what they bad wi tnesseci «,Urine
the Attioa Prison riot.
The court re jecteci Stewart Dan anIi Roland. Barnes'
claims that they weulAi not have Deen adIIlittM to the prison without an unGlerstanllii.nr; er COnfitlentiality,.54 and it ruled that the New York shieltl law
dii net allow the. to ref'use te testifY recardinr; events persenaJ.4r wit-
nessK. 55
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~
~
.5J.F'reG. P. Graham and Jack C. Lanciou, "The Fetleral Shieli Law We Ne","
Columbia Journalism Review (March-Afirilt 1973), )0 •
.52rbid. •
.s.~Did., )2.
54rbid, 30.
55"S:bielcl Law Decision Near in Concress7", 'l1!e Quill, April, 1973, p. 39.
In Sherrie Bursey v. Unite4 states (1972), Califernia's Ninth Circuit Ceurt helAi that Sherrie Bursey ani Branda Jeyce Presly--reperters
fer the Black Panther Party newspaper--4id net have te reveal the iuntitities ef persons asseciateci with the ,aper's internal manapIHnt to a
federal
~
jury investicatinc threats ef presidential assassinatien ani
ether ,essi.Ie criminal ceniuct • .56
Cennectioutt Chief District Ceurt Juice M. Jeseph Blumenfeld ruled
in 1972 that Gilbert Kelman, pulDlisher ef the Wa"inaeni Pest, 814 net
-
have to reveal the seurces ef charges that Besten philantbrepist Jeseph
M. Linsey had Maf'ia cennectiens.
LiJMle.Y was
sui~
the bI! fer liM1 . -
cause hiEI plans to Duilcl a .e, track in Wall.ineferd. were rejecte« after
the story eame eut)7
Subpeenas fer cenfi.ential tape recerGincs ami varieus ether unpuhlished. infermatien (requestM ef ten reperters 8l'l4 eciitorial persenne1 ef
feur majer publicatiens including the Lea AnLeles TiJus Washincten Bureau
Manager Jehn F. Lawrence;
Hagzine;
the Wyhincten Put;
the New Yerk Tilles;
Xime
and. ether pu1tlieatiens)were quashei in 1973 by F••eral District
Court Judp Richey t whe ru1eci that the First AmenUaent PNteCted. these newspersens from even appearinc in the civil Demecratic Natienal Cellllitte. et
ale v. James W. McCerd et ale (1972).58 Richey neteci that:
What is inve1ve4l here is the rir;ht ef the press te gather
and. pu1Dlish, ani that ef the pulDlic te reoet ve, news from
wiciespreaa, diverse ami efttimes centi.ential seurces •••
This ceurt cannet .lirri i tseU to the pessia1e "chilling
.5611 A.n Assault en the Peeple," LIs Anples TiMs, December 20, 1972, p. 31.
5711Federal Jucice Siies With Newsman Whe Refuses to Divulge Seurces,"
!'iter and Publisher, March 24, 1973, p. 9.
58J.aeph A. Califane , Jr., "ShieJJiing
Mq
5. 19'13, p. 22.
the Press, a
The New Re,ulic,
35
etfects" the enforcement of these bro. SUDpMDaS w.ulci have
on the tlft' of information t. the press, ani so to the pualic. 59
In 1973 the UniteG. states Supreme Court refused to review a Maryland.
court ruling or contempt acainst a Baltimore Eveninc Sun reporter tor re-
tusinc to divulge the sources ot his article(s) on marijuana. purchases.
HRever, state courts upheld the newsperson's privilece. 60
A Florida Circuit Court ruled that a
Miami
News reporter need not
disclose his source or hand. over his notes tor storio. aMut harlMr pilots in a civil suit to which the ]Nl.per was Mt a party;
the court c1 ted.
tbeFirst AmeniMnt cuarantee ot .t'ree4l_ ot the preas as the lDasi8 tor
its .eeision.
a television
In a.oreia, a juIip rulod. that a law tira coulAi . .t foroe
I»1f8JU.D
to eli••lose his sou:reea tor a report o. cuUtliD«
8.DIi const4.tutional guarantee t.o pursue a career 'Wi thout
t>ein~
hampered."
And. a Tennessee state ceurt ot appeals tislliss" a contempt ci tatton a-
Cainst a television talk shew host who retuse. to reveal the name ot a
local graJ1Ii jury _Dar who had eallOfi in critical c ....nts on that lDMy. 61
In 1973 the Uni teci States Supreme Court upheld. a decision favoriag
newsperson1s privileCe in Charles Baker et ale v. F ani F Investment C.parr:(
et al..
Reporter Alfred Balk or the Satur!a..y EvelliPl Post had. received
information trem a Chicago real estate &«ent reganling profits the source
acquired tram movinc black ramilies into previously all-white neighborhoods.
The plaintitfs in a class action suit en behalt of Chicace black residents
59HAll or Nothint:?", Newsweek, April 2, 1973, p. 37.
60"C1amer for Federal Shield Law C.ols:
Action, II Jr.I Digest, May-June, 1973, p. 8.
61Ibid •
Qualification Argument Slews
requested the
naII8
of his source in their case acainst city realters.
Balk refused to disclose his souree and. the United states Court of Ap-
peals upheld. him.
The oourt stressed the "fundamental principle" of press
freedom and the "paramount public interest in the maintenance of a vigorelUs, ac:gressi ve, and independent press."
Although we recognize that there are cases--few in number to be
sure--where the First Amendment richts must yield, we are still
mirxl£ul of the preferred pesi tion the First Amend1llent occupies
in the pantheons of freedom ••• Aceonlingly t tho~h a journalist's
right to proteot confid.ential SQurces may not take precedence over
that overridinc and compellinc interest, we are ot the view that
there circumstances, at the very least in civil oases, in which
public interest in non-disclesure of a jeurnalist's sources far
outweilhs the pualic and private interest in compelled testimo1V.
In a consequent appeal this d.ecision was upheld. by the United states Supreme
Court. 62 While this deCision contradicted the court's decision in Garland.
v. Torre, the distinction was made that in this case the plaintiffs had
not used other means of findin,; the informant. 63
- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - ~
~ ~
~
-
62"Writer Needn't Identify Source for Civil Suit,"
lisher, Deoemlter 16, 1972, p. 12.
6Jrbid.
Efiiter ani Pub-
CHAPTER IV
The hasic argument ror a qualified shield law rer jeurnalists is
that 8ult,IHnas must lte centrelled in erder to insure the press rreedom
necessary te meeting the public's right to knew, therelty aidinc the
public's interest in self-g.vernment.
In this sense, the right er the
pUblic te, be inreI"MCi and. the right er the press te publish has lIeen
teJ"JlleCi by the United states Supreme Ceurt lithe essence ef self-gevernMnt. lIl
The press is thererere necessary te inferm and, in semetillles s. d.eing,
expose cerruptien, inceapetence, ani ille,ali ty which can
o~
be dis-
cevereel threuch centact with seurces in a pesi tien te knew a'bout such acti vi ties. 2 Cenfidentiali ty is impliCit in such centact;
ir a reperter
discleses his seurce, net enly will that source net centi.e in him &cain,
but news ef the breach er cenfidence may spread and affect the effectiveness ef the reporter. 3 Altheugh it has Deen said that ne seurce neea fear
reprisal rer revealine cerrect infermation, criminals cannet be guaranteed
pretectien £rem erganized. criminal elements and gevernment employees cannet be cuaranteed. retentien of their jebs when they have breucht their
- - - - - -- - - -
~ ~
- - - - - - -- -
lJoseph A. Califano, Jr., "Shielding the Press,"
May 5, 19'73, p. 23.
The New Re,uBlic,
2The International Press Institute, frefesaienal Secreoy anci the
Jeurnalist, (Zurich: The International Press Institute, 1962), p. 176.
~. 1. Stein, Freed. ef the Press;
Julian Messner, 1966), p. 78.
A CentinuiflJ Struggle (New York:
superiors into question.
4
While thore has . .en no traditional reco,nition of a newsperson1s privilege, the BranzDurc a.ecision may bave JlllUie explicit statutorial gui.elines de~drule. 5 The public furor raised lay re,erters since the decision
has increased the emphasis on the risk a source (or reporter) assmes in a
confidential aewsgathering relationship, and this eapbasis may new make
legislation, traditionally avoi.ed., necessary.
The iJJpertance of con.fiEientiali ty can be cauged by reviewine a recent study on the use af confidential sources;
and. lty notinc cases in
which assured confidentiality either led t. valuable public information,
or in cases in which potential information was net «iven or requested because cenf'id.entiall ty coulci net be assured.
In a survey of newspersons in all media, cenducted 'by Professor Vince
Blasi ef stantoN. Law Sch. .l, aJ..most 1,000 questionnaires were returned by
majer reporters fer larr;e daily newspapers, personnel af l.aal and. network
radio ani television stations, magazine writers. .lIDers ef the
vices, and miscellaneous news personnel.
Wl.re
ser-
Eighteen percent had been sub-
poenaed during their careers t am seven pereent said that coverage of a
story bad been 84versely affected d.uring an eighteen-month periOd. by the
pessibili ty 01' a suopeena.
Of' the seven percent whose stories ha.o. been
emangerecl t court. reporters iect 'the .List 1"eii.wed by reporters covering
radical mi.litants arrl. mnority groups and investigative reporters.
6
4The International Press Institute t PrefessienaJ: Secrecy am the
Jeurna]Jst (Zurich: The International Press Institute, 1962), pp. 176-7.
5nThe r.ewsman's Privilece, " Harvard Law Review (November, 1972) t 148.
6Richarci T. Baker t nSu'bpeenaing Newsmen:
Review (March-April, 1972), 52-3.
J'urnalisp!
What Effects?", Celumbia
39
Me" than sixty-five percent ef the respenlients estimated that between ze:ro and ten percent ef their s-teries depeBieEl upen cenfidential
seurces.
Allene the findings were the fact that sources previde more sto-
ries anee they have been shewn that cenfidence will De kept.
reperters aepem mest en ene-shet sources.
BrMdcast
newsmagazines depenti m.at en
seurces wh.e cenfide infermatien mere than enee;
general assicnment reper-
ters ani feature writers pnerally d.epend en ene-time seurces, while wire
service reperters, pelice re,erters, ana. financial writers depani en twetime seurces;
and investigative, ceurt, and. ceverl'lHnt reperters
re~
equally .n first-tiM and older seurces. 7
SeVlaral peints must, hnever, be kept in mind.
One, this was a ran-
• • survey inclUl1inc respenses fra reperters lIbe de net use seurces at
all as
lft~ll
as these whese werk depends upen them fer ever ten percent of
their stAtries.
Tn, the" percentaces de I»t reflect the quall ty ef the
newspersens affectM. By s1ibpeena threats (eicht tiMs as many newspersens
vbe adjudged. themselves very well qualifiea feu.nd. thelll8elves threatenea.
by sultpeenas, as c_pare.
te these vbe theught themselves least qualified.).
And three, these percentaces enly indicate these newspersens whe have al-
reaay Hen affectM Dy su.,..nas; if the use ef subpeenas is il'llliAted increasin«., then the adverse affect upen stories net.. By this Ueup ef newspersens will alae inerease. 8
Several oases can De cited. in which assuranee ef cenfiientiality allnea reperting ef intematien valua'ble to the public welfare.
In 19.56
Geere- Thiem. a Chicace DailY News reperter, was unable to prea.uce cencrete
7Ib1., .52.
8nn. Newsman's Privilece,"
Harym Law Review
(Nevember, 1972), 147-8.
40
evidence that the state audi ter was livine HyOna. his state salary.
Then
a state orfice clerk--upen the unli.erstan:ling that he woulJi net reveal her
naae--Gi.recteci hi1I te receria the checking or which rev.aled nepetism,
~ll
paAlding, .0CUB contracts, traudulent expenso accounts, illegal ex-
penliitures aDi phony checks;
this led te an indictment or the audi tAr ror
misappropriation or $650,000-$2,000,000 or tax rums.
The auGiter was
jailed., the state adopted. brNAi rerorms to prevent such activities, ani
the reperter was awa:ra.ei a Pull tzer Prize. 9
RoBert Schulman or auisville's WHAS-TV wen the Sigma Delta Chi Distineuished. Service Awari ror eeli teri ali zing the erreets or strip mining
in eastern Kentucky, an endeavor which he Delieves weu1ci have been impessiDle ir he had net assured his sources or conti"ntiality:
Tensions in the area were so high that so.. cea1 c_pa.Il¥ _n,
and these critical or tha, were ,oinc aNut arme«. The mountain people who lui... me te stripmine sites in recent ani current violation or state law t were thererore expesing themselves
te :retriDution or serious kiD!ls. Had they not Deen able to put
im:p.lici t rai th in my keepinc their help confitiential, I even
douJiDt ••• that I would have soU&ht it. Ani so the pUDlic waul.
have been lert to mere blandishments by sweet-talkinc coal opera't.ers, discrediting yet another news repert as having been
based on a view or outdated., pre-law evidence. 10
Conficientiali ty was also prellisea ror several steries by the Bosten
00.... Spetlight Team, ineluiinc a serie. on tew:i.nc kickbacks (in which
some pelicemen confirmed the use or the practice and t;ave infermation,
and ror which industr,y sources were premised. confidence te avoid police
harassment and possible physical harm);
a series on concrete inspection
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 9The Internat4:enal Press Institute, Proressional secrecf and the
J'urnaJ.ist (Zurich: The International Press Institute, 1962 , pp. 182-3.
Jerome A. Barren am Denald M. Gil.lmer, Mass commF,catien Law; Cases ani
CelJll1lent (St. Paul: West Publishing Company. 19697p. 239.
10Charles Leng, "Are News Sources Dr,ying Up?" t The Quill, March, 1973,
p. 10.
41
(in which a firm wi. th peli tical cenneetiens pertemeci sheciciy inspectiens
and. received much pUBlic werk, and. in which ene et the firm's nn peeple
was tire.. ter
Iivine his inte:nnatien);
and a series en the New E11«l.and
Rectenal C..nssien (in which interviews with empleyees revealed. that the
ueup wu started. mainly with the ai.es et senaters ani ceverners, and.
wtdeh 1.. te a cut-ett et fUnBs ay the Presicient).ll
Steries have alse Been refused er cancelled. since the Branz8urc cleaisien 8111phasizeci the risk te seurces.
An investicatien et a state agency
....Der whe alle,ecUy lwi accepted. paylUnt ter a persenal taver was d.reppecl
lay the f.hilad.elphia Inquirer when the seuree I S lawyer urced the sauree net
te eeepe:rate since there was ne assurance et centitientiali ty.12
ABC News
clecline« a chance te fila an interview with Black Panther Party "Mrs,
ani CBS News oclined an interview with a
WemaIl
whe was te clisclese hew te
cheat en welfare, when premises et centiclentiali ty ceuld. net be ..... 13
While these cases inclicate a need. ter centiclentiali ty, it must 1M
neted. that the peint et cenfi.entiality that prepenents et a shield law
are arcuinc invelves net the numbers et sterie. in which cenfi.entiality
micht 1M iIIlpertant' "but the pZ'ineiple er the pulalic's richt te knew.
Ac-
ceNine 1r.e American Newspaper PuBlishers Asseeiatien Presiclent StanteI'd
Smith,
The rut is that any 15m-peen&. which plaoes a reperter in the
pes1 tien er havinc te reveal his seuroe er intermatien is
cause eneuch ter .erieus cencern. If en4r ene seuroe tiries up,
- - - - -- - -- - - ~
~
~
~
- -- -
11n)iAl, p. 11.
12rbii.
p. 10.
l3rr.. P. Graham ani Jack C. LuJieu. "The Fe.eral ShielAi Law We .;.Ne", "
Cel.ala Jeuma1isa Review (March-April, 1973) t 32.
---------------_._------------_._---
42
then the Am.rioan pe.,l. have l.st a vijt1 part .f the treeiem
which was ,r.ns.a in the C.nsti tuti.n.
New l.rk Times MKazine writer A.M. Res.nthal .oh..s Smith's s.ntiaent:
W. 'will nev.r knew what this l.ss .f c.nfici..ntiality ef
s.urces will .est, becaus. we will never knew what we might
have knnn. It seelllS entirely ,lain that the ••struoti.n .f
e.nfidentiali ty .f news s.urc.s will have an iapaet .n ••w 15
IlUCh the pUBlio knns D.ut .very aspect .f puelie affai·rs.
It is ala. fearM. that with.ut availaltility .f c.nfici.ntial ••ure", the
press will 'be f.rc •• te rely upen .ffieial re,r.s.ntati.ns .f fact, with
ne _ana f.r ltalancinc th••• 16
y.t it is arCU'. that .v.n if _urees are n.t .eterree. by the laok
.t assuranc• •f c.nfiuntiali ty, n.ewspers.ns
~
.ither c.ns.r th_-
.elv.s Decause .t a f.ar .f Su8,..nas, c.ntempt oi tati.ns and jail s.nteno.s;
.r Because .f the finaneia1 buni.ns which lDattlinr; suapeenas
places upen news .rpnizati.ns.
Thaas
m~tes
Les Anp1es Tim.s .eli ter William T.
that the c.st te his paper .t fichtinr; SUpMnas ani o.n-
t.e.pt rulinr;s has tetaleG. lI.re than $200,000 ciuri.n& the past few years .17
While laz'p papers may have the res.urces te fight a.urt 1N.tt1es, Spied.1
Newspap.rs representative R.n Einstess peints .ut that
Pr.l'nceGi am trequent de tenses in a.urt will weaken the alaili ty
.f small newspapers t. t. th.ir job ••• F.r the _ress te remain
freel, it must also remain financially str.nr;.1~
-- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - 148 'I'he C.ntreversy Ov.r Pr.pesed. 'Newsman I s Shield I Lec!slati.n,"
The C'ncre,si'nal Dic•• t, May, 1973, p. 148.
15Char1es Len"
1973, p. 10.
II
Are N.ws S.ure.s Dryinc Up?", Th. Quill, January.
16A• M. R'Benthal, "Save the First .AmendMnt," New Y.rk TiDI!§ Mac:azine,
F••ruary- 11, 1973. p. 60.
17Luther A. Hust.n, "Ervin Bill te Pre-empt state Shi.lJi Statut'S,1I
FAiit!r aM Publisher, March 3, 1973, p. 12.
1Br,uth.r A. Hust.n, "M.ll.nh.tt Says An A,Q.1ute ShielJi W.ulci Hurt the
Press ,II Eciit.r ani Pulalisher, Ma.reh 10, 1973, p. 11.
43
Justice Brennan perceiv" the crux et the l'iitticulty in his remarks
in the 'I'iJles v. Sullivan ••cisi.n by the Supreme C.urt:
Whether .r net a lWWspaper can survive a suo.assi.n .t sueh
juil.ptents, the pall .t tear ana tiJIitii ty iap.SM upen th.se
wht. w.ulAl cive v.ice to polic eritieism is an a~~h.re in
which the First Altenciment tre.... eann.t survive.
Prttpenents .t a qualitieci shi.lAi law claim that I%"antinc testi••nial
privilep te newspers.ns will net intertere with law ent.re••ent:
th.y
paint .u.t that ent.ree.. nt .tfieials are 'better train.. anIIIi equip,.. t.
track
uwn
criminals, ani that such .tticen in .tates having shielAi laws
have n.t n.W an increasM ciitfieu1ty in lawent.rce..nt. 20
A qualifi" shi.lAl law is seurcht, as .ppes.. te .ther ..ans .t s.t-
tUnc the pre'b1e., t.r any .t three main reas.ns:
sti tuti.Da1 cuarantee .f fre •••••f the press;
te reint.re. the ••n-
t. prevent the status .t
privilege !rea chancing with the ••urt in q __ati.n;
anti/.r te reotify
the insufficiency .t the Att.rney Generalis cuiulines with the wicht .t
law.
Lesser arguallts in tav.r .t a qualifi.. shielAi law include the elai.m
that 8ueh a privile,e .ets Vip.rels requirements anri equals parall.1
8i tuati.ns in .ther prete.si.ns.
(B.th paints have been discuss.. earlier
in this paper.)
- - - - - - --- ~
19aareli L. Nels.n,
Warren Com (New Y.rk:
~ ~ ~
- -- -
ea., Fre.... • t the Press trM Hem; ~ton te t~
The B.'b1ts-M.rrill Capany, 1110., 19 7), p. 10.
20SulMeRlittee .n AUlinistrative Practioe ani Preee.ure to the C~t­
tee .n the Jutiieiary et the Unitecl States Senate, Th. Ne!f8llJNl's Privile,e.
Wuhincttm, D.C., 1966, 16.
CHAPTER V
The pri.ma.ry' arcu-nt acainst .eptien et a qualitiei shielA law is
that ne richt is anelute, that the publio interest in lawenreroeaent-especiuQr as it relate. te .e.pulsery te8timen;y in r;rani jury FeoeMines
er cans iltftlviBc a .etenient' s richts UlHler the Fifth ani Sixth JuneDli_nts--eften eutweip the pu'D1i.' s richt te knew as representei .1' tree• • et the press.
Fre_.
et the press i8 8ai. te _an enl1' freN. he. prier censer-
ship er l:'eatraint, l net !reM_ tre. a citizen's e.licatien te testify;
u.erti.n,~
t. the Supre_ Ceurt's Branzlturr; oOisien,
The First
Ame~nt 4ees net relieve a newspaper reperter et
the e.1ir;ati.en that all oi tizens have te re.peni te a r;ranli.
jury sua,..na ani. answer questiens relevant te a. eriminal inves1:.i«a.tien, am theretere the Amendment ...s net afterei hill
a. eemsti tutienal priviIece ter an at;re..ent he u.kes te .eneeal
tae1:.s relevant te a uand jury's inv.sti~a.tien et a crime er
te c=eneef the oriminal cend.uct et his seuree er evidence
thereet.
The
~neI'al
principle ,everniD« the aGministratie. et .AIlerican justice is
that judi.cial 'Dedies have the richt te eDtain an.ci ie1l18J'l4li .e.plete in.rermatien;
thuse, there is ueat reluotan..--even in states with shielAt laws-
te ex8llJtt. jeurnalis1:.s tr. tAstimenial e.liptien. 3 It is arcued. that
\t.
L. Stein, FreN_ et the Pres8:
Julian Messner, 1966), p. 66.
A CentiroQ.llC StngCl. (New Yerk:
211The Centrevers1' Over Prepes" 'Newsman's Shiel.' IAg:i..slatien,"
The Cencressienal Dipst, Mq, 1973, ,.1)7.
3The Internatienal Press Institute, pretessienal seereef and the
Jeurnalls!c (Zurich: The Internatiena.l Press Institute, 1962 , p. 174.
---------_._-----------------------
ceurts are better abie te reach a fair censiaeratien ef issues with cem}lJu18ery "testi.en;y. and. the Supnll8 Ceurt has held. that when an enier fer
testiae~
is refused. the party refusing te testify JIIaY be cited. fer cen-
tellpt and fineci
anal er
jail...
4
The impertance ceurts have attach.. te the Cranti jury funotien has
already .en note. in this paper.
There is t hewever, anether important
element ttf the juciicial system wbieh Ilicht 1M Significantly ha..nleci 'by aEi.eptien .tf a shieli law:
the richts guarante ... te the accuse. und.er the
Fifth ani particularly the Sixth Ameruiments te the Censti tutien.
The
Fifth AMDliMnt guarantees tbat
Ne persen shall 1M held. tAt aruJwer fer a eapi tal, er etherwise
infameus crime, unle.s en a presentment er indictaent er a
UaJx jury ••• ner De cieprivea ef life t liberty, er preperty t
wi theut due preceas ef law •••
The Sixth Ameni.Mnt insure. that
In
~u.l
criminal presecutiens t the accuse. shall enje1' the richt •••
te have capulaery precess fer ebtaininc witnesses in his faver •••
te 1M .enfrenteti with the wi tnesse. against him;
Thuse. while newspel"8ens eftell view the shielti issue as ene ef ,evernaent
versus the preas. a reperter ceulcl alse De sultpM.... 81' an inGirl..ual whe
is falsely aceus... ef a .riM er who micht be persecutM 81' autheri ties. 5
A sh!elAi law eeula vielate these two iDlpertant a_Mants;
the Fifth Ilicht
De weakenect if the aaeunt ef eviience available te a rranti jury were re-
aucM..
81'. the Sixth ceuld suf'fer if an entire prefeasien w.re exeaptM.
£rem .-.,ulsery testillen;y. 6
4 Janles A. Guest ana Alan L. Stamler. nThe Censtitutienal Arcument fer
Newsmen Ceneealine Their Seurces t .. Nerthwstern Universi ty Law Review
(March-A,I,nl. 1969), 24-5.
5uFicht Over
Fro_.
and. Privile,e,1I
nH.. March 5. 1973, p. 35.
6rbii.
--_._-_._-_ __
...
._-
46
A t..estim.nial privileCe f.r newspers.ns presents a pre!ille. in i tsel:t ,
apart fra th••e pre_lUIS whieh wuli M oreate« when sueh a privile,e e.nflicteci with the craM. jury funeti.n .r ..nat! tuti.nal lUUante.s r.r the
ae.us".
It is arcuei that a newspersen's priviaC....ulAi. 1M persenal te
the reperter:
••• suoh a privileC., persenal t. the reperter, eannet De juatifiM as .ervine the C.neral public , ... it the reperter is allewM. te ciiscl.se his a.urce t.r his ew.n ..,..fi t, ter example,
in miticati.n .t Uaa.ces in a libel suit. The preteeti.n .f innecent pers.u trem libel By the unaerupul.us newsman s.ems ••re
••mpellinc in the pultlic interest than the prete.ti.n .t equally
unsorupul.us inf.rmants. ReprehensiBle j.urnalism--!yinc-weu.lAl ....e._ tee easy. 7
This i.ubt .t newspers.ns I int.ci"i ty u.y De justifiei, as reperters have
..en knnn te write st.ries .n allepa ruts frem "unimpeuhalale" seurees
which i i i net actually exist. 8
Oppenents .r a qualitie. shiela law ala. ...ut the necessity .t ••nfi.entiali ty between reperter and. inf.l"M.nt te the newscatherill« precess.
They Mt. that the trUi ti.nal l.aek .r sUGh a privil.ce has net prevente«
seuree. :t'reIn iisclesinc inf1trJl&ti.n,
ana that .ther eba.nnels .t inf.nna-
ti.n are availalDle te reperters in aictl tien te s.urces wh. Will n.t centi.e w.i. th.ut assurane• • t
an~nymi t7.
The wrth .t int.Nati.n ,le.nei
!rea an anenym.us s.uree mq ala. De qu.sti.nei:
The pr.teeti.n .t an inf.J:"II*i s.uro. wrIcs te the M.vantace .t the
s.w:"ee, inbilDitinc the eirtlulati.n et ~ news that ...s n.t enhanoe the self-iapertance .t the man .ireulatinc it. M.re .tten
than n.t the repert.r wbe acre.s te .eal in pr.tecteci il'lf.nna.ti.n
tral'lst.ms himself inw a press apnt. 9
- - - -- - --- - - - - - --- - ~
~
7J.re_ A. Barren anIi Dena.lAi M. Gil.lMr. Mass C-uniyti.n Law;
CY.' ani C....nt (st. Paul: West PUDliahinc Ceapany, 1969). p. 239.
8"lld.eU Law Pla... 'On Trial' ,n Eiiter an! ru-lisber, April 7. 1973,
p. 26.
9Lnris H. Lapham, "Th. Te.,taU.n .t a Sur.. Caw,"
Aucust, 1973. p. 44.
HarPer's Macazine,
47
The P"tecteci seuree ef infermatien takes ne risk, ani neither
iMI! the reperter vhe lives crecienee te his tale. If a man
takes ne risk, what is the wrth ef his epiniens? What is te
p"vent the seuree £rem nstertine the news te eenrerm te his
nn interesU lO
The Jl8.tter ef llisprisien (A orime in whioh ene party knewin:ly ceneeals the .riM ef anether) is alae raisH.
By prete.ti~ a seuree vhe
is imelv" in an illecal er ciulDieus activity, a newspersen micht Be
cuilty ef mspriaien.
Ma.qy re&sellS are oi tea. fer eppesi tien te even a qualifiei shield law.
What Cenuess gives, Cencress ma;y alse take away accenli.nc te Senater
Samuel Ervin:
The same Cen,ress whieh grants the pri.vile,e .aay cel1lii tien it
en ]Dreper cend.uot. A future Cencress, im tatei lity a critical
press, mq heJJi repeal ef the pnvile,e as a threat te se.ure
a _re .empliant press. What is new pretective lecislatien may
teJarrw De a hesta,e te ,e" beharter .11
A qualitie. shield law micht well result in a creater aBuse by a.u;ressive
presecuters and unsyapathetie juices, sin.e &I'\V l.iJni. tatiens weula. prebUly
be enalessly arr;ua&le. 12
Just as the ceurts are new respensi.1e fer ie-
fining the First AIIenUient pretectien ef the pres., se will they 1M respen-
siDle fer iefininc a:ny new 1egi.slatien;
saii,
11 ••,.
ani as reperter Peter Brid.r;e bas
the enly thine necessary fer .enliitiens te exist-separately er
sil'lult.aneeusly--is the preneunc_nt ef a j~e.h13
The preblems inve1veci in ira.f'tiac qualifiei shielJl 1ecislatien, ieseri'" i.n CJaapter I, are alse 01 tei as reasen fer .e.tinuei reliance en
10Ib1crl, p. 51.
11l1p'i«ht Over Freeiem ani Privile,e,"
Ii!!!., Mareh 5, 1973, p. 65.
12n,1i.
13peter Briir;e, "ADse1ute IlIIunity, Altse1utely," The Quill, January,
1973, p. 10.
48
the present .eliHratien et pri vilece .n a eue-ay-ns. 'Dasis DY the ••urts t
wh. have 'been .eseri". as "mere vicilant pr.tecter( s )" .t tre.... • t the
14
press than either the executive .r lecislatiye 'branchea .t ,.vernaent.
In practice the ••urts ••• alJust always cive tacit; rec.,niti.n
te the views .t j.urnalists anIi reareJ.;y insist upen suh revelati.n even in states where ne .tatutes exist t. previ.e lecal. ree.gniti.n .f any aDs.1ute richt.15
Newspers.u are urce«. te rely upen c.urts uph.l4inc .t the First Aa."nt,
a cuarantee Mre £lerl.le aM. respen.ei ve te chancinc cireUll8tane.. than
.,.oifio laws.16 They are rudniH that in eases .t ba.ra8._nt they may
.. prete8tH 8,. the Branz.urc ...isi.n;
th.y may aeye te quash &n.y'sub-
,..na .t questi.na)l. se.,. .r suastaa.. ;
ani the juAieia1 preeess pre-
vi.es t.r entrance .f an apprepriate preteetiv. .ra.r .17
Sh.ulAi the jwiieial precess appear
t~
incapaba .t ,r.teetin, the
privilece aspect .t freed•• • t the press , shield .,penents arcue that .ther
c.rrecti:ve _ana :may 1M taken.
The recent cui.elines iS8UM. DY
General .J.hn Mitchell are n.tea aa a ste, in this 4lireeti.n.
Atte~
The cui-e-
lines require that all reas.nallle att-.pte te cain in.t.l'IIati.n must lie .xhaustM. Ht.re a press sultpeena is o.nai.erM, at which paint nec.tiati.ns
with the press must be he18.:
spe.ifi. prineiples are presori... t.r these
instaaees in which sw.peenas are actua11;y issuH.. 18
14JltSeph A. Cali fane , Jr., "Shi.lAiinc the Press,"
The New Re••lio,
May 5, 1973. p. 23.
15The Interrw.ti.nal Press Institute, Pretes8i.ral Se.reey ani the
J.urna1ist (Zurich: The Internati..nal Preas Institute, 1962). p. 177.
16navi. G.ri.n, liThe C.nfiUllMS News.en Must Keep," C.lum1!ia J.urnalis. Revi.w (N.vem.. r-Dec....r t 1971) t 20.
17111i'iCht Over Freea.em and. Privi1.C.," Time, March .5. 1973. p. 64.
18,. ~:'he C.ntr.versy Over Pr.peSH. I Newsman t s ShielA I Lecislati.n, tt
The C.ncresSi.nal Picest, May, 1973. ,. 137.
Lesser ar,uaenta &«a1nst a qualifiei sbi.U law--that such a priv1l.ep nei't:.her ...ta Wipere' s stanU.rU ner parallels ether privilece
si tuatiens--have alreaay ..en «is.ussN..
CHAPTER VI
The area er shiel. lelislatien, as netM. in the intrMuctien, is en.
er immense ae.,len ty ani. cellSequen.e.
Any cenclusien as te whether er net
a r . .eral qualiriei shield. law sheulAi lie ,asse. By Cencress eventually "eees, I reel, a persena.l value jUlipent.
It is with this unaenrta.n.iinc
that I urge enaetaent er seme rera er qualifi.. am.li lecislatien preteetinc the c.n:tiuntiali ty er a newspersen IS .eurees;
the I18i.n reasens
r.r this eenclusi.n rell...
Our ,evernmental system rests en the asswnptien that, enoe intemY,
an electerate will De alitle te fiiseern its preper iireetien ani make the
wisest ••cisiens.
The _jer seurce er int.rmatien is the news .Mia, ani
its rre.... must be preteotM net r.r its ewn sake, 'but
peeple whe nee« its assistance.
r.r'·,_~-'"
er the
This rreedem must inolwie, at least te
s.me extAmt, the preteotien er news seurees.
Ir this preteetien clashes
with that er law entereement er inaiivi4iual richts. the interest er the
majeri ty in matters--cevernmental ani secietal--4iirectly arreotinc it
sheuli perhaps prevail.
The publio gains macie pessible by steries such
as th.se byae.rge Thiem, Rebert Schulman, the B.sten Glebe Spetlight Team
am
ether newspers.ns eutweigh, in mest eases, the risk te seciety 8y the
less er one
perseIli~
tes timeny.
The increasM. emphasis en the risk taken lty a s.uroe--partieularly
eviaent since the Branzburg cleeisien--neoessitates a re•• nsiieratien e£
the tra.u,tienal lack er newspersenls privilece.
While ne ceIllJ1en law er
51
feaeral privilece bas existH., 8J1Ii while sources have sUp]MseGi.ly contin«
in new8persons anyway, the increase in sub]M8nas coupleci with the inferences--real or ima.gi.ned--of the Supreme Court's stanoe M81' well cause sources-heretofore unfamiliar with the lecal backinc ror press confidentiali"GY assurances·--to think twice berore
re~nc
information.
While the press-
souree relationship may or may net meet Wi«JllOre IS sta.naards, ami
elMS
not
(in my o]linion) parallel other proressional privileges, such a relationship should .. civen equal consideration to other privileces because or
its crucial role in the precess 01' helping the pUblic govern itself.
The fact that sources are net always (or even usualJ¥) criminal characters sheulci also be consiclereci. 'When faced with the beneficial information they otten supPJ¥ to the public tit iees r»t seem fair te expose
them to econemic or physical harm for
A qualifi . . shield law would give
t~ir
erforts.
aauci
reinforcement to the Consti-
tutional &U&rantee of freed.em of the press, ani cive lleeclM. cuid.ance to
or contrel ever 90th wavering or over-zealous judges a.nal presecutors, respectively.
Though it is said. that courts have ceneralJ¥ upheld newsper-
son's privile,e ciespite the Branzburc aeoision--ana that they have upheld
it even before that decision--the court cases SUMmarized. in this paper
indicate to me that, regardless or prevailing judicial opinion, most courts
re-invest:igate the status or newsperson's privile,e in each case ani hase
their dec:lsions on their finclines.
While the courts weulti still have to
determine the _fini tion of a law, the very specificness of
~
shoul. be used. in such a law would. at least offer jwi,es an
equ.a.J4r speci-
fio base i'"rem which to ieliberate.
which
Such legislative definition ani direc-
tion Ddght rMuce the time needM te re-ci.etendne the status ani application or the privilece on a ease-by-case lDasis.
A qualifie& shielAi law
.52
weuli alse preve beneficial te
~ne
&Ccus_ ef a crime;
the &Ccused
weuld be assure&. that the court ceuld. not exte1llll a privile,e fer news-
persens beyellli a certain beUl'¥la.ry.
A qualfiH shield law is nee4eci in spite er the guici.elines set up
~
the Atterney General.
,.enas has increaseG.;
Despi te these cuicielines, the number er sub-
even if the number had net increaseci, the guidelines
can be toe easily disregartiea.--and. are.
This increase in number is equalled
.r surpassed. by an increase in the cest te newspapers ror ciefense.
Re-
straint of the press, either by financial restraint or self-restraint by
newspers.~ns
whe cannet prmise anol\VDli ty, mq also increase--te the pub-
lic's det..riJlent.
My recommendation ef a qualified shield. law bears five qualifications.
One, such a law should be caref'ully written te cever most legitdmate members or the news media;
the privilece sheuld net De cienied merely because
it mit;ht not cover every conceivable persens even remotel¥ al.lir;ned with
the
IleIfSt~athering
process.
Two, the law should all.w protection of the
souree and the information acquired by newspersons in the performance of
their jobs.
Three--because confide nti ali ty is so important to the news-
gathering function--a qualifie4. shield law sheuli offer protection in all
cases exeept those in which a newsperson t s testimony bears (as in Garl.ani
v. Torre) directly upon the thrust of a case--partioularly in cases inwIving the ri,;hta guaranteEHi the aocusH--and in all cases in which
other means of obtaining the newsperson's information have not been exhausteci.
Four, special arr&nglllDents should. be required for obtaining testimony
in instances in which a !'8rson' s rights und.er the Fifth
menta affect such persons' very life or liberty.
ard/or
Sixth Amend.-
A qualified shielJi law
53
should provide fer the cempulsion of a reporter's testimony in such a case
if all ether means of gaining the information have Deen exhausted.
Ani fi ve--because it is the uniformity, net the numbers t ef su'bpeenas
that is :i.mpertant--a qualified shielt law sheulci be made applicable te
state as well as federal judicial and. investigative beciies.
Uniform pre-
tectien ;sheuld be cranted. ttl a profession which increasingly cresses state
lines (and. thereby qualifies, perhaps, rer protection under the interstate
ceJllr18rce clause).
While other professional. privileces are not national
in application, they generally involve individuals in a certain area rather
than the total public.
Thererore, upen the "basis or ay research, I recOllll8ni that a qualified shield law Be aAiopteci in the
um. ted
--------------_
states.
.. _-.
----------_._--_._-_...
BIBLIOORAPHY
B••ks
Barren,
~rereme
A. t ani Gi1lmer, Dena1ci M. Mass C.mmunicati.n Law; Cases
St. Paul, Minn.: West Pultllshinc C.m.pan.y, 1969.
s.. COJIIIIlent.
J.nes, Rttbert W. The Law .f J.urnalism.
Law B. .k Cempany, 1940.
Washincten, D.C.:
Washincten
Nels.n, Bar.ld L., M. Freed.m.f the Press fra HW1ten te the Warren
Q.!.m:1. New Y.rk, N. Y• : The B.lDbs-Merrill Cempa.tlY', Inc., 1967.
Stein, M. L. FreMem.f the Press:
Jill.an Messner, 1966.
A C.ntinuinc Strw;cle.
New Y.rk, N.Y.:
Subc.JllJldttee .n Administrative Practice anel PreCM.ure te the Cemmittee .n
the Judiciary .f the United States Senate. The Newsman's Privilece.
Washincten, D.C.: Unite« states G.verment Printinc Office, 1966.
The Internati.nal Press Institute.
Zurich, Sw1teerland;
Pr.fessi.nal Secreoy anci the J!Ul'nalist.
The Internati.na1 Press Institute, 1962.
J.urnals, News_Jere and. Re..rts
nAn Assallllt .n the Pe.ple."
Les AMe1es Times, DeceMer 20 t 1972.
Baker, Richard T. "Subpeenainc Newsmen: What Effects?"
alia. Review, March-April, 1972, 52-3.
G.rd..n, David. "The C.nfidences Newsmen Must Kee,."
Rmg, Neveaber-Decem&er, 1971, 15-21.
C.1umbia J'urn-
C.1umbia
J'we'; SDl
Graham, Fred. P., and. Larrl.u, Jack C. liThe Federal Shield. Law We Need."
Celumbia J.urnallsm Review, March-April, 1973, 26-3.5.
Guest, James A., and Stanzler, Alan L. "The C.nsti tuti.nal Argtlllent fer
Newsmen C.ncealing Their S.urces. II N.rthwestern Univeraity Law Review t
March-April, 1969, 13-61.
The C.uncil .f state G.vernments. Shield Laws: A ReJ!rt .n Freed• •f the
Eras. Pretacti.n It News Stumes. and the olilip.ti.n te Testify.
I.eJdngten, Kentucky, Neve_ber, 1973.
55
"The Newsman's Privilege."
Harvard. Law Review, Nevember, 1972, 137-48.
J:1Hazines
"All er Nethil1&?"
Newsweek, April 2, 1973. PIp. 57-8.
Aukefer, Frank A. "Holes in the 'Newsman's Shield'."
May. 1973. pp. 9-10.
Bridge, Peter. "Absolute Inmnmity, Absolutely.1I
1973, pp. 8-11.
Califano, Joseph A. Jr.
1973, pp. 21-3.
The Pregressive,
The Quill, January,
The New Republic, May 5,
"Shielding the Press."
"Cla.mer for Federal Shield Law Caols: Qualification Argument Slows Action."
l!I Pigest, May-June, 1973, p. 8.
Cunningham, Ban. liThe William. Farr Case:
~ Quill, December, 1972, pp. 9-13.
In and Out af Jail--And In Again."
"Federal Judge Sides With Newsman Who Refuses to Divulge Sources."
and Publisher, March 24, 1973, p. 9.
"Fight O'~er Freedom and Privilege.'1
~,March
Egitor
5. 1973, pp. 64-5.
Huston, :Luther A. "Ervin Bill to Pre-empt state Shield Statutes."
!:D!! Publisher, March 3, 1973, p. 12.
Editor
Huston, Luther A. IIMellenheff Says an Absolute Sbield Weuld Hurt the Press. 1I
Edi-t.or and Publisher, March 10, 1973, p.
s...
Lapham, lewis H. "The Temptation of a Sacred Cw. t1
August, 1973, pp. 43-54.
lAng, Chc'lrles.
Maines, Patrick.
The Quill, March, 1973, pp. 10-13.
"Are News Sources Drying Up?"
"Shielding the Press. 1I
Harper's l'Hazine,
National Review. May 25, 1973,
pp. 574-6.
Miller, Peter G. "Newsman's Privilege:
Quill, July. 1971, pp. 14-5.
Powers, ~:'hGmas.
pp. 280-3.
An Issue ef Press Freedom."
liThe Rights of Reporters."
Comme.al, May 25, 1973,
Rosenthal, A. M. "Save the First Amerrlment.1I
February 11, 1973, p. 17+.
"Shield Bill Signed Into Law in North Dakota."
Ma.rc:h 31, 1973, p. 66.
The
New York Times Magazine,
Editor and Publisher,
"Shield law Decisien Near in
Co~ss?"
The Quill, April, 1973, pp. 37-9.
IIShield Law Placed 'On Trial;' Jersey Press Jury Still Out."
Publisher, April 7, 1973, p. 26.
"Shield laws Passed By 6 States in '73. 11
1973, p. 16.
Breadcasting,
The Centroversy Over Prepesed • Newsmen • s Shield' Legislatien."
gressional Digest, May, 1973, pp. 131-48.
Ungar, Sanford J.
am
Editor and Publisher, Deoember 29,
"Stanten Favors Absolute Privilege rer Journalists."
February 26, 1973, pp. 56-7.
II
Editor
liThe Battle ror Press Freedem."
The Cen-
The Prtcressive,
January, 1973, pp. 42-6.
IIWriter Needn't Identify Source rer Civil Suit."
Deoember 16, 1972, p. l2.
Ediwr and Publisher,