Chapter 10 Protection of News Sources/Contempt Power
| First, Sixth and Fifth Amendments | |
|
What happens when they conflict?
|
|
| First - free press | |
| Sixth - right of the accused to have witnesses and to compel them to testify (subpeona power) | |
| Fifth - opens the door to exceptions to the principle that all should testify | |
|
|
|
|
To not testify is a privilege (not a
right) if not explicitly covered by the Fifth Amendment
|
|
|
|
|
| These exceptions often protect confidential relationships | |
| Husband-Wife | |
| Doctor-Patient | |
| Lawyer-Client | |
| Clergy-Penitent | |
|
|
|
| The receivers of information are bound by ethics not to disclose what they know to others without permission | |
|
|
|
| Is the Journalist-Source relationship worthy of privilege? | |
|
Some sources won't talk without anonymity
|
|
|
Some sources could be at risk if identified
|
|
|
Some sources could refuse to talk later
if exposed
|
|
|
Sometimes journalists can't get information
without the ability to insure confidentiality
|
|
|
Protecting a source (keeping a promise)
is an ethical obligation
|
|
|
|
|
| Constitutional issues | |
| Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) | |
|
Opened the door to the possibility of privilege (in testimony settings other than grand juries) |
|
|
note that in dissent a test was proposed that would later find favor:
|
|
| Privilege can be granted unless the government can show: | |
| 1. There is probable cause to believe that the reporter has information that is clearly relevant to a specific violation of the law | |
| 2. That the information can't be obtained by other means | |
| 3. That the state has a compelling and overriding interest in the information | |
|
|
|
| A balancing test - balancing the public interest in law enforcement against the journalistic interest in protecting a source | |
|
|
|
| Most states ask some variation of these questions for criminal cases | |
|
Privilege is most likely to be granted
in civil cases, less likely for criminal cases, and pretty much never
for grand jury cases.
|
|
|
|
|
| There is no privilege for nonconfidential information (information that hasn't been promised as confidential - reporter notes, videos etc. can fit here) | |
|
|
|
| The process: | |
| A reporter publishes a story disclosing direct knowledge of a crime (and has promised confidentiality to the source) | |
| The reporter is called to testify | |
| What can the reporter do? | |
| 1. testify | |
| 2. file a motion to quash | |
| 3. negotiate over what information will be disclosed (may involve letting the judge know everything in chambers) | |
|
|
|
| If the motion/negotiation fail: | |
| 1. seek permission from the source to identify | |
| 2. face contempt charges (jail and/or fine) 6 months - trial | |
| 3. testify and face a possible civil suit from the source | |
|
|
|
| Reporters can be sued for breaking a confidentiality agreement (Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.) | |
|
promissory estoppel - designed to prevent injustice when some one has failed to keep a promise that someone else relied upon (when no contract has been executed) |
|
|
Don't promise confidentiality lightly
|
|
|
Qualify confidentiality if at all possible
|
|
|
tips
|
|
|
|
|
| A key question - who is a journalist? | |
|
(who might qualify for privilege)
|
|
|
The Internet has complicated this question!
|
|
| guidelines | |
| 1. someone who is engaged in investigative reporting | |
| 2. someone who is gathering news | |
| 3. someone who possesses the intent at the beginning of the newsgathering process to disseminate this news to the public | |
|
vague!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shield laws - some states have granted
reporters differing levels of privilege (at best, a qualified privilege)
|
|
|
Does Minnesota have a shield law?
|
|
|
There is no federal shield law but the
Department of Justice has guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
| Minnesota Shield Law (Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act - 595.021 - .025) | |
|
|
|
| see also SPLC state guides | |