Journalist's Privilege in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of United States Courts of Appeals' Decisions from 1973 to 1999

By Schmid, Karl H. | American Criminal Law Review, Fall 2002 | Go to article overview

Journalist's Privilege in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of United States Courts of Appeals' Decisions from 1973 to 1999


Schmid, Karl H., American Criminal Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

United States Courts of Appeals rarely are presented with the issue of journalist's privilege emanating from a criminal proceeding. In August 2001, however, the Fifth Circuit decided one of the most publicized journalist's privilege cases in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. (1) The case concerned Vanessa Leggett, an aspiring freelance writer and English teacher, who was investigating a murder case with the hopes of publishing a book about the incident. (2) After Leggett failed to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena, the court cited her for civil contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [section] 1826(a) (3) and ordered her jailed until she furnished the sought-after materials, which consisted of tape recordings, notes of interviews, and photographs. (4) The statute allows a court to jail persons held in contempt for a maximum of eighteen months until the requested materials are relinquished. (5) On appeal, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "the journalist's privilege is ineffectual against a grand jury subpoena absent evidence of governmental harassment or oppression." (6) Finding no governmental harassment or oppression, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Leggett incarcerated. (7)

Leggett finally was released from jail after 168 days of incarceration. (8) But for her lengthy incarceration, Leggett's story is not unique. The incidence of subpoenas served on journalists increased in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a result of the Nixon Administration's attempt to investigate and punish radical activity generated by the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. (9) Journalists, in response, increasingly claimed a First-Amendment-based privilege (10) to avoid forced disclosure of sources. (11) In the 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, (12) the United States Supreme Court refused to recognize a First-Amendment-based journalist's privilege for confidential sources. The Court's decision in Branzburg notably pertained only to situations in which journalists who allegedly were eyewitnesses to criminal activity were subpoenaed to provide information to grand juries. (13) Since Branzburg, both federal and state courts have recognized a First-Amendment-based journalist's privilege in circumstances different from the facts in Branzburg. (14) In addition, thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have recognized a journalist's privilege by passing statutes known as "shield laws," specifying the conditions under which journalists may refuse to disclose information in legal proceedings. (15)

Despite widespread judicial and legislative recognition of a journalist's privilege, subpoenas continue to be served on journalists at what some consider an alarming rate. (16) According to available evidence from studies conducted by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press ("Reporters Committee"), journalists are "drowning in a sea of subpoenas." (17) Those studies indicate that the majority of subpoenas issued to journalists originate from criminal defendants, not from prosecutors or civil litigants. (18) But prosecutors also issue a substantial numbers of subpoenas and the Reporters Committee has concluded that courts have created a prosecutorial due process right to obtain evidence, a right similar to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to obtain evidence that may prove her or his innocence. (19)

Given the significance the American system of criminal justice traditionally has placed on the need to protect the innocent from erroneous conviction, (20) it is unmistakable that one of the primary goals of a criminal trial is to ensure an accurate determination of the facts in a criminal case. (21) However, when criminal defendants and the government seek to introduce evidence to ascertain the facts of a case, their respective interests necessarily collide in the American adversarial adjudicatory system. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Journalist's Privilege in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of United States Courts of Appeals' Decisions from 1973 to 1999
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.