NCJ Number
13079
Journal
Hastings Law Journal Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Dated: (APRIL 1973) Pages: 915-934
Date Published
1973
Length
20 pages
Annotation
EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES USED BY THE COURTS IN INTERPRETING IMMUNITY STATUTES AND NEWSMAN'S PRIVILEGE AS THEY RELATE TO GRAND JURY TESTIMONY.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES THE 1972 CASE OF BURSEY V. UNITED STATES, WHERE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT BEFORE AN IMMUNE GRAND JURY WITNESS CAN BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER A DISPUTED QUESTION, THAT QUESTION MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR WHICH THE WITNESS WAS GRANTED IMMUNITY. THE DISCUSSION ANALYZES THE WITNESS'S CLAIM IN THIS CASE THAT BY FORCING HER TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS, THE GOVERNMENT WAS VIOLATING HER RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION AND OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT HERE, THE WITNESS BEING A MEMBER OF A DISSIDENT POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS A STAFF MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZATION'S NEWSPAPER, A STRONGER ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS COULD BE MADE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION DOCTRINE. NEWSMAN'S PRIVILEGE IN RELATION TO GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, HE OFFERS, HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY ERODED BY THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE OF BRANZBURG V. HAYES, WHICH ELIMINATED THE CONCEPT OF A NEWSMAN'S PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES IN A GOOD FAITH INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDING AND CONSEQUENTLY MAY NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE.