NCJ Number
14752
Journal
Capital University Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: (1974) Pages: 53-76
Date Published
1974
Length
24 pages
Annotation
BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE 1972 CASE OF BRANZBURG V. HAYES, THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE 19 STATE STATUTES WHICH PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION TO NEWSMEN, AND A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW INTERPRETING THESE STATUTES.
Abstract
IN BRANZBURG THE COURT CONSIDERED THE CLAIM ADVANCED BY NEWSMEN THAT THE FORCE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT EXEMPTED REPORTERS FROM RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AS OTHER CITIZENS MUST WHEN SUMMONED TO APPEAR AND ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE A TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE FOUNDED ON EITHER FIRST AMENDMENT OR COMMON LAW GROUNDS. THE COURT HELD THAT CREATING A PRIVILEGE FOR NEWSMEN--NOT EXTENDED TO ALL CITIZENS--IS AN UNWARRANTED INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. PRESENTLY, NINETEEN STATES HAVE SOUGHT TO SHIELD JOURNALISTS IN SOME DEGREE BY ADOPTING A STATUTORY TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATES HAVE RESPONDED TO NEWSMEN'S FIRST AMENDMENT PLEAS, A DISTINCTIVE DIVISION IN THE BREADTH OF PROTECTION HAS EMERGED. SOME STATES HAVE GRANTED THE NEWSMEN AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AGAINST ANY JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY WITH CONTEMPT POWERS. FEWER STATES ADOPTING PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION FOR NEWSMEN HAVE CREATED A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE WHICH REQUIRE DISCLOSURE UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CASE LAW INTERPRETING THESE STATUTES HAS CONCERNED NEWS MEDIA COVERED, SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, PERSONS PROTECTED, SOURCE OF INFORMATION, PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS FOR WAIVER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)