reporters privilege

New York Times' James Risen won't be called to testify about his confidential sources after all, his colleague Matt Apuzzo reports. As Jeffrey Sterling goes on trial for allegedly leaking classified information about a CIA operation in Iran, federal prosecutors have dropped their efforts to have Risen testify in the trial on the theory that Sterling was Risen's source. However,  Joel Kurtzberg, a lawyer with Cahill Gordon & Reindel, told Apuzzo, "while Mr. Risen ultimately may not have to testify, the Justice Department used the case to create court precedent that could be used to force journalists to testify in the future."

The New York Times' James Risen reluctantly took the stand in a preview of what testimony he would give if compelled by the Justice Department to give testimony about his confidential sources for classified information in a book chapter about the Iranian nuclear program, his colleague Matt Apuzzo reports. Risen refused to say anything to help prosecutors in their case against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer who allegedly provided the information to Risen. Edward B. MacMahon, Sterling's lawyer, said during the hearing, "that without more information from Mr. Risen, the government had no case. He said prosecutors could not even prove that the leak had occurred in Virginia," where the case is being prosecuted.

A Pennsylvania judge presiding over an investigating grand jury squelched a subpoena issued to Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Brad Bumstead, that paper reports. The strangest part of the situation is that the judge says the subpoena--which had his signature on it-- was issued without his knowledge: "Judge William R. Carpenter, who is supervising the grand jury and whose signature appears on the subpoena issued Wednesday night, told the Trib he did not know about the subpoena until he talked with a reporter."

The judge has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether information has been leaked by the Attorney General's Office.

Several media-law experts told the Trib that Pennsylvania has a strong law that shields reporters from having to reveal their confidential sources.
 

The likelihood is very low that the U.S. Senate will take up a law that would provide a federal evidentiary privilege to journalists against revealing their sources, writes Rem Rieder in USA Today. While the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill and the House of Representatives also has passed a bill with a shield for journalists, the Senate is not likely to spend a week debating an evidentiary privilege for reporters during its lame-duck session starting November 12, Rieder further writes. "So the shield law, like immigration reform and gun control, looms as yet another casualty of the gridlock that has paralyzed Capitol Hill and turned Congress into a wildly dysfunctional and widely loathed travesty," Rieder concludes.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of New York Times' reporter James Risen over a lower court ruling that he must identify his confidential source for a national security story, Risen's colleague Adam Liptak reports. Risen could face jail if he refuses to comply with the court order. While the Obama administration said in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no evidentiary privilege for reporters not to identify confidential sources who have broken the law, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted that federal prosecutors may not ask for Risen to be jailed for contempt if he refuses to testify, Liptak further reports.

The petition of certiorari made by New York Times reporter James Risen, who the Fourth Circuit has ruled must identify a confidential source in the case of a former CIA agent suspected of being a leaker, will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court at a May 29 conference, SCOTUSblog reports.

Lee Levine, a leading First Amendment lawyer with Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, has said he does not think that the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, there could be five votes in favor of recognizing a qualified common law privilege for reporters’ confidential sources, Levine said. Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the key vote, he said.

The federal government is opposing New York Times reporter James Risen's request for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case, which could have profound impact on media law and the amount of protection reporters have for their confidential sources, Politico reports. The Fourth Circuit ordered Risen to testify about his confidential sources in the federal prosecution of an alleged leaker. Risen was subpoenaed regarding his sources for his reportage about a CIA effort to undermine Iran's nuclear program.

Law professor Geoffrey R. Stone, writing in the Daily Beast, said having an evidentiary privilege for journalists' sources is key to democracy. The point of the privilege is that confidential sources will be incentivized to reveal information to reporters without fear of retaliation and exposure, Stone says. It's good for democracy "to gain access to information that otherwise might never see the light of day" because wrongdoing will be exposed more, he says. Congress should enact a federal shield law even if it means that lines are drawn on who qualifies as a journalist and what information is protected by the privilege, he concludes.

Defense lawyers for the accused Aurora, Colorado, movie shooter are going to seek access to a reporter's confidential sources all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Reuters reports. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that state's shield law protects Jana Winter from having to reveal her sources in the Colorado criminal case.

(Hat tip to How Appealing, where I first saw this news.)

New York Times reporter James Risen, who federal prosecutors are seeking to have identify his confidential sources in a criminal case against an alleged CIA leaker, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether he is entitled to reporters privilege, Politico reports. At issue Risen's counsel argued in the petition is if journalists have a a qualified First Amendment privilege regarding confidential sources in criminal trials and if a common law privilege should be recognized for journalists under Federal Rule of Evidence 501.