At one point in its opinion, however, the Court wrote that “reporters, like other citizens, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.”7The reference to criminal trials should be considered dictum, and therefore not binding on lower courts.
before grand juries. At one point in its opinion, however, the Court wrote that “reporters, like other citizens, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.”7 The reference to criminal trials should be considered dictum, and therefore not binding on lower courts.
the Supreme Court held that reporters, "like other citizens, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.
Federal Grand Jury Crash Course. By Solomon L. Wisenberg. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.. Federal grand juries have enormous power within our criminal justice system. Responding incorrectly to a federal grand jury subpoena for your testimony or documents, or …
that “reporters, like other citizen s, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.”5 The reference to criminal trials should be considered dictum, and therefore not binding on lower courts. Branzburg was a 5-4 decision, and, though Justice Powell was one of the five in the
The question is a sensitive one among journalists. The Supreme Court held in its 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes that reporters had no privilege to refuse to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries.
present danger rule: says that words can be outlawed. those who utter them can be punished when the words they use trigger an immediate danger that criminal acts will follow.
What is a Grand Jury? a jury selected to examine the validity of an accusation before trial.
A primary purpose of the grand jury is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed the crime or crimes. A document that outlines the charge or charges against a defendant.
Cohen vHayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). In Branzburg, the Court held that journalists, like other citizens, must "respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation." Id. at 690-691; see Cohen v.Oct 21, 2014
The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government.
The grand jury is generally free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision. The grand jury assesses whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge against a suspect. The grand jury is “a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” United States v.
A grand jury is set up by a prosecutor to determine whether there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution. In legal terms, it determines whether probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed. In order to come to this conclusion, the jury is given investigative powers.Oct 21, 2020
grand jury. jury that determines whether sufficient evidence is available to justify a trial; grand juries do not rule on the accused's guilt or innocence.
Grand juries view evidence to decide whether to file charges, but don't decide guilt like a regular jury.
A grand jury is presented with evidence from the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor in federal criminal cases. The grand jury determines whether there is “probable cause” to believe the individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial.
What is the role of a grand jury? A grand jury determines whether or not there is enough evidence for a trial.
As mentioned, Rule 6 (e) prohibits the government from revealing “a matter occurring before the grand jury.”. This prohibition of course covers the content of federal grand jury testimony. But it goes much further.
Mr. Wisenberg’s book, White Collar Crime: Securities Fraud (3rd Ed. 2016), is published by Thomson Reuters–one of the world’s leading legal publishing houses. His articles and essays have appeared in the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, Corporate Counsel, the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, and other leading publications.
Because of his experience and extensive knowledge of white collar criminal law, Mr. Wisenberg is routinely sought out by prominent national print and broadcast media to provide expert analysis of complex white collar legal issues. Read More
The standard for overcoming subpoenas to appear before or provide information to the grand jury is the same as the standard for overcoming subpoenas in the context of criminal and civil proceedings. See Morgan v. State, 337 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1976).
MCL 767.5a. The prohibition against reporter subpoenas applies to the identity of and the unpublished information given by informants. There is no requirement that the informant have a confidential relationship with the reporter.
Hayes, the Supreme Court held that “newsmen are not exempt from the normal duty of appearing before a grand jury and answering questions relevant to a criminal investigation.” 408 U.S. 665, 685 (1972). The Court reasoned that the necessity of providing grand juries with all available information to facilitate the proper administration of justice outweighs the First Amendment interest asserted by reporters. Id. at 686-87.
In New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006) the Second Circuit explicitly refused to decide whether there was a common law privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for reporters to withhold sources from a grand jury. If a privilege existed, it was overcome by the government's compelling interest in investigating the unauthorized disclosure of imminent law enforcement actions. Id. at 171. In Gonazles, the prosecutor sought the phone records of The New York Times in connection with an investigation concerning the unauthorized disclosure of government plans to seize assets of suspected terrorist organizations. Id. at 163. The court limited its finding to the facts of this case, explicitly distinguishing it from a case involving government misconduct or corruption. Id. at 171-72. The court similarly found that there was no protection under the First Amendment, holding that the government interest in this case trumped any privilege outlined in the various Branzburg opinions, with the exception of Justice Douglas' dissent. Id. In dissent, Judge Sack urged the court to recognize a common law privilege, explaining, " [a] qualified journalists' privilege seems to me easily ñ even obviously ñ to meet [the qualifications set forth by the Supreme Court in Jaffe ]. The protection exists. It is palpable; it is ubiquitous; it is widely relied upon; it is an integral part of the way in which the public is kept informed and therefore of the American democratic process." Id at 181. Echoing the concerns expressed by Judge Tatel in the Judith Miller case, Sack urged the court to adopt a different test for cases involving leak investigations. Id. at 185.
Generally, reporters in the Ninth Circuit are not entitled to a First Amendment privilege in refusing to testify before a federal grand jury regarding information received in confidence. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce v. United States), 5 F.3d 397, 400 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming a judgment holding an academic author in contempt for refusing to answer certain questions asked by a federal grand jury after he claimed he was entitled to a scholar’s privilege, similar to the reporter’s privilege). The U.S. Supreme Court, and consequently the Ninth Circuit, do not recognize the privilege in most grand jury proceedings, based on the theory that whatever burden might result from requiring reporters to testify would not override the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings. See id. (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 690 (1972)).
The Arizona Shield Law applies to proceedings "before any jury, inquisitorial body or commission . . . ." A.R.S. § 12-2237. In In re Hibberd, an unpublished decision, the Arizona Superior Court reaffirmed the statute's absolute protection for confidential source information in grand jury proceedings. In that case, several homes under construction in Phoenix had been destroyed by fires set by an eco-terrorist/serial arsonist. A grand jury issued a subpoena to James Hibberd, a reporter for Phoenix New Times, a local weekly, requiring him to produce tape-recorded conversations with the alleged arsonist, as well as unpublished notes and various electronic and computer data. The grand jury sought this information to identify the person who represented himself to the reporter to be the arsonist. The Arizona Superior Court granted the New Times and Hibberd's Motion to Quash.
Alaska appellate courts have not had occasion to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege. Given the nature of grand jury proceedings, and particularly the fact the cases consolidated in Branzburg all arose from a grand jury setting, it is predictable that courts might be more likely to enforce a subpoena in this context. However, anecdotal experience indicates that courts are willing to recognize a reporter's privilege, and apply the normal tests to quash a subpoena where the circumstances warrant. See In The Matter of the January 1996 Grand Jury; Case No. 4FA-S96-45 Cr. (4th Jud. Dist. (Fairbanks), 1996)