Posted on 08/17/2004 2:33:44 PM PDT by fso301
This 12 page opinion by Judge Thomas F. Hogan outlines his reasons for holding reporters in contempt. It is available from the courts website as a pdf file. The opinion may be read from the courts website by Pressing Here
The URL of the actual Aug 9, 2004 order by Judge Hogan was already posted on FR by Former Military Chick
Any bets on who the leaker is?
Big media (They the Corporations) should have no more rights than little media (We the People).
Big media (They the Corporations) should have no more rights than little media (We the People).
You're preaching to the choir on that one.
My feeling on this whole subject/incident is - if a newsperson is going to report something they should support what they say by how and who gave them the info. If newspeople can not name names then it is not worthy of ink. No more undisclosed persons stuff. When ever I see that I pass it over as lie!!!
My feeling on this whole subject/incident is - if a newsperson is going to report something they should support what they say by how and who gave them the info. If newspeople can not name names then it is not worthy of ink. No more undisclosed persons stuff. When ever I see that I pass it over as lie!!!
From my reading of the judge's opinion, there are no 1st Amendment protections of a reporters source in criminal matters.
Good idea! Now if we can just get the prosecuters and police in drug cases to produce their confidential informers we'll be on the road to constitutional rec
I, for one, don't need 12 pages to hold reporters in contempt. I can do it in ONE sentence..
Good idea! Now if we can just get the prosecuters and police in drug cases to produce their confidential informers we'll be on the road to constitutional rec
From time to time, that happens.
Actually, law enforcement and prosecutors are required to disclose if there is a determination by the court that they possess material evidence that the Defendant committed the criminal charge in the inidctment. Even greater grounds for disclosure would be if the informant possessed information that was exculpatory for the Defendant. The information provided by the informant cannot be disclosed to a jury if the informant is not disclosed and does not testify. First off, that information would be inadmissible hearsay and secondly, it would violate the confrontation clause in the Constitution.
I will admit that a lot of information provided by informants forms the basis for obtaining search warrants or arrest warrants. There are more limited grounds for disclosure in those incidents, if the credibility of the warrant is legitimately questioned.
I don't want the false impression that they aren't ever disclosed to be left on those that might read this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.