“You’ve got enough to go to trial. You think you can win,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg told Hatfill’s lawyer. “Why is more evidence critical to the case? That seems to be a contradiction.”
***
“I think you have an argument that the court didn’t do the necessary balance,” Judge Judith W. Rogers said.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the third member on the panel, expressed skepticism that Locy had a constitutional right not to identify her sources. But he said she had a very strong case under a more general legal principle, known as common law.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-05-09-locy-appeal_N.htm
Comment: Nothing would prevent the appellate court from narrowing the District Court’s ruling and ordering Locy to compel the name of the fourth source. Courts on Appeal commonly engage in balancing and line-drawing when faced with an overbroad ruling by a court below.
ABC -
The three-judge panel seemed skeptical of Locy’s attorney’s claims that she couldn’t remember which of her sources had provided information on Hatfill. The judges said it was clear from previous hearings that she knew about four or five people who were the sources.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4823142&page=2