Reporters and Testifying in Criminal Cases: The Paul Branzburg Case Study

Introduction

The 1st amendment protects members of the press in the United States of America and other parts of the world. However, it does not seem to give them immunity when it comes to testifying in criminal cases. In most cases, reporters go in deep lengths to get news and sometimes witness activities that are considered illegal, and at times they are compelled to testify.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Paul Branzburg was a journalist who wrote a sequence of articles on illegal drug trafficking, with the help of drug users who provided him with information. In return, the drug users demanded anonymity from him. One day he was summoned by the grand jury and directed to submit his sources to the government, which he declined. He declined on the basis that he enjoyed the freedom of the press, whereby the government could not direct journalists to hand over their sources of information.

Branzburg's case was heard by the supreme court together with the two other cases, one of a fellow journalist known as Paul Pappas and another case by the government, which was known as Caldwell. Branzburg and Pappas lost by 5-4. The court ruled that the interest of public law enforcement outweighed the journalist's claim of being exempted from becoming witnesses of criminal cases. The current paper will analyze the case of Branzburg V. Hayes. Also, to help with the analysis, it will involve another similar case of another journalist Paul Pappas and that of Caldwell.

Case Analysis

The supreme court maintained that neither the federal law nor the first amendment gave journalists the privilege of being exempted from testifying on matters relating to crime before a trial court. (Branzburg v. Hayes - Global Freedom of Expression, 2019). The court ruled the judgement concerning three appeals that had been presented. Paul Branzburg had been summoned before the grand jury to disclose the sources that had provided him with information which he used to write his articles on the illegal drugs trade. Paul Pappas and Caldwell were supposed to testify on the events that had transpired when they were covering the black panther event.

The court acknowledged the importance of journalists' confidentiality through the protection of the rights of the press, but it ruled that the interest of the public in criminal prosecution outweighed the interest of journalists' confidentiality. The court reasoned that journalists had no privileges over ordinary citizens and that if an ordinary citizen was not given any testimonial privileges, neither was a journalist liable for it. The court stated that the only exception that journalists would be allowed not to testify before the grand jury was if it was noted that the government was acting in bad faith. Such scenarios will be like if the government could not clearly explain the need of the testimony. (Branzburg v. Hayes - Global Freedom of Expression, 2019).

Facts

This matter was comprised of three different cases, which were combined by the supreme court to address judicial efficiency.

One case involved Paul Branzburg, a journalist for Louisville Kentucky Couriert. In the late 1960s, Paul Branzburg shifted his attention to addressing production and use of illegal drugs in Louisville. For instance, in 1969, Branzburg published an article about people who were using marijuana to produce harsh.

The article further stated that Branzburg had promised his sources that he would not expose them to anyone. However, later on, Branzburg was summoned by the grand jury to provide testimony and disclose the origins of the information he had published. He declined to expose his sources, and the grand jury denied his argument that in both the constitutional and Kentucky laws, there existed a privilege for reporters. Paul Branzburg decided to appeal the matter, and on appeal, the Kentucky court of laws declined his petition. Branzburg then went ahead and filled a certiorari writ before the supreme court.

Another case involved Paul Pappas, who was a television journalist in New Bedford, Massachusetts. After the occurrence of local violence, Pappas gained access to a press conference by the black panther, which he never gave any details about. Paul Pappas never reported anything that he had heard or seen in the press conference. However, Pappas was later summoned by the grand jury to appear before it and give details of what transpired in the press conference, and he refused. He appealed his motion to the supreme court of Massachusetts, which ruled that there did not exist such reporters' privilege. Pappas later appealed to the US supreme court.

Cardwell case was the last one, and it originated from California, whereby the government was appealing a ruling by the appeal's court, which had ruled that the privilege of a qualified journalist existed in the federal law. The case involved a journalist who had covered the black panther press conference similar to Paul Pappas. The journalist was summoned to testify on the matter before the trial court, and he refused to testify. The case was taken to the court of appeal which directed that the government was to give a detailed report which would satisfy the court as to why the testimony was needed and that until that, the journalist had privileges that allowed him not to testify on the matter. The government was not pleased with the court of appeal's decision, and so it appealed to the supreme court.

After review of the cases, the supreme court found the matters to be similar, and so it combined them to make a ruling.

Decision Overview

In its decision, the supreme court clarified that neither the federal law nor the first amendment granted journalists privileges that barred them from attesting in criminal activities before the grand jury. The court further related reporters to regular citizens and stated that since ordinary citizens did not have such privilege that barred them from testifying against criminal activities, journalists could not be an exemption (Branzburg v. Hayes - Global Freedom of Expression, 2019).

The court explained that journalists did not have greater rights than the ordinary citizen to access governmental affairs, and it meant that although journalists enjoyed the freedom of the media, the freedom contained some restrictions. The freedom of the press had to balance with public interests, and in case the public benefits outweighed the freedom of the media, then journalists had to accept that the privilege was limited.

The court further held that in the case of maintaining journalists' confidentiality, many criminals would get away with their crimes. For this reason, the petitions that Pappas and Branzburg had filed were denied, and the decisions that had been made by their respective states to testify were affirmed. Furthermore, the Cardwell case was overturned, and the government was allowed to acquire the reporter's testimony before a grand jury and ask the identity of sources.

References

Branzburg v. Hayes - Global Freedom of Expression. (2019). Retrieved from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/branzburg-v-hayes/