Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And I want to talk to you about a case that we've been talking about on the show.
It involves a young writer of ours a woman who was out covering the James -- case in Colorado.
And yet he's of information and exclusive piece of information that she publishes it confidential source within that it was in regards James Jones's diary his notebook.
And now she's being subpoenaed the Colorado courts are saying you have to come forward and and tell us.
Who your sources.
Tell me a little bit about the position that she is in right now and really.
Her legal recourse -- head.
Absolutely well there's no question she's in -- challenging position right -- he said.
She reported on an issue of great public importance and -- Easter story on confidential sources she said.
She got the information from someone in law enforcement that Holmes and sent -- his psychiatrist.
A notebook with very disturbing images and claims that he's gonna kill people that sort of thing.
And when she reported this story the defense lawyers for Holm said.
Who leaked this information who told you about this -- the law enforcement source and let the good reporter she declined to reveal confidential source and so now she's in a tough spot because now there's a hearing that's going to go -- to decide whether or not.
She must be forced to disclose -- confidential source and if she doesn't she potentially could face jail time.
And -- silent didn't Miller I think she she faced split 58 days she spent -- and she served time she served time.
This though a lot of Colorado did she have any leeway as you know -- -- -- safer in Colorado and another state.
For -- -- if that makes me and if it does make sense in fact she does have legal recourse Colorado is one of approximately thirty states that has what's known as a reporter shield law.
Which he has a journalist some protection but not blanket protection from disclosing confidential sources and so what the legal standard is is that.
A journalist has the right to declined to reveal his or her confidential sources but that right can be overcome.
If these scientists seeking the information can show that the -- the information is very important to an issue in the case that they can't get information any other way.
And -- the infringement.
On first amendment rights is warranted because of the importance of this information.
-- argue perhaps.
That she wasn't involved in the actual crime that she's reporting acts -- perhaps no one's life is in danger is that what what's her defense right now I'm -- just articulated what will be part of her defense which is to say look this is a situation where are reporter needs to disclose confidential source because there's a crime -- -- to be committed and for example.
The situation -- reporter learns that a terrorist attack is imminent.
There you could see it would be very good reason to force the journalist to disclose where they got the information that you could prevent the attack or prevent crimes from happy.
But here of course the crime is long since over any information that she has is it going to helps all the crime isn't gonna stop a crime that's imminent.
It's really just so that the judge in the other side can find out who leaked information so yes I -- the defense and the Democrats that's exactly right it -- well.
Think that's what the defense says that they already happened Opel.
The notebook itself hasn't been released and so really the only question that anyone's interest in his will who was the person who tipped off the reporter and it's not quite clear what -- strong compelling public interest is in that piece of information.
And they've interviewed president -- and investigators they've been trying to surprise and information on it and I wanted to ask you look at Bennett I probably certain evidence that timeline when -- gag order was Atlantis in place and when this information was released and -- that -- Really indicate an indication -- potential -- will it might the gag orders that in place for a fairly long time and information.
She got I think fairly soon after the incident happened and of course it.
The gag order hadn't been in place of the time -- got information than we probably wouldn't be here so the question really is is.
Was the gag order violated and if so who violated it.
One interesting thing is it appears that a different judge -- -- -- -- should be gag order might bristle.
This controversy and say you could say yeah well since it wasn't the judge issued a gag order of eighty he won't go as harsh on the journalist as he might otherwise if it was -- -- -- order that's been.
This could be ridiculous but what if she had information before -- gag order and didn't publish it I mean what if they can prove that at at the end of finding -- there's about the settlement.
And that kind of ridiculous.
I don't think it's ridiculous and I really would seem to cut against forced disclosure I can.
Situation it's kind of hard to see what was violator who was all right I think I think at the end of the -- I think that.
John has got some good arguments that said you can you judge saying look I think there's a strong public interest in finding out who leaked information doesn't seem to me to be the right outcome.
But judges can get fussy about people who violate their herders and that's not surprising so we'll see how it plays out that's fascinating case pretty significant First Amendment implications -- Yeah well thank you for joining us how we actually didn't had a nice Friday extravaganza to bring.
Filter by section