e-learningsite.com

free essays
Free essays

Court Decision Summary- Protecting Sources, Newsroom Searches, Media and

COURT DECISION SUMMARY 3

CourtDecision Summary-ProtectingSources, Newsroom Searches, Media and the Judiciary

CourtDecision Summary-ProtectingSources, Newsroom Searches, Media and the Judiciary

Inthe case, the journalist had published an article that was disclosingconfidential information contained in a note book, which couldincriminate a defendant. The court had decided to conceal thecontents of the notebook, and when this was made public, a subpoenawas served to the journalist requiring her to appear in court andtell the jury about the sources of the information from the notebook.However, the journalist is protected by the law not to disclose herconfidential sources, without being charged with contempt of thecourt. With this regard, the New York state decided to protect thejournalist from appearing before the jury of the other state as thatwould not only jeopardize her livelihood but also infringe herconstitutional protection against being compelled to give away herconfidential informants.

Ina word, in case Jana was compelled to appear in a differentjurisdiction and be forced to tell on her informant, which would be adirect violation of the shield law core protection. This fact broughtthe court to a key conclusion that the subpoena should not have beengranted. Although there was a slight inclination towards the factthat the journalist may have gotten her information without thejurisdiction of the New York shield law, the office of the journalistis situated in New York, and the protection of the shield law doesnot cease to work when she leaves New York to&nbspanother state.

Imperatively,the subpoena failed to work in New York because it was served whileJana was in New York where her rights to protect confidential sourceswas guaranteed. However, another subpoena could be served to thejournalist, if, for some reason, she happens to travel to Coloradoas during such time the New York jurisdiction will not be relevant.

References

Case:http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2013/Dec13/245opn13-Decision.pdf