3C3

3. Grand jury

3. Grand jury

The statute, by its express terms, does not differentiate grand jury from other judicial proceedings. There is no case law interpreting the statute in a grand jury context.

3. Grand jury

Because the statute specifically mentions grand juries, it seems unlikely that there would be a different, or lower, level of protection of sources with respect to grand jury proceedings. There are no appellate court cases construing the statute in the context of a grand jury proceeding. The statute, however, does not apply to federal grand jury subpoenas. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Am. Broad. Co., 947 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D. Ark. 1996).

3. Grand jury

The standards for the privilege do not differ for grand jury subpoenas. See In re John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 574 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 1991); In re Pappas, 266 N.E.2d 297 (Mass. 1971).

3. Grand jury

ORS 44.520 prohibits any judicial body (or any authority having the ability to compel testimony) from compelling the testimony of a reporter. An earlier state Supreme Court decision, in which both state and federal constitutional claims of privilege were rejected, invited this legislative response. State v. Buchanan, 250 Or. 244 436 P.2d 729 (1968).

3. Grand jury

The Arizona Shield Law applies to proceedings "before any jury, inquisitorial body or commission . . . ." A.R.S. § 12-2237. In In re Hibberd, an unpublished decision, the Arizona Superior Court reaffirmed the statute's absolute protection for confidential source information in grand jury proceedings. In that case, several homes under construction in Phoenix had been destroyed by fires set by an eco-terrorist/serial arsonist.

3. Grand jury

Although "grand juries" are not expressly mentioned in the shield law statute, it does apply Brady to any "judicial, legislative, administrative or other body with the power to issue a subpoena." 16 M.R.S.A. 61(1).

3. Grand jury

The applicability of the Shield Law and First Amendment privilege to grand jury proceedings was raised, but not explicitly decided, in In re the Twenty-Fourth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 907 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2006). In that case, a newspaper's computer workstations was subpoenaed by the Attorney General' Office in the course of a statewide grand jury investigating whether the coroner gave the newspaper's reporters his password to a part of the county's website restricted to law enforcement and other authorized persons.

3. Grand jury

The D.C. Circuit, citing Branzburg v. Hayes, has declined to recognize the existence of qualified First Amendment in the grand jury context. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Miller, 397 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2005), opinion superseded by 438 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2006). However, the press, like other citizens, may still seek protection from the court where harassment or bad faith can be established. See, e.g., In re Special Counsel Investigation, 332 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004); In re Grand Jury 95-1, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (D.D.C.

3. Grand jury

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.