3C3

3. Grand jury

3. Grand jury

Although Illinois courts have not expressly set forth different standards for grand jury subpoenas relating to the Statute, some Illinois courts have found that grand jury proceedings implicate a compelling public interest that outweighs the public's interest in the privilege. See People v. Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill.2d 177; see also United States v. Jennings, No. 97 CR 765, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9534 at *1 (N.D. Ill.

3. Grand jury

Rule 11-514 does not distinguish between grand-jury proceedings and other criminal proceedings.

3. Grand jury

Although there are no West Virginia cases directly on point addressing a reporter's privilege in the grand jury context, nevertheless, the Hudok court acknowledged that a reporter's privilege "will yield in proceedings before a grand jury where the reporter has personal knowledge or is aware of confidential sources that bear on the criminal investigation[.]" The Hudok court cited with approval the United States Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct.

3. Grand jury

In an unpublished decision, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado quashed a grand jury subpoena that had been issued on an UPI reporter as part of a federal investigation to determine whether a particular Secret Service agent had "leaked" a photograph obtained from the home of John Hinckley's parents to the press. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 8 Media L. Rptr. (BNA) 1418, 1419 (D. Colo. 1982).

3. Grand jury

Indiana's shield law applies in "any legal proceedings or elsewhere." Ind. Code § 34-46-4-2. As stated above, the shield law applies to state matters only. Such limitation means that the shield law does not apply when a reporter is called before a federal grand jury.

There is no other source of privilege in a criminal case. The Indiana Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a qualified privilege exists under either the U.S. or state constitution in criminal cases. See In re WTHR-TV (State v. Cline), 693 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1998).

3. Grand jury

NRS 49.275 specifies that the privilege is applicable to grand jury proceedings. It should not be more difficult to defend against issuance of a subpoena in this context.

3. Grand jury

Wyoming has no statutory or reported court decisions involving reporter's privilege in regard to grand jury testimony.

3. Grand jury

In Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., the court refers to the Branzburg decision, and points to the fact that the decision was based on whether reporters could be compelled to testify in grand jury proceedings. While the Miller court did not disagree that the reporter's privilege could apply in grand jury proceedings, it did, however, determine that in libel cases there is a stronger interest in protecting confidentiality of journalist's sources as opposed to the need for protection in grand jury proceedings.

3. Grand jury

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue in the state courts. (Note: grand juries are rarely convened under Kansas law. A somewhat-similar procedure journalists are more likely to encounter in the state courts is the prosecutorial "inquisition." See K.S.A. 22-3101, et seq. An inquisition is essentially a discovery proceeding, in which the district attorney is authorized to issue subpoenas for testimony under oath regarding alleged violations of state law. There is no case law discussing the privilege in the context of an inquisition.)

3. Grand jury

Civil Rights Law § 79-h applies, on its face, to grand jury subpoenas. See Civil Rights Law § 79-h (b), (c) ("nor shall a grand jury seek to have a journalist or newscaster held in contempt by any court"). As the Court of Appeals has stated, the constitutional provision proscribing laws which suspend or impair a grand jury's investigative power was "not intended to prevent the Legislature from creating evidentiary privileges or their equivalent that have an incidental impact on investigations." Beach, 62 N.Y.2d at 252.