3C3

3. Grand jury

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 In In re Hibberd, an unpublished decision, the Arizona Superior Court reaffirmed the statute's absolute protection for confidential source information in grand jury proceedings.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

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

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

3. Grand jury

In Michigan grand jury subpoenas against reporters are subject to a statute, (see above) which provides fairly strong protection against grand jury subpoenas. MCL 767.5a. The prohibition against reporter subpoenas applies to the identity of and the unpublished information given by informants. There is no requirement that the informant have a confidential relationship with the reporter.

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 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Miller, 397 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2005), opinion superseded by 438 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2006).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

While there has been no case law in Colorado testing the Shield Law in the context of a grand jury proceeding, the statute is written broadly enough to be applicable to such proceedings. The statute clearly states that the privilege attaches in any "criminal investigation, discovery procedure, hearing, trial or other process for obtaining information conducted by, before, or under the authority of any judicial body of the state of Colorado." C.R.S.(1)(e).

3. Grand jury

A grand jury could compel disclosure of confidential or unpublished information under the statute if the conditions for compelling disclosure could be met.

3. Grand jury

The privilege is explicitly applicable to grand jury subpoenas. R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-19.1-2. Accordingly, a grand jury subpoena would presumably be treated no differently than any other subpoena.