Judge: Free Press reporter can protect sources

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit Free Press

Judge: Free Press reporter can protect sources
BY JOE SWICKARD • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • APRIL 21, 2009


UPDATED AT 4:32 p.m.: U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland just ruled that Free Press reporter David Ashenfelter does not have to reveal his sources in a 2004 article about an embattled federal prosecutor.

Cleland accepted Ashenfelter's argument that naming his sources would violate Ashenfelter's Fifth Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution to avoid self-incrimination.

The ruling is a setback for former prosecutor Richard Convertino, who contends he needs to know who told Ashenfelter about a confidential Justice Department probe into Convertino's conduct. The leak violated Convertino's federal privacy rights, he contends in his suit against his former bosses.

The 2004 article was written after terrorism verdicts won by Convertino and another federal prosecutor were reversed, with a judge finding that prosecutors did not properly share evidence favorable to the defendants with their attorney

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20090421/NEWS05/90421003/Judge++Free+Press+reporter+can+protect+sources

[McCamy Taylor]

1. I love freedom of the press, but.....

...isn't this a little odd? He is allowed to remain silent on 5th Amendment grounds, not 1st Amendment, because the Department of Justice says they might prosecute him if they get more info. And it is the DOJ that is being sued by a former employee, who says he needs the info to proceed with his lawsuit.

If I were being sued, and I could keep a witness against me from talking by agreeing that I might prosecute him if he talked, I think I would be tempted to go along with whatever that witness is saying.

Are there any lawyers here who can comment upon the general applicability of this ruling on other freedom of the press cases? Since it was the 5th that was at stake, can reporters only use this if the DOJ says "Yes, we will prosecute you if you talk" or can they all claim that they will get prosecuted, whether or not Justice has made any move against them?

PS: This is the kind of ruling that will allow federal prosecutors especially those in charge of Grand Juries to commit leaks to the press that will make the Ken Starr jury look water tight. For example, in the Barry Bonds case, it was leaks from the Grand Jury that started the whole criminal investigation. A ruling like this would make it next to impossible to find out if the leaks were authorized by DOJ officials who wanted to set Bonds up for prosecution as part of their ongoing War Against Black Folks.

[No Elephants]

3. Very good point.

[pleah]

2. K&R