Journalist's privilege in criminal proceedings: An analysis of United States courts of appeals' and states high courts' decisions from 1973 to 1999.

摘要

The purpose of this dissertation was to determine how U.S. courts of appeals and state high courts have responded to claims of journalist's privilege in criminal cases since the Supreme Court decided Branzburg v. Hayes . Specifically, this study sought to determine whether U.S. courts of appeals and state high courts treat grand juries, prosecutors, and criminal defendants consistently and whether courts are creating a prosecutorial due process right to obtain evidence similar to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to obtain exculpatory evidence.; This study analyzed U.S. court of appeals and state high court opinions involving claims of journalist's privilege in criminal cases from 1973 to 1999. Each case was analyzed to determine how many requests for information each subpoenaing party made and whether each subpoenaing party was successful in obtaining the requested information. Furthermore, win-loss percentages were determined based on whether the information sought was confidential or nonconfidential; whether the information sought was published or unpublished; and whether the underlying criminal case involved a murder charge or other crime.; Subpoenaing parties combined achieved a success rate of 46 percent in obtaining sought-after information. In the U.S. courts of appeals, the success rate was 53 percent, with grand juries being the most successful party, followed by prosecutors and then criminal defendants. In state high courts, the success rate was 46 percent, with criminal defendants being the most successful party, followed by grand juries and then prosecutors.; The approach used by the courts to resolve issues of journalist's privilege— Branzburg majority, balancing, or three-prong—had the greatest impact on the success rates of the subpoenaing parties. There was no evidence that the type of information being sought affected the courts' decision making. However, there was a relationship between the success rates of subpoenaing parties and the type of law—constitutional or statutory—under which privilege was claimed. In addition, was no relationship between the nature of the crime involved in the cases and the success rates of the subpoenaing parties. No evidence was found that indicated that the courts were creating a prosecutorial due process right to obtain information.