Branzburg vs. Hayes Essay

details to the press during the height of the Watergate scandal, especially to Washington Post’s

The Joseph Hurtado v. People of California case (110 U.S 516) began on January 22, 1884 and was decided on March , 1884, was between the plaintiff, Joseph Hurtado, and the defendant, California. Hurtado appealed against the conviction proclaiming that he was not indicted by a grand jury based on due process in the Fourth Amendment. The question presented was, “To what principle, then, are we to resort to ascertain whether this process, enacted by congress, is due process?” The amendments that being trialed was the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

During trial, the defense requested to suppress the evidence, as it was uncovered through a search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court

I, Breanna moore, write this opinion to support or dissent on the case of Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier.

Paul Branzburg was a reporter for The Courier-Journal, Louisville, and worked on the article about young people synthesizing hashish from marihuana, which brought them about $5,000 in three weeks. He investigated the issued of drug use in Louisville and wrote two articles about it. The first article contained a picture of unknown hands holding hashish, and the second was written based on the interviews with drug users. Both of the sources requested not to be identified. After a few month of the publication, Branzburg was issued a subpoena by a grand jury about illegal actions they were witnessing, because the articles caught the attention of the local law-enforcement personnel. He was requested to name his sourced. He refused to testify, based

What happened in this specific case is that the newspapers published the name of their source without permission. In this case, the press was not even immune from its sources because the source wished to remain anonymous and the journalist wishes to disclose it. The current laws of the land, and the gray areas of forecasting potential consequences of publishing a story with confidential sources places the press in a very precarious situation (“Shield Laws in the Unites States”). Which brings up the question of shield laws protecting those who ask the reporters for their names to be kept anonymous in the story.

This case was a case for the ages that challenged the very decision of our newly elected president. The former President Adam after a grueling election has lost and in order to maintain the legacy of the Federalist, he began to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. These judges were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but unfortunately for these justices, the letters that confirmed the appointment never reached the potential justices. Adams was working quickly to push the appointments through, but unfortunately he ran out of time and Jefferson took office. Jefferson saw the appointment letters on his desk and discarded them. One of the potential justices was William Marbury and he sued the president for his Supreme Court appointment. His goal was to have the court to order a writ of mandamus, which if completed, would order a government official to fulfil their official duties.

In the movie All the President’s Men, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, reporters from the Washington Post, were persistent in uncovering the truth that would soon lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. This wasn’t an easy process, since there were a lot of fake leads to the truth, a lot of nervous employees speak up and a lot of people involved. This was an important time in history because President Nixon was being re-elected as president for the 2nd time. News reporters gather information about important events to inform the public of what was going on around them. In this case, the reporters in the movie, were gathering and assembling the information to be relayed through the source of their newspaper to keep their readers informed about this wild story that would soon unravel.

These types of information include materials and or names that have not been published. In this particular case involving Shlobotnik, he was issued a subpoena to release the name of the main source contributing to the Washington Bugler article, as well as supplying any records in his possession that are relatable to the case. Shlobotnik faces a common problem that arises repeatedly for journalists that are seen by the law: give up your source, or go to jail (freedom of the

Reporters rely on sources to provide the news they publish, and those sources might not want to share information out of fear that they’ll get in trouble for sharing it. Privileges in reporter were developed to protect journalists. Reporter 's privilege in the United States is the protection that a reporter has under constitutional law from being forced to reveal their confidential information or sources in court. It may be described in the US as the First Amendment right given to journalists to protect their private sources from being exposed.

The media should have an obligation to ignore events concocted by lawyers because journalists are investigators they want to know the truth, and will seek it until it is made clear. If a lawyer tells a journalist information about the case the journalist should research as much as possible, and present this information to the public in such a manner that it is objective, unbiased, and honest. If what the lawyer said is an absolute lie the journalist should present the propaganda to the public along with any information that may be accurate. The media’s involvement in presenting the truth and ignoring the fabrications is almost an oversight power to keep the law system in check, in order to prevent false allegations and to provide a fair trial. Does the use of the first amendment justify around the clock coverage of high profile trials; such has Roxie’s trial?

However, courts all around the world have always considered some privileges to certain individuals and let them refuse to testify for the reason that it may benefit the public. This is the case for reporter’s privileges. People just have to understand and believe that journalists try to avoid revealing the source not because they want to be above the law, but to save their function in the community as watchdogs and objective observers. The most valuable thing that journalists have is their credibility and every time they testify in front of the jury about sources of their information they harm their credibility. Politicians, businessmen, criminals and even ordinal people may see them as «agents of the state» and reject to give any controversial information that public needs to

Since no other legitimate news, high profile media outlet has even mentioned this 'historic' press release it begs to ask Why no details were included in this 650 word press release.

This is not how a free society treats its journalists who are striving to inform them of important facts that every citizen should be aware of. This is not how a transparent, benevolent government behaves toward its citizens. This is not how a free press operates.