Journalist's Privilege to Keep the Identity of His or Her Sources Secret

Within the legal system judges are seen as impartial and diligent decision-makers in the pursuit of justice . In theory, judges are arbiters of truth who, after careful consideration of all information, decide whether the evidence is credible and whether a suspect’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But how do judges perform this taxing task? How do they assess the evidence to reach fair decisions? Most importantly, are their decisions fair and do they comply with the principles of due process? The truth of the matter is that we know little about how judges actually decide criminal cases. Judges reside in their chambers and remain out of the public eye while deciding cases. Judicial decision making for criminal cases remains a well-hidden secret in the judge’s chamber.

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

some of the most important duties of journalists. Many believe that the purpose of the media is to

The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may

When it comes to the press having their freedoms in writing and reporting news as well as people’s right to their own privacy, there is a line that should not be crossed in the process. For example, there have been many cases where people have been wrongly accused of crimes such as murders or even having private parts of their lives exposed. Due to this exposure, the public can see and create their opinions about them whether the information is truthful or not. Events like these can and have ruined the lives of innocent people. They cannot go back to their normal lives simply because the media has already brought too much attention to it. Therefore, it is extremely important that there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed. Jack McCullough is a perfect example of someone who was wrongly accused of a murder that he did not commit; eventually,

News coverage for court cases can sometimes be damaging to the objective outcome of a criminal trial. The publicity that comes with coverage can lead to prosecutors or judges to make actions that would suit political sides especially when considering being reelected (HOWE, n.d.). Fairness would in the end be compromised based on self-interest or actions that promote the interests of those in political positions. In addition, the most feared consequence might be due to the possibility of exposing witnesses that were otherwise not supposed to be known due to their lives being threatened. There might also be cases of reputation being damaged in addition to issuance of threats and reprisals. In addition, courtroom proceedings might be disrupted.

The field of journalism is a necessity because there is always a story to narrate, and ultimately history that needs to be documented. Many fail to recognize the importance of journalist, their roles to communities nationwide and the life threatening risks the job may acquire. We often perceive the pros of journalism which is a good thing, but we tend to neglect what journalists may have to undergo to acquire the right facts and different parts of an important story. Journalists around the world have encountered dangerous moments in their careers where they had to report on stories that demanded integrating themselves into a threatening situation such as war. This statement definitely holds true to Journalism in Liberia during the civil war.

Crime and courtroom proceedings have become a fascination for the Western society. Reality and fiction though have begun to distort the expectations of what is expected in the courtroom. These distortions deriving from television shows such as CSI, 48 Hours Mystery, American Justice, Law & Order and even, on occasion, Dateline NBC. The mass media play an important role in the construction of criminality and the criminal justice system. The public’s perception of victims, criminals, the gathering/processing of evidence, deviants, and law enforcement officials is largely determined by their portrayal in the mass media. “Research indicates that the majority of public knowledge about crime and justice is derived from the media (Roberts and Doob,

The principle of open justice is a vital characteristic of the court system. Lord Atkinson in Scott v Scott noted that public trials are ‘the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means of winning for it public confidence.’ Similarly, Gibbs J in Russell asserted that this principles ensures ‘the proceedings of every court are fully exposed to public and professional scrutiny, without which abuses may flourish undetected’. It follows that the media ordinarily has a right to report on Court proceedings. This entitlement has been described as a fundamental necessity ‘given that ‘few members of the public have the time, or the inclination, to attend courts.’. Nevertheless, the law has

There are certain states that have held that a qualified reporter’s privilege exists, but the standards from each place differ. In U.S. v. Sterling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit deliberately denied a reporter 's privilege exists under the Branzburg precedent. A shield law is regulation that isn’t a law yet, but is created with the intention to protect a reporters’ privilege and aims to provide protection over a reporter to be forced to reveal his or her confidential source. The shield law isn’t a legal law, but mostly all of the states have their own interpretation of this concept. This privilege includes the right of journalist to refuse to testify in court for private, off-the-record information or identity of their sources from the news gathering and broadcasting process. Shield laws protect spectators from being obliged to speak about certain topics, especially in court, protects journalists from

This paper’s main focus is to answer the question: “What guidance have the courts offered to help determine the point at which a journalist wrongly goes beyond reporting newsworthy information, instead reporting private, embarrassing facts that invade a person’s privacy?” To answer this question, history of the legal system, Supreme Court and past precedents must be understood and taken into consideration. The definition of privacy as well as its history in regards to its relationship with news and journalism must be understood. To do so, many Supreme Court cases will have to be taken into consideration, such as Galella v. Onassis, Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, Florida Star v. B.J.F. and Wilson v. Layne. To better understand the future, past cases will be crucial to be studied and acknowledged.

Technology and entertainment today have given people a sense of confidence in their understanding of criminal justice. They sit at home on their couch and watch an endless stream of crime dramas and believe they have a solid understanding of how the justice system is run. Television shows do not have to operate in reality, the audience has access to all the necessary information to solve the crime and the show ends with a feeling that justice has been served. In reality, investigations hit road blocks, complications and dead ends. Investigators must sort through honest and dishonest witnesses, determine factual evidence from planted or tampered evidence, and they must ensure that they complete all of their duties, investigations, and documentation completely, accurately and maintain the integrity of the case. Investigations are often susceptible to mistakes, human error and an array of outside factors they have little to no control over. The varying factors in each investigation can sometimes create a situation that ultimately leads to a wrongful conviction. There are also people in the justice system that deliberately fabricate information or evidence, manipulate a situation or witness, or influence the case in some way to achieve the outcome they desire. The prevalence, causes and cases of wrongful convictions play an important role in understanding and preventing wrongful convictions for the innocent and ensuring justice is served to the guilty.

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2014), authors of The Elements of Journalism, claim “Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth” (p. 49) and “Journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens” (p. 72).

The journalist role is important because it provides the world with facts and the answers. Often times politicians or public figures may not tell the world the whole truth. But because of journalist, they take time to investigate the whole story and then provide citizens with correct news. Not only do journalist investigate the news, journalist also take time to interview these public figures and ask the questions that viewers want to ask. For example, Barbara Walters is known for her skills of asking the questions that most are scared to ask. But because she is fearless and true journalist she asks these tough questions and gets down to the nitty gritty. This is all made possible through the first amendment.

While investigative journalism used to be associated with lone reporters working on their own with little, if any, support from their news organizations, recent examples attest that teamwork is fundamental. Differing kinds of expertise are needed to produce well-documented and comprehensive stories. Reporters, editors, legal specialists, statistical analysts, librarians, and news researchers are needed to collaborate on investigations. Knowledge of public information access laws is crucial to find what information is potentially available under "freedom of information" laws, and what legal problems might arise when damaging information is published. New technologies are extremely valuable to find facts and to make reporters familiar with the complexities of any given story. Thanks to the computerization of government records and the availability of extraordinary amounts of information online, computer-assisted reporting (CAR)