 |
|
|
 |
Contemporary Topics |
|
Constitution Day |
|
Courts to Classes Programs |
|
The Basics |
|
Return to Educational Outreach |
|
An Act of Conscience or Contempt of Court? Background | Appellate Process | Moot Court Simulation | Separation of Powers | The Federal Grand Jury | Shield Laws and Federalism Background Journalists Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller Go Before a Federal Grand Jury (1) In February 2002, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV was sent to the African country of Niger. His job was to investigate whether then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to buy Nigerian uranium in an attempt to develop weapons of mass destruction. After the trip, on July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote an editorial in The New York Times stating his views that there was no link between Hussein and the uranium. He concluded that a holding to the contrary by Bush Administration intelligence was untrue. On July 13, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an opinion piece which some viewed as an attempt to discredit Wilson's findings. In the article, Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer (undercover agent). He also suggested that she arranged for her husband's involvement with the Nigerian trip. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it a crime to disclose the identity of intelligence agents under certain circumstances. After Novak's story broke, the Bush Administration called for an investigation to determine who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. The Justice Department chose Patrick Fitzgerald to be the special prosecutor to lead the investigation. In January 2004, he convened a grand jury to review the matter. Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine are two reporters who followed the developments in this story. While Cooper published an article on this topic, Miller did not. Both reporters used confidential sources to gather information. Believing that Cooper and Miller knew information that could affect his investigation, special prosecutor Fitzgerald subpoenaed them to appear before the grand jury. Although both reporters appeared, they refused to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, citing the First Amendment's freedom of the press and their duty not to betray their sources' trust. Mr. Fitzgerald informed Cooper and Miller that there was no need for them to protect their sources. He stated that he obtained waivers of confidentiality from administration officials who had spoken to the press under the condition of anonymity. Both reporters responded that they felt the waivers were not voluntary and would continue to protect their sources' confidentiality. In October 2004, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia found Cooper and Miller in contempt of court for their persistent refusal to cooperate with the grand jury. Cooper's employer, Time Magazine, also was found to be in contempt. Both reporters and Time appealed their contempt citations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They argued that the District Court's actions violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press. Cooper and Miller were free on bail pending the results of these appeals. The Court of Appeals heard the case and rejected these arguments, ruling that the Supreme Court had already decided this matter. In 1972, the Court decided the case of Branzburg v. Hayes. In that case, the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect the confidentiality of a reporter's sources. The reporters and Time then asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in the Branzburg case but, in June 2005, the Court refused to do so. When the Supreme Court refused to hear their case, Cooper, Miller, and Time had exhausted their legal options. The case returned to the U.S. District Court where the judge gave Cooper and Miller their last opportunity to avoid jail time by revealing their sources. He gave Time the option to avoid steep fines by turning over Mr. Cooper's notes concerning the case. Time Magazine was the first to comply with the Court and turned over many of Mr. Cooper's notes concerning this story. At the last minute, after his source told Cooper that he could reveal his identity, Cooper also agreed to cooperate with the grand jury and avoid jail time. Without similar permission, Judith Miller continued to refuse to reveal the identity of her source. At her contempt hearing, she told the judge that her conscience demanded that she risk jail time rather than betray her source's trust. She said, "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press." (2) The judge, however, noted that the law did not create special exemptions for journalists that are not available to the public in grand jury proceedings. He alluded to the fact that journalists could not attempt to put themselves above the law. On July 8, 2005, the judge sentenced Miller to an Alexandria, Virginia jail until she names her source or until the term of the grand jury investigating this matter expires in October, 2005 —whichever happens first. The case seems to have triggered a renewed interest in persuading Congress to enact a federal shield law for journalists. Such a law would prevent journalists from being forced to name their sources under most circumstances. In reaction to the Branzburg decision, many states enacted such laws. However, the federal government has not done so. Because Cooper and Miller were called to testify before a federal grand jury, only a federal shield law would have protected them.
|