Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources

[malthaussen]

17. I don't think the 6th amendment applies to the shield law.

Although one could make the case, as you do in another response, that the defendant in a criminal trial could demand that the journalist reveal his source if such revelation would exculpate the defendant, in accordance with the "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" clause. But since it is the prosecution making the demand in this case, that doesn't fly.

Mind you, I don't like the idea that an innocent "source" can be found guilty because the journalist won't reveal that he is not his source. That's bugged me for a very long time. But what's the alternative? One might think that a simple "no he is not my source" should be sufficient, but if you establish that principle and the defendant is the source, then the refusal to say "no" is tantamount to saying "yes." And that defeats the purpose of the shield law.

So that leaves us in the unsatisfactory position that, in order to ensure confidentiality, sometimes an innocent gets screwed. But that problem applies to more than the shield law, innocents are screwed by our legal system every day. So we have to decide whether the value of journalistic confidentiality (without which many abuses of authority would go unexposed) is worth more than the potential unfortunate consequences to an individual.

-- Mal