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

[msanthrope]

87. Well, I grant that you may be unfamiliar with the interplay of rights and privileges with regard to

competing amendments....so let me see if I can break it down for you.

When you put strictures on testimony, this almost always comes at the expense of the accused, who has a right to confront the evidence against him and to compel witnesses. (6th amendment) The accused also has the right to all exculpatory evidence. This is also a due process right.

Further, the state has the right to compel all lawful evidence from its citizens, and present evidence, even if it is prejudicial. (As long as it is not unduly so, and does not violate the 5th amendment privilege of the witness.)

When you 'privilege' testimony, you ask that the court effectively bar testimony from being presented and confronted. In this particular example, you are asking a court to recognize that Risen's privilege to not testify, stemming from the 1st, is greater than the need for any 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment right the defendant may have, OR, would be greater than any need the government may have to pursue justice. And I don't think that either you or Risen have made a credible argument.

As for your claim that anything Risen would testify to would be "hearsay" I think you've inadvertently conceded the point--hearsay is raised with Risen on the stand--testifying.