Jed sez:

>I believe the rights of journalists under these circumstances are not explicitly expanded under US laws, constitutional or otherwise <

I believe you're wrong on that count, Jed. Although state laws offer generally more protection to journalists' confidentiality, US law offers some most explicit expansions of journalists' first amendment rights, too ... with certain well-defined exceptions. It's not clear to me that the exceptions are applicable in the case being discussed.

Often, lazy prosecutors try to browbeat journalists into doing their legwork for them--that's what this case smells like to me. But that's neither here nor there. The law is the law.

Though it's a bit long, the University of Pennsylvania provides a fine synopsis of the issues (emphases and parenthetical statements are mine):

--------------

Federal law concerning confidential sources stems mostly from the First Amendment. It may be noted that First Amendment protections also apply to state law, although these First Amendment arguments are separate from any Shield Law [meaning state law] arguments, and should not be confused with the state-enacted Shield Law. These laws do not apply in federal courts when federal law is used, but if a federal court hears a dispute concerning state law, such as a libel case, the applicable state laws will apply.

The First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the following First Amendment arguments may be made in state courts in addition to state shield laws. However, state shield laws often provide more protection for journalists and are used instead of First Amendment arguments. This is because journalists do not have an absolute privilege under the First Amendment to refuse to appear and testify about their confidential sources. When dealing with federal law, journalists have only a limited protection from the required disclosure of their confidential sources.

While federal courts recognize that members of the press enjoy a qualified First Amendment privilege that limits disclosure of confidential sources, resource materials, and unpublished material, these items may be obtained in Third Circuit courts (federal courts in Pennsylvania) if all three elements of the so called "Riley test" are met. This test strikes a balance between the confidential privilege of the journalist and the interest of the litigant. For litigants to obtain the confidential information from journalists, they must prove that:

1. attempts to obtain the information from other sources have been exhausted (such as there are no other witnesses or they have pleaded the Fifth Amendment as a defense against testifying); 2. the journalist is the only source of the information sought; and 3. the information sought is necessary and crucial to the litigants claims (the claims, either civil or criminal, cannot be proven without the information sought from the confidential source) Sometimes a judge may require that the confidential information be disclosed at an in camera proceeding. [was this the purpose of the "closed door hearing," I wonder?] This means that the judge will examine the confidential information in private [but we already know that the prosecutor was present, too--not allowed under these rules] and decide whether the information is necessary and crucial to the litigants' claims. The information must be turned over to the judge in this situation. If the judge finds that the information is not crucial, the confidentiality of the information will be maintained and will not be disclosed to other parties. If the litigant fails to meet all three of the above elements, the journalist will not be required to disclose the requested confidential information. If the court finds that the litigant meets the requirements of the test, then the journalist will be required to disclose the confidential sources or risk being held in contempt of court.

Special Note: If the source testifies about its communications with the journalist, the communication looses its confidential label and the journalist's testimony may be compelled. The reporter may also lose his confidentiality privilege if he shares this information with others, or if the information is disclosed to him in the presence of others. When receiving information from a confidential source, keep the communications one-on-one. Otherwise, the privilege of confidentiality may be forfeited. [None of this paragraph seems to apply to the question at hand]

JtT