BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?

Subject: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:11 PM

Behind closed doors, away from the public, records sealed, anonymous judge...freelance writer who refused to turn over her research to the government could face 18 months in prison. She's already been in federal custody for over 10 days!

Here's just one of the articles about available at www.drudge.com: click here

Brings up a lot of interesting thoughts, eh?

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:26 PM

Also, another potential threat to our privacy, all over the world. The technology is fascinating and scary: please click here.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:26 PM

It sure does. On the face of it, it's a frightening case of bullying by the FBI and your legal authorities. In the UK juries can sometimes effectively neuter repressive legislation by declaring "perverse" verdicts. It looks as if the jury has been conveniently bypassed in this case. However, I gather that you have a strong constitution to protect your citizens. Is this likely to be invoked on her behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: JedMarum
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:28 PM

What has this got to do with freedom of speech? Why does a journalist have special protections from court investigative procedures? If a journalist chooses to refuse to cooperate with a court's order, then that journalist is breaking the law. The journalist may well be bravely standing on a moral principle, but civil disobedience has a price - and one who practices civil disobedience must be willing to pay that price.

Freedom of the press does create extra priveledge for journalists. We do have a special protection for the attorney/client relationship, but not for this situation. Court's have the right to investigate these matters in criminal procedings, under specific guidelines and citizens have an obligation to comply. If this journalist feels there is reason NOT to comply, then she must be willing to pay the price for her decision.

When I travel home very late in night, through the city to a quiet intersection, and the traffic light red. Even though I can see there is no reason to wait for traffic purposes - that I can clearly run the light with no ris of harm to amyone - if I choose to do so, and get spotted and ticketed by a cop, I can't complain. Even though I knew I was right, I chose to break the law, and must accept the punishment for that decision. Ms. Leggett is that situation.

I don't believe that there is a legitimate argument that her situation signifies a restriction of the freedom of press.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: JedMarum
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:32 PM

OOops; I mean "Freedom of the press does NOT create extra priveledge for journalists"

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 03:58 PM

If a journalist chooses to refuse to cooperate with a court's order, then that journalist is breaking the law. The journalist may well be bravely standing on a moral principle, but civil disobedience has a price - and one who practices civil disobedience must be willing to pay that price.

Jed --

The right of journalists, and other writers by extension, to protect their sources in the interest of keeping the communication lines un-jeapordized, enjoys a long tradition uinder the Consitution. Congress is not entitled, nor is any judge, to make law which inhibits the right of free press. If this is condoned, it will be yet another encroachment on the right of the press to go freely and speak freely, and with assured safety for so doing under the law. If that freedom corrodes, as those in law enforcement would prefer, we can kiss the Great Exp[eriment of human liberty fare-thee-well, and its Katy-bar-the-door whether our next long-term government pattenr will be commercial, fascist or theocraticv -- none of them options I would prefer to live under.,p>Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 05:16 PM

Thanks for setting Jed straight on this, Amos--this sort of thing happens all the time--some prosecutor figures that they'll save a little time by shaking down a reporter, figuring that maybe they'll forget about the freedom of the press to avoid sitting in jail while waiting for due process--it happens so often that it is a stock story line for TV shows about journalists--even the sit-coms, like Murphy Brown--

Kat--post the article! Always post the article, never a link, because most net news sites archive after a week or two, and the link is no longer active--and generally, you have to pay to read it after it is archived--

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 05:45 PM

Thanks, Amos and M. Ted. I'd forgotten that articles can disappear. Here is just one of them:

Monday July 30 10:31 PM ET
Jailed for Murder Case Notes, Texas Writer Defiant
By C. Bryson Hull

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A free-lance writer jailed by a U.S. judge for refusing to hand over information gathered for a book about a murder said on Monday that she was defending press freedom.

Vanessa Leggett, 33, remained in federal custody 10 days after refusing to give U.S. prosecutors notes, audio tapes and other material from interviews conducted for an account of the killing in 1997 of the wife of a millionaire Houston bookie.

``I am not a martyr, and I want to see justice done, but I am doing what I must to protect the public's interest in a free press,'' Leggett said in a statement released through her attorney, Mike DeGeurin.

Leggett, an adjunct lecturer in the University of Houston's professional writing program, conducted research into the murder of Doris Angleton, 46.

The victim's husband, former bookie Robert Angleton, was acquitted of state capital murder charges in the case in 1998. Robert Angleton's brother Roger was also charged but committed suicide in jail before he could go to trial. He left a note saying he had framed his brother in a shakedown plot.

Earlier news reports had said that prosecutors wanted tapes of an interview Roger Angleton gave Leggett just before his suicide. But two sources familiar with the case told Reuters on Monday that the U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) actually wanted any tapes or notes Leggett might have made when FBI (news - web sites) agents approached her to ask that she funnel her reporting to them in return for payment.

JAILED AT CLOSED HEARING

At the request of Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Clark, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon ordered Leggett jailed for contempt of court at a closed hearing on July 20.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department and Leggett's attorney both declined on Monday to comment on what prosecutors were seeking, citing the sealed nature of the hearing.

Leggett's predicament grew out of grand jury proceedings held to build a federal case against Robert Angleton, his attorney Mike Ramsey said.

If an appeals judge does not free Leggett or she does not surrender the material at issue, she will stay in jail for the length of the grand jury's term, currently 18 months, DeGeurin said.

Freedom of information advocates said they were disturbed by the secrecy surrounding the reasons for Leggett's jailing.

``We don't know (them) because the Justice Department is not talking about it and (her hearing) was conducted behind closed doors,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Dalglish said her office would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Leggett's case when it was heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites), but she called the jurisdiction an unfavorable one for journalists trying to keep secrets.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 06:43 PM

I'd have thought that freedom of speech includes freedom to be silent. The same way freedom of worship includes freedom not to worship. (Maybe not an absolute absolute freedom, any more than freedom of speech is an absolute absolute - but you'd need a pretty good set of reasons to bulldoze it in any particular case, and this doesn't sound like such a case.)

That's one way this kind of thing sounds like offending against freedom of speech. And the other way is that once you get journalists compelled to reveal their sources and so forth, this closes down their ability to carry out certain kinds of investigative journalism. Maybe that's not so much a restriction on freedom of speech for the journalist as it is an attack on freedom of information for the public.

Another issue here is, what happened to "double jeopardy"? Apparently, if you get acquitted by a state trial, they can have another go at you and try you for the same offence in a federal trial.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: SeanM
Date: 02 Aug 01 - 01:08 AM

McGrath - Re: Double Jeopardy. Yup, you're right!

There's actually three ways to go about it that I'm aware of, as long as you don't actually try someone on the EXACT same charges.

Take for instance, the case of OJ Simpson. Leaving aside all actual discussion of guilt in the case, there were a couple ways he could have been found 'guilty' of the murder of his wife and her whatever he was. The basic muder trial failed, so the family sued and he was found guilty in a civil court of being responsible for her murder, but not guilty of actual murder (go figure THAT one out some day). The other angle (and the one that it sounds like is being built on in the case that started the problems in this thread) is that one may not be found guilty of the felony charge on a STATE level, but in the process one may have violated FEDERAL law. Your innocence of the act from the state case has no bearing on the federal one. This is how they eventually convicted the LAPD officers in the Rodney King case - innocent verdict in the state trial, riots started, federal trial found them guilty.

M

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: JedMarum
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 11:30 AM

I believe the rights of journalists under these circumstances are not explicitly expanded under US laws, constitutional or otherwise. That is why this judge has the ability to find her in contempt. I am sure that these arguements have been fought, won and lost by both sides.

I believe it is a courageous thing to do, as a journalist, to stand on principle and accept the consequences of ones actions - and Ms. Leggett may well feel this is a fight worth fighting - but I do not believe that journalists should be legally exempt from following a court's order, under these circumstances.

As far as freedom NOT to speak - we actually do not have the right, as far as I know, to refuse to answer questions asked by a court - except in two specific situations, 1) one can refuse to give testimony against one's spouse and 2) one may refuse to answer questions that could incriminate oneself.

I would expect, as a journalist, one could always find a way to protect one's sources without ever having to deny a court's order. I can meet face to face with someone, wothout ever actually know ing their real name - I can destroy my notes, once I have used them to publish, I can set-up my research so that I am vague on some of the legal specifics a court might wish to know. I suppose these are all things journalists typically do/keep in mind when they work in these situations - but I suppose sometime you get caught anyway, and then you must choose to battle or not.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Midchuck
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 01:07 PM

Take for instance, the case of OJ Simpson. Leaving aside all actual discussion of guilt in the case, there were a couple ways he could have been found 'guilty' of the murder of his wife and her whatever he was. The basic muder trial failed, so the family sued and he was found guilty in a civil court of being responsible for her murder, but not guilty of actual murder (go figure THAT one out some day).

What's to figure out? Under U. S. law, the burden of proof in a criminal case, is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - or otherwise not guilty, under the presumption of innocence. In a civil case, the burden of proof is only "a preponderance of the evidence" in English, which side's case in more likely correct than not?

Since, based on the highly dubious information available through the media, I think it is more likely than not that Simpson did the killing, but I am not convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt, I feel, personally, that both juries made the right decision in that case.

The other angle (and the one that it sounds like is being built on in the case that started the problems in this thread) is that one may not be found guilty of the felony charge on a STATE level, but in the process one may have violated FEDERAL law. Your innocence of the act from the state case has no bearing on the federal one. This is how they eventually convicted the LAPD officers in the Rodney King case - innocent verdict in the state trial, riots started, federal trial found them guilty.

This is a flaw in U. S. law, as I see it. We have fairly strong strictures, at the Constitutional level, against double jeopardy. But because of dual sovereignity, a person can be forced to defend himself in state court and then in Federal, and double jeopardy doesn't apply for reasons that have never been clear to me.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Grab
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 01:14 PM

On the former - hmm. "Initial reports" say they wanted tapes of a conversation between the journalist and a man who is now dead. Not such a big deal. But if they want _all_ her notes, that's a different matter. Does the US legal system not have some built-in safeguards for this, so that information admitted may not be used to convict the ppl concerned?

On the latter, I'll strongly disagree. The US seems to have a fear of cameras for some reason, and ppl caught behaving illegally (speeding/jumping red lights, etc) shout "unconstitutional" when they're caught. And get away with it as well, which amazes me - never mind that they may have been endangering lives... In the UK, cameras in city centres have had a major effect in cutting down crime. Burglaries, ram-raiding, muggings, etc - all are down in areas where cameras are deployed, and more ppl committing these crimes are captured. Suits me.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 01:24 PM

I agree with you, Graham, on the second being used in those types of cases. What bothers me is if it goes beyond that. we have to have some safeguards in place so that our right to privacy is protected.

Here is an update from www.rcfp.org concerning Ms. Leggett:

NEWS RELEASE: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Reporters Committee supports jailed reporter with friend-of-the-court effort

****************************************************************

Jul. 31, 2001 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (Fifth Circuit) in support of Vanessa Leggett, a Houston writer who was jailed after refusing to turn over research materials she gathered. Joining in the brief were the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Radio and Television News Directors Association.

"We are particularly disturbed because the federal court and the Justice Department have kept every aspect of this case secret," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Had this journalist not sought help from journalism organizations prior to being sentenced for contempt, she would have been secretly jailed as well."

Leggett, now in her second week in prison, went to jail after refusing to turn over notes from interviews she had with players in a Houston murder. She was held in contempt and sent to jail without bond on July 20. Her attorney, Mike DeGuerin, said she could be held as long as the grand jury convenes, 18 months.

"The public has a vital interest in a Free and independent press," Leggett said in a prepared statement of July 30. "Our forefathers recognized this in the First Amendment. In other countries the government has taken control of the press. I am not a martyr and I want to see justice done. But I am doing what I must to protect the public's interest in a free press."

Leggett lost an attempt during a secret hearing in federal district court in Houston on July 6 to get a grand jury subpoena against her quashed. Leggett had argued to the court that she was protected by a reporters privilege under the state and federal constitutions. The court's order denying the motion to quash is sealed.

The Reporters Committee brief, filed on July 30, was written by Jackson & Walker attorneys Charles L. Babcock, Robert P. Latham and John K. Edwards.

Leggett, who lectures at a local college, is a writer. She was working on a book on the death of a Houston woman, Doris Angleton, who was found shot to death in April 1997. Angleton's millionaire bookie husband Robert Angleton and his brother, Roger, were charged in the case. Roger committed suicide in the Harris County, Texas jail in February 1998. A state court jury acquitted Robert, and a federal investigation of Roger soon followed. Leggett had interviews from dozens of people surrounding the case, and it has been reported that she interviewed Roger before his death.

The Reporters Committee's brief is available at:

http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/leggett.html

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Jenny the T
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 02:12 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 02:24 PM

Kat, you referred to "an anonymous judge". The judge's name is given in the article.

Double jeopardy does not refer to the facts underlying the alleged crime; it refers to the violation of a specific statute, with specific essential elements to be proved. A state law and a federal law against murder, for instance, will have different essential elements. Double jeopardy is a criminal-law concept only, and has no application to civil suits.

The writer's prosecution here is going to be for contempt of court, not tesifying, and in a grand jury context, I gather. Grand jury proceedings as such are secret, and it may be (I don't actually know this) that the contempt proceedings would partake of that secrecy.

In a case like this the writer "holds the keys to her own cell"--that is, can cut the sentence short at any time by purging herself of contempt. I believe she is held to be in "civil contempt", which is to say that she's not convicted of anything criminal.

DAve Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 02:32 PM

I didn't read it as she was before a grand jury, Dave. It says he hearing came from a grand jury hearing for the other parties involved. If you go back and read the first linked article, you'll see what I mean. Also, originally the judge's name was not released.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 05:24 PM

But she was being commanded to testify before the grand jury, as I understand. When she refused, the prosecutor would take her to the judge, who would command her to answer the questions before the grand jury. If she refused, she is in contempt of the court's order. "Okay, go sit in jail until you are ready to answer these questions before the grand jury or until the grand jury expires, whichever comes first."

I'm familiar with this drill, because for 37 years I was a court reporter for the US District Court here in Indiana, and this sort of thing happened now and then.

I just don't remember whether the proceedings before the judge partook of the grand jury secrecy or not.

DAve Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 05:27 PM

Oh, one other thing.

This matter doesn't involve freedom of speech, but rather freedom of the press, which invokes different social concerns.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 05:36 PM

Sorry, I realised that after I'd posted the title. I will have to see if I can find out more on the other. Certainly, with your experience, you know a lot more about it than I do. Thanks, Dave,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: bobbi
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 05:47 PM

Wasn't jailed for freedom of speech. Jailed for violating a court order/obstruction of justice. The writer chose to use the term: FREEDOM OF SPEECH" Don't be sucked in by the terminology.

b

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 05:49 PM

I just said, I had got it wrong in the title. Dave is correct, it should have read Freedom of the Press which is what the issue is.

Subject: RE: BS: 18 mo's. in jail for freedom of speech?
From: Banjer
Date: 04 Aug 01 - 03:14 AM

.....Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose,
Freedom ain't worth nothin', but it's free

from Me And Bobby Magee