Ongoing Debate re Disclosure of GJ Testimony

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Deja Nu, Jan 7, 2005.

  1. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    From my dear friend Little:

    Published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
    [Front page]


    What can reporters report about grand jury testimony?
    At a time when reporters are being subpoenaed to appear before grand juries in at least five cases, including one grand jury investigating who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press, it warrants examining what, if anything, journalists can report after they’ve testified.

    “The issue right now is ripe, because we have . . . reporters [possibly] going to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury,†said media lawyer Gregg D. Thomas of Holland & Knight, who represented a reporter in the 1990 Butterworth v. Smith case.

    In Butterworth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that journalists — like any other witnesses — have a First Amendment right to publish the details of their grand jury testimony once the investigation has ended.

    Newspaper reporter Michael Smith was summoned to testify before a grand jury after he wrote articles about alleged wrongdoing by the prosecutor’s office and sheriff’s department of Charlotte County, Fla. Smith was warned that Florida law prohibited grand jury witnesses from ever disclosing their testimony in any way, and that a violation could result in criminal punishment.

    Smith planned to write a story and perhaps a book about the investigation, including his own testimony and experiences before the grand jury. He sued in federal court to win a declaration that the state law prohibiting his disclosure unconstitutionally restricted his freedom of speech. He also sought an order preventing the state from prosecuting him.

    The federal district court threw out his case, ruling that a total and permanent ban on disclosure of witness testimony was necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the grand jury. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta (11th Cir.) reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court, agreeing that the reasons for preserving grand jury secrecy did not warrant prohibiting witnesses from ever disclosing their testimony.

    “[T]he interests advanced by the portion of the Florida statute [preventing witnesses from revealing their own testimony] . . . are not sufficient to overcome [Smith’s] First Amendment right to make a truthful statement of information he acquired on his own,†the Supreme Court concluded.

    Although the high court specified that witnesses are free to talk once the grand jury has ended its investigation, Thomas said he believes it would have ruled the same way if the grand jury in his client’s case had still been in session. He pointed out that the rule governing federal grand jury secrecy — Rule 6(e) — places no restriction on witnesses.

    “Which means that if you’re a witness before a federal grand jury, and you’re not related to the government — you’re just sort of a lay witness — you can immediately leave and discuss what happened before the grand jury,†he said.

    The Supreme Court also limited its holding to the disclosure of witness “testimony,†declining to decide whether witnesses may talk about their “experience†before the grand jury. But Thomas said he thinks such speech would be protected.

    “I absolutely think the First Amendment protects that — that is, what it felt like being before a grand jury, what the questions were that were asked by the grand jury. I think the First Amendment protects that sort of compelled interaction,†he said. “You’re not there on your own, you’re not there as a volunteer, you’re there because the government says you have to be there. And I really think you have the ability to talk about or discuss what your experience was before the grand jury.â€

    At least one court, however, has narrowly interpreted Butterworth to permit grand jury witnesses to divulge only what they knew before they testified.

    In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver (10th Cir.) ruled that a housekeeper for the parents of murdered child JonBenet Ramsey could not disclose anything she learned through testifying before the grand jury in a book she intended to write. In upholding a Colorado admonition to all grand jurors to keep their testimony secret “until and unless†an indictment issued, the court cited the importance of preserving the state’s interest in grand jury secrecy. (Hoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan)

    “[W]e are convinced a line should be drawn between information the witness possessed prior to becoming a witness and information the witness gained through her actual participation in the grand jury process,†the court said. The U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to review the decision.

    Thomas said the issue of reporters disclosing their grand jury testimony could arise in the current climate, noting that a few journalists actually have testified before the Plame grand jury.

    “It would be interesting to see what some of those reportrs had to say,†he said.


    http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/grandjuries/what_can_reporters_report.html
     
  2. Little

    Little Member

    Deja - You are a very patient teacher! Thank you for the private Saturday tutoring and your thoughtful answers to my many questions.

    Little
     
  3. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    My pleasure, Little! My most ardent desire is to help people understand the law and the court systems in America in as much as I am able.
     
  4. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I checked a few years back about the penalty here in Texas for a juror discussing what went on in the grand jury, seems like there was a monetary fine, I'm wanting to say like $500.
     
  5. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    Ooops, I posted in the wrong thread, I'll be back for this one.
     
  6. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    So each state has their own laws regarding discussing grand jury testimony, or does the same apply to the entire United States? :confused:

    It really would be interesting to hear about some of the experiences during the grand jury; most especially I would love to know what questions (at the very least) were asked of Burke.

    Not allowing this to occur protects the guilty in my opinion, whether an indictment is issued or not, the information learned during the grand jury by an individual could never be as precise or accurate as reading actual grand jury testimony transcripts, or as informative as viewing photographs or visual aids, what harm could possibly come from revealing a personal experience?
     
  7. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Generally speaking, JIC, each state has its own laws regarding GJ testimony that mirror federal law. Because our courts are divided by jurisdiction and we have both state and federal courts, both bodies of laws are necessary. The intent of keeping GJ proceedings sealed is to preserve the case for prosecution. But remember, here in the US, we have the doctrine of presumed innocence. Unless an accused is found guilty in a court of law, the law dictates that that person is innocent until proven guilty. So GJ secrecy also protects that person's right to remain innocent in the public eye until adjudicated.
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

  9. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    I'm sorry I missed this one Deja, I don't know why I'm only notified for a couple threads. I'll check my options to see if I've done something to it.

    I understand what the purpose of the GJ secrecy is now, and it's obviously necessary nowadays. Thank you so much for explaining things for me, for what it's worth, American and Canadian laws are similar because we have levels of government as well, instead of state courts, obviously we've got provincial; so that makes things all that much easier for me to understand about American Law. Looks like you're fulfilling your goal in one thread!!:takeabow:
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    Isn't Deja the best JIC? :toast:
     
  11. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    Yes! She's Superwoman!:catnap:

    If it wasn't for Deja, I'd still be thinking the Ramsey's sacrificed JonBenet for sinning! LOL:sick:
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    LOL, JIC! I can't take credit for debunking THAT theory. Just getting away from Brother Moon and CS would return you to reality. :lame:
     
  13. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    You have no idea how huge the role you played in getting me right away from that theory though, it was such a waste of time!! LOL But you humored me and were nice to me when a lot of people were like "God, doesn't she read the transcripts? We discussed that two years ago." It was harsh at times over there but you were always so nice that I felt welcome enough to stick around.:eek:

    I believe you were the one who told me to join FFJ actually too, I understand what you meant about a list of first class posters :winko:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice