The case of Branzburg vs. Hayes all began in 1969, when a Louisville Kentucky reporter by the name of Branzburg wrote a story, in the Courier-Journal, which described how two local residences made hashish marijuana. The article went into great detail and revealed many facts, including the amount of money the two made on selling the hashish to the public. The article also featured pictures of the two individual’s hands working with a plant like substance and was identified for readers as hashish in the caption under the picture. Branzburg was in agreement with the drug dealers and promised them he would not reveal their real names or identities in the article.
After the article was published, Branzburg was immediately subpoenaed by the Jefferson County Court system. The court demeaned that he name the two individuals featured in the article, but he stood strong and refused to give up their names like he had promised them. Branzburg argued that the Kentucky Privilege Statute passed in 1962 protected him from having to give up the names.(1) He also argued that the First Amendment and Kentucky constitution, (Sections 1,2, and 8) protected his right not to disclose the information of the two individual’s identities.(2) However, the Kentucky courts fought back arguing that the Kentucky Privilege Statute didn’t allow a reporter to refuse to testify about things they saw, or not disclose the names of people they were in contact with. Branzburg then took his case to the Kentucky appeals court, which ruled against him once again. He continued to fight the good fight for what he thought was true and right; the case finally ended up at the Supreme Court.
Branzburg’s decision not to disclose the information the court sought was due to the belief that his integrity and effectiveness as a reporter would be tarnished if he named names. Branzburg placed a high value on the confidentiality between him and the subjects he was investigating and reporting on. He felt that if he had released the two names in the article he published that subjects in the future would be unwilling to disclose information that was vital in writing the kind of stories he so desired.
If people from the local area saw that Branzburg couldn’t keep his subjects identities anonymous as they had requested, than others in the future would be ve...
... middle of paper ...
...t the law would eventually find him and force him to disclose the individual’s identities. I think his motives behind writing the story were to produce a thought provoking article that revealed the under ground operation of the drug manufacturing community. He wanted to shakes things up and report on something that was controversial and intriguing, however in the end he became a rat.
Works Cited
1.) Kentucky Reporters’ Privilege Statute, KY. REV. STAT. SEC. 421.100 (1962), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 Section I, paragraph 2.
2.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665
Section I, paragraph 2.
3.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665
Section 2 Paragraph 1
4.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665
Section 2, paragraph 2
5.) In re Pappas - 408 U.S. 665 (1972) - Docket Number: 70-94 http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/870/ 6.) U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Person
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
He could have turned the guilty party to the police, but he thought that it would end up hurting him.
Although marital privacy (and later personal privacy when Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, extended the rights to unmarried persons ), was at the heart of this ruling, there are many other compelling arguments in ruling this law unconstitutional. To examine these other points, including; freedom of speech/ press, right of association, privacy of the person, due process of law and the violation in restricting education, we must first have an basic understanding of the case itself.
Herman H. “Local consultant readers opinion on Sandusky jury.” Reading Eagle (PA) June 21, 2012: Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA, Accessed April 24, 2014
One of the biggest pushes for this change in the judicial system, was the Thompson Vs. Cotton case. Ronald Cotton was accused of raping twenty two year old college student, Jennifer Thompson. During a lecture at Ferris State University, Thompson recalled thinking over and over again that “once I [survive] and live, I will make sure that I know everything about you […] to help the police find you”. Little did she know, the man that she chose in both picture and physical lineup was an innocent man.
A judgment of acquittal should be granted against the United State’s case. The government contends that Ken Stringfellow has committed perjury pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623(a). However, Mr. Stringfellow repudiated his previous inaccurate declarations during the grand jury proceedings. Therefore, as a result, under § 1623(d), the government is barred from prosecuting Mr. Stringfellow for his prior statements before his recantation. Moreover, the government was successful in its indictment against the defendant’s father Mr. Weed Townsend for illegal possession of child pornography. Mr. Townsend is awaiting extradition from Switzerland to answer for the allegations charged against him. For the reason above, Mr. Stringfellow
A lot of people said he was just too nice. He was said to help out a lot and did a lot of good work. He would get anything for anyone, no questions asked. Though, he was said to make jokes that he would one day kill all of the crack addicts and prostitutes to clean up the streets. A major thing was he was the one dealing the crack to the girls. He would give them crack in exchange for money and sexual favors. He also had a lot of sketchy jobs done and had a lot of sketchy evidence that pointed to him. For example, he had a bunch of pictures of girls, most who have went missing. He also had the same gun that was used to kill more than half of the girls. A friend of his who was interviewed said it even seems like Lonnie was trying to get caught. He would show off the gun and the pictures and even one time handcuffs fell out of his car. He would try to get different women into his car and make them come into his home. Lonnie tried to get this one prostitute, Roxanne, to go into the back of his garage. He didn’t even really have a reason. The same girl said that she witness Lonnie slit this one girls throat. It was also said that most of the cars he was working on were cars that he had stole. One of his friends in an interview said that he would steal cars and that’s the reason he thought Lonnie was getting arrested but his other friend immediately shut that down and said Lonnie had never stolen a car. His friends also thought
First, there was a need to establish if there was enough evidence in the statement, which would be able to satisfy the definition of defamation. If the court was to find out that there was enough information, which would be injurious to the plaintiff, reputation in public, or either cause degradation and embarrassment as well as hatred, it would proceed with the case. Furthermore, the court in such publication made by the Newsweek could not be relied upon to expose the truth concerning rape charges against Janklow. The Newsweek publication was however, protected by the law to publish an article as such and could be interpreted in accordance to the reader. Moreover, as Janklow would claim that there was a defamatory statement in the article, there was no provision of admonitory words, which could be used to signalize to the readers that there was no fact presented in such a situation. However, the courtroom found out that Newsweek was subjected to offering evidenced news, which were not broad and subjective but rather offered specified and hard news, which a reader would be able to make claims if it contains information meant to harm the
As a teenager Abagnale became mixed up with a gang of teenage delinquents, who for the most part was just caught up in petty theft; which led to them being put into a juvenile detention center for a little time. Abagnale also began to use a gas credit card his father gave him in order to make a tiny profit. Abagnale would charge items from the gas station on his card. The items would actually stay on the shelves at the store and Abagnale would be given a fraction of the amount of the items in cash while the attendant pocketed the rest. His father was stuck with the bill which exceeded a couple of thousand dollars. This was the start of his extensive criminal career.
...ing him, and the expectation was that there would be a well-publicized trial rather than a brief in which Ray admitted his guilt and was sentenced.” (Clark 240)
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
Prior restraint is laced with a presumption of unconstitutionality and completely goes against the founding doctrines of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, therefore, must consider a number of factors before censoring a publication, including the consequences of such censorship. In the case of Arthur Ashe and USA Today, the Supreme Court has found that USA Today had the right to publish the article in question. Although the information published in the article was embarrassing and private, it was undoubtedly newsworthy. As a public figure, Arthur Ashe cannot maintain the same levels of privacy as those of a private person, as the public interest in him grants the freedom of the press to write about and investigate his personal life. The
The main moral agent of the story is the Editor-in-chief of Washington Post, Ben Bradlee. It was his decision to commit an act, in this case, publish the article in the newspaper, with a motive of revealing the truth about government workers, to show readers and public at large the truth which ends in ruining Washington Post’s reputation or increases accuracy, and justice take place. Fortunately for the paper and him, Woodward and Bernstein were correct with the facts in the story and helped to tell public the truth. In the end, methods which they used did not matter much because the story did greater good for the society at large and did not cause harm to innocent people.
The story Rachel had written became front-page news with the support from editors Bonnie Benjamin and Avirl Aaronson who were the newspapers legal counselors. Revealing a covert operatives identity is a criminal offence, because the individual who happened to tell the information to Rachel could be a major threat to national security. Rachel was brought into court and was demanded to reveal whom her source
He was revealed as a liar and a cheat. He was a partner with the druggist, to help each other build their wealth.