Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenagrand jury

Related Cases

In re Pappas, 358 Mass. 604, 266 N.E.2d 297, 21 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 2038

Facts

Pappas, a newsman-photographer, was covering civil disorder in New Bedford in July 1970. He entered a barricaded area to photograph a Black Panther news conference and was allowed to enter the headquarters under the condition that he would not report anything he saw or heard except for a police raid, which did not occur. When subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, Pappas refused to answer questions about his observations inside the headquarters, claiming a privilege to protect his sources and asserting that revealing the information would violate his constitutional rights.

Issue

Does a newsman have a constitutional privilege to refuse to testify before a grand jury regarding information obtained in the course of his reporting?

Rule

The court held that there exists no constitutional newsman's privilege, either qualified or absolute, to refuse to appear and testify before a court or grand jury. The obligation of newsmen is the same as that of any citizen to appear when summoned and answer relevant inquiries.

The court held that there exists no constitutional newsman's privilege, either qualified or absolute, to refuse to appear and testify before a court or grand jury.

Analysis

The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding Pappas's refusal to testify and determined that the grand jury's inquiry was appropriate given the serious civil disorders occurring at the time. The court emphasized that the public has a right to every man's evidence and that privileges are exceptional. Pappas's claims of privilege were not sufficient to prevent him from being compelled to testify, as he did not demonstrate that the grand jury's inquiry was improper or oppressive.

The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding Pappas's refusal to testify and determined that the grand jury's inquiry was appropriate given the serious civil disorders occurring at the time.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling that Pappas must respond to the subpoena and testify about what he saw and heard, as well as the identities of individuals present.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court ruled that Pappas did not have a privilege to refuse to testify and must comply with the grand jury's subpoena.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003, 4 N.Y.3d 665, 830 N.E.2d 1118, 797 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 03582

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee, 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2735, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3170

Love v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 206, 225 Ed. Law Rep. 715, 34 NDLR P 120

Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 59 USLW 2041

Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683, 1 Media L. Rep. 1064