[PzLdr]

The reporters are facing a citation for contempt of court. The Court impanels the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury hears two kinds of cases. One:Where A kills B, A has been arrested, and the evidence against A is presented to make out probable cause to believe A killed B. The the GJ believes there is, A is indicted on any criminal violation submitted by the prosecutor which the Grand Jury finds is supported by the evidence. The second type of matter handled by a Grand Jury involves investigations, either in crimes or malfeasance. In that case, the prosecutor presents evidence to the Grand Jury. Can lead to a report [in certain types of matters, think the 9-11 commission report, although the 9-11 commission wasn't a Grand Jury], or an indictment.

The reporters were subpoenaed to testify about matters under investigation, AND WHICH THEY HAD REPORTED ON, which theoretically constitute a Federal felony. The were ordered to produce notes, memos, etc that they used in those stories. They were ordered to identify the source[s] of their reportage. They refused to do so, claiming a privilege not universally recognized. The source may be the potential defendant on the case. They are going to jail under a contempt citation. They can remain in jail, in theory, as long as the Grand Jury sits, and they refuse to cooperate. Or the Court may fix a term. Depends on the jurisdiction.

[xzins]

See posts #37 & #39.

I am a pastor. I have full confidentiality in pastoral counseling, so I'm told.

It is obvious to me, that no criminal would ever confess anything in my presence if he knew I could be forced to divulge it in a court of law.

The same applies to the press. Who would talk about questionable activities to the press if they knew the press could be forced to reveal their sources?

If the one injures religion, then the other injures the press. "NO law abridging the freedom of the press." No law = no law.

IMHO, the reporters are right.