Ron Rider is a reporter for City Business, a weekly newspaper in the city. He writes a series of articles that appear in the paper detailing a long history of the city’s Department of Finance not collecting sales from certain businesses. His articles refer to unnamed sources that he called “close to the director of the Department of Finance.” The city attorney brings criminal charges against the director of the Department of Finance, based on Rider’s articles and some independent investigation by the city attorney’s office. The director’s attorney says that she must have the names of Rider’s sources so that she can prepare her client’s defense. In part, she claims, there are people who would like to “get” the director (i.e., framed in criminal charges), and if those

are Rider’s sources they are not to be believed. The judge orders Rider to reveal his sources; he refuses. The judge holds him in contempt, and Rider appeals. The state does not have a shield law. However, the state’s courts have applied the generally accepted test to determine if reporters may keep sources secret. Should the appellate court order Rider to reveal his sources? Why or why not?

What will be an ideal response?

The appellate court will rule that Rider has a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege. (Some states and most federal courts take this approach.) The court will apply the three-part test adapted from Justice Stewart’s dissent coupled with Justice Powell’s concurrence in the Branzburg v. Hayes case: (a) Is it probable the reporter has information relevant to the case? The reporter referred in the stories to “unnamed sources.” Therefore, presumably the reporter knows who those sources are. (b) Can the information be obtained elsewhere? Here, Rider would argue that the district attorney has whatever information is needed to bring charges against the director. The defense attorney should first ask the district attorney to reveal the sources of charges against the director. Also, the defense attorney could do some investigating of her own—as the district attorney did. (c) Is there a compelling and overriding need for the information? It might be argued that the criminal charges will stand or fall on their own, and the name of the person(s) who supplied the information leading to a criminal charge is irrelevant. (d) The court also will consider that the case is a criminal one. Courts are more likely to require that information be revealed in criminal cases rather than civil cases.