Share on Google Plus 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
General News

The Sixth Circuit Upholds Journalist's Right to Invoke the Fifth Amendment

By       Message Marcy Wheeler     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 8/3/15

Author 89140
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)

Reprinted from exposefacts.org

From commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Ashcroft_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg: John Ashcroft
John Ashcroft
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org))
  Permission   Details   DMCA

An appellate decision on the long-running dispute between a former prosecutor and the Department of Justice may provide a new way for journalists to protect their government sources.

The decision came as a result of former prosecutor Richard Convertino's effort to sue DOJ for Privacy Act violations tied to a 2004 leak to Detroit Free Press reporter David Ashenfelter. Ashenfelter reported that Convertino was under investigation by DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility for misconduct on a terrorism trial.

There are no heroes in the underlying suit. Convertino claims DOJ investigated him not for prosecutorial misconduct, but instead to retaliate for criticism of their conduct under the War on Terror and testimony provided under subpoena to Congress. The claim deserves consideration given the lenient treatment DOJ has given to egregious prosecutorial misconduct in other cases (such as Ted Stevens), not to mention other failures to comply with discovery obligations, especially on terrorism trials. But Convertino's alleged conduct -- withholding evidence from defense attorneys -- was also inexcusable.

The dispute has sucked Ashenfelter up in a long running fight over whether he should have to testify about his sources. He first tried to refuse by invoking reporter's privilege, which a judge rejected. But when, in 2008, Convertino tried to depose the reporter, Ashenfelter invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to each question. To defend doing so, Ashenfelter pointed to Convertino's own claims that he had conspired with criminals at DOJ, as well as to a series of cases (including those under the Espionage Act) and public statements suggesting DOJ might prosecute someone for using documents illegally obtained from the government to do reporting.

On Friday, the Sixth Circuit upheld Ashenfelter's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment to refuse to testify.

The key part of the Sixth Circuit's ruling found that Ashenfelter had a real concern that any testimony about the leak would implicate him in federal crimes; in his opinion, Judge Eric Clay pointed to 18 U.S.C. 641, which prohibits receiving something known to have been stolen with the intent to use it for one's own gain.

Convertino's complaint in his merits suit against the DOJ alleges facts that if proven could implicate Ashenfelter in the commission of one or more crimes, including the allegation that federal officials illegally provided Ashenfelter with two confidential OPR documents. If proven, this allegation would appear to establish that Ashenfelter "receive[d]" a "record . . . of the United States or of [an] agency or department thereof," raising a risk of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 641. In this setting, it requires very little "judicial imagination," if any, to comprehend that Ashenfelter could have reasonable cause to fear that answering questions regarding the source or sources of the leak would risk injurious disclosure.

Effectively, the court agreed that it would be possible for a journalist to be charged because he knowingly used government documents that had been stolen to do reporting, and therefore Ashenfelter could properly rely on the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid testifying.

That conclusion is not surprising given that DOJ has considered similar charges against Julian Assange and the UK is still considering charges against the Snowden journalists.

If the decision stands, it may present a new way for journalists to protect sources in civil cases, at least in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky, where the decision will stand as precedent.

It wouldn't offer much protection in criminal cases, because prosecutors could always give the journalist immunity to testify against sources. But it does represent an important recognition that in an era of witch hunts like that launched against James Risen -- where even Judge Brinkema observed the prosecution would have liked to name Risen as a co-conspirator -- journalists may have additional legal reasons to want to protect their reporting, beyond just a reporter's privilege.


 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler writes the "Right to Know" column for ExposeFacts. She is best known for providing in-depth analysis of legal documents related to "war on terrorism" programs and civil liberties. Wheeler blogs at (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

David Petraeus Gets Hand-Slap for Leaking, Two Point Enhancement for Obstruction of Justice

The Sterling Closing Arguments: Who Is the Hero, Who Is the Storyteller?

Is Trump's Revelation The Same As Craig Murray's Revelation: An American Cut-Out?

Candidate Obama's Tribute to "Courage and Patriotism" of Whistleblowers Disappears 2 Days after First Snowden Revelation

Official Leaks: "These Senior People Do Whatever They Want"

The Section 215 Rap Sheet