Search results
Branzburg v. Hayes , 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury .
After observing and interviewing a number of people synthesizing and using drugs in a two-county area in Kentucky, Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story which appeared in a Louisville newspaper. On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes.
County Grand Jury and appeared, answered questions as to his name, address, employment, and what he had seen and heard outside Panther headquarters, but refused to answer any questions about what had taken place inside headquarters while he was there, claiming that the First Amendment afforded him a privilege to protect confidential informants ...
28 mar 2024 · Paul Branzburg, Paul Pappas, and Earl Caldwell (defendants) faced legal challenges after refusing to testify before grand juries regarding confidential information, citing First Amendment protections. Prosecutors, including Hayes (plaintiff), contested these claims.
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury.
Date of Decision: June 29, 1972. Decision: The First Amendment does not give news reporters a privilege to keep their sources secret from the government. Significance: News reporters must share information about criminal activity with grand jury investigations just like every other citizen.
On November 15, 1969, the Courier-Journal carried a story under petitioner's by-line describing in detail his observations of two young residents of Jefferson County synthesizing hashish from marihuana, an activity which, they asserted, earned them about $5,000 in three weeks.
