Judith Miller—The New York Times reporter now in federal prison for refusing to burn a source before a federal grand jury investigating an executive branch leak of a former covert CIA officer's identity—is a hero to her fellow journalists, a martyr to the media's constitutional mission of serving as a restraint on government abuse. In contrast, the public doesn't seem to give a damn.

The First Amendment issue in Miller's case has been more widely reported than the federal common law privilege, but both are key to understanding why Judith Miller's conviction and imprisonment has set a new and ominous precedent which can and will be used against non-journalists as well.

Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.

Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read. She won't be the last.

http://www.reason.com/hod/mm081005.shtml

The Assistance District Attorney from Law & Order is going to love this brave new world!

8/10/2005 12:46:44 PM

You mean there's a war on media going on?

8/10/2005 12:54:17 PM

Na, I just realized I should have tittled this thread more succinctly: "Secret Trials to target Citizens"

Or simply "Secret Trials"

8/10/2005 1:36:12 PM

^^
of course not. Remember, "we have the media now" right?

8/10/2005 5:27:21 PM

remind me again WHY she should be allowed to conceal the identity of a probable criminal?

its one thing to protect a whistleblower. Its another to protect a criminal...

8/10/2005 9:40:44 PM

this is NOTHING new

for as long as we've had grand juries, this sort of thing has gone on

just because it happened to a journalist doesn't mean its new

and doesn't mean its bad.

8/10/2005 9:42:45 PM

wait, so its ok for Ms. Judith Miller, ace reporter, to conceal her sources, but her prosecution should be constitutionally bound to make its evidence against her public?

i thought all these women were against double standards.

8/11/2005 8:36:15 AM

hmmm...I'm pretty sure that she was imprisoned for contempt in order to compel her to testify, vice actually being tried and convicted of a crime.

As far as her being in the 'wrong' by not revealing her sources:

Quote :

"while the first amendment is absolute in its protection of the right to publish, it is far less categorical when it comes to protecting the news-gathering process. In Branzburg v Hayes (1972) the Supreme Court refused to acknowledge a special privilege that protects reporters from testifying in criminal cases. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has twice upheld a lower court ruling that Mr Cooper and Ms Miller should be forced to testify—and the Supreme Court has in effect endorsed that stance [by refusing to hear Miller and Cooper's appeals]."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4154593

Quote :

"The Justice Department has non-binding guidelines requiring that information sought from journalists be “essential to a successful investigation” and unavailable from other sources. But the Plame case meets that standard: the only witnesses to the crime were the journalists who received the leaks."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3107066

I'm really curious as to where this guy got this and what he thinks the 'secret evidence' is. After all, Miller has stated that she worked on this story, so it seems reasonable that she knows who the source is. A better question would be "What about Robert Novak?"

8/11/2005 9:18:16 AM

The question here is not requiring journalists to testify. What is at issue here is the fact she was convicted and sentenced to jail on evidence she never saw from witnesses she doesn't know.

The issue is NOT the First Amendment, but her common law right to confront the evidence against her.

8/11/2005 9:50:19 AM

Quote :

"What is at issue here is the fact she was convicted and sentenced to jail on evidence she never saw from witnesses she doesn't know."

Do you have another news (not opinion) article that says what she was tried and convicted of? I'm fairly certain that she's in jail for contempt of court, which means she refused to follow the judge's order.

"Ms. Miller, please name your source."
"No."
"Do you understand that, by failing to answer the question, you are in contempt?"
"Yes, your honor."
"Do you understand that I can have you imprisoned until you answer the question? Do you understand that jail will likely involve lots of gay sex?"
"Yes, I do!"
"All right, then. Baliff, cuff her!"

There's no trial required; you're required to obey the court's order. Failure to do so = the big house.

Sure, I'll agree that IF she was imprisoned based on some secret trial with secret evidence and a secret jury, that's wrong. But I don't think that happened.

8/11/2005 10:20:51 AM

Quote :

"What is at issue here is the fact she was convicted and sentenced to jail on evidence she never saw from witnesses she doesn't know."

IT IS CALLED A GRAND JURY YOU MORON

JESUS DO THEY EVEN TEACH SOCIAL STUDIES IN SCHOOL ANYMORE??

8/11/2005 11:10:50 AM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Do you have another news (not opinion) article that says what she was tried and convicted of? I'm fairly certain that she's in jail for contempt of court, which means she refused to follow the judge's order. "Ms. Miller, please name your source." "No." "Do you understand that, by failing to answer the question, you are in contempt?" "Yes, your honor." "Do you understand that I can have you imprisoned until you answer the question? Do you understand that jail will likely involve lots of gay sex?" "Yes, I do!" "All right, then. Baliff, cuff her!" There's no trial required; you're required to obey the court's order. Failure to do so = the big house."

A Tanzarian = teh winn4r

8/11/2005 11:56:01 AM