Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Your Friday moment of Zen
Next Post: Judge’s salary veto decision could be pushed back up to a week
Posted in:
* This is crazy…
A Will County judge on Friday found a Joliet crime reporter in contempt of court for not divulging how he obtained confidential police reports about a notorious double murder earlier this year.
Will County Circuit Court Judge Gerald Kinney on Friday found patch.com reporter Joseph Hosey in contempt of court and gave him 180 days to disclose his source. Hosey faces jail time if he does not reveal who gave him the reports, Kinney said. […]
More than 500 sworn statements were submitted by members of the Joliet Police Department, Will County State’s Attorney’s office, and the staff of the attorneys representing the defendants. Everyone stated they were not the source.
Kinney fined Hosey $1,000 plus court fees and said he’s also facing additional fines of $300 per day until he reveals his source.
Assistant State’s Attorney Marie Czech told the judge that she felt the disclosure of the information in the police reports did not influence the grand jury’s decision to indict the four people charged in the killings.
What happened here is that the defense lawyer asked the judge to squeeze the info out of the reporter after all other avenues they tried had come up empty. And the judge eagerly complied.
* More…
Hosey’s attorney Kenneth L. Schmetterer immediately appealed the judge’s ruling.
“Illinois courts have upheld the shield law to protect reporters precisely from having to divulge confidential sources because of the chilling effect it can have on the important work reporters can do,” Schmetterer said after Friday’s hearing. “That’s a principle that’s established and recognized by appellate courts and the Illinois Supreme Court by the statute, and that’s why we’re going to vigorously press forward with our appeal.”
* The state’s shield law has an exemption…
a specific public interest which would be adversely affected if the factual information sought were not disclosed
* There is also a provision in case law that the shield can be lifted if investigators have exhausted “all sources of information.” So, conducting that witch hunt apparently meets that standard for this particular judge.
But it’s still bogus.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Your Friday moment of Zen
Next Post: Judge’s salary veto decision could be pushed back up to a week
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t get this at all. If the info is in the report, why does it matter how the reporter got it? How does that aid the defense?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:29 pm
don’t see what public purpose will be served by dragging reporter into this. he dug up some facts, wrote a story telling public what happened.
The legal process was unhindered by the reporting, and it seems to me that the judge’s action is way out of line. that doesn’t mean other judges who recognize no limits on their authority won’t back up the trial judge. whole thing seems moronic to me.
Comment by jim Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:37 pm
I’m sure the good people at AOL, the same company that laid off roughly 50 of Hosey’s fellow Patch reporters via conference call a few month ago, are paying for the attorney and providing their man unconditional support.
Comment by Dirty Red Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Bogus, indeed. One of the more courageous chapters in Hosey’s reporting career — a tenure somewhat muddled by bombastic, sensationalistic stories backed by flimsy evidence.
Comment by App Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:45 pm
While I understand Hosey’s position, the real problem is that someone leaked a confidential police report that could compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Comment by Stones Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:52 pm
Where can I send a donation to his legal defense fund?
Comment by Allen Skillicorn Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:05 pm
If the defense is so concerned, they could request a change of venue. They could be on the lookout during jury selection. They could consider perhaps it was not one of the 500 people to sign the statement that gave the report to Hosey. Surely there are people in Will County that do not read Patch.com reports, and could serve on an impartial jury.
From the story above…
= Hosey first exposed the salacious claims that Massaro and Miner had sex on the bodies of the victims. A source has confirmed for the Chicago Sun-Times that the detail appears in the reports, which contain conflicting interviews. =
Is the defense now going to demand the Sun Times reporter be questioned under oath over the identity of the anonymous source that confirmed the report’s content?
Comment by Dirty Red Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:14 pm
Does this ever work? I see reports now and then about reporters being jailed/fined/charged over not revealing a source. Is there some precedents for reporters caving in? Because it never seems like they do (and good for them), yet we still see stories like this. Since I have no idea whatsoever how often this happens, any ideas on how often the tactic works Rich? Or is it purely punitive?
Comment by Liandro Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:30 pm
I have to agree with
- Allen Skillicorn - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:05 pm
Slowly our rights are being taken away. If not for the media, many stories would “unjustly” go untold.
Comment by Maxine Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:58 pm