Holmes v. Winter

8/13/2019 Holmes v. Winter

1/34

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 245I n t he Mat t er of J ames Hol mes, Respondent , v.J ana Wi nt er , Appel l ant ,

Chr i st opher T. Handman, f or appel l ant .Dani el N. Ar shack, f or r espondent .Report er ' s Commi t t ee f or t he Fr eedom of t he Press et

al . , ami ci cur i ae.

GRAFFEO, J . :

New Yor k' s Shi el d Law pr ovi des an absol ut e pr i vi l ege

t hat pr event s a j our nal i st f r om bei ng compel l ed t o i dent i f y

conf i dent i al sour ces who pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on f or a news st or y.

I n t hi s case, t he i ssue i s whet her i t woul d vi ol at e New Yor k

publ i c pol i cy f or a New Yor k cour t t o i ssue a subpoena di r ect i ng

- 1 -


2/34

- 2 - No. 245

a New Yor k r epor t er t o appear at a j udi ci al pr oceedi ng i n anot her

st at e wher e t her e i s a subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat she wi l l be

di r ect ed t o di scl ose t he names of conf i dent i al sour ces or f ace

bei ng hel d i n cont empt of cour t .

Pet i t i oner J ames Hol mes i s char ged wi t h mul t i pl e count s

of mur der , among ot her of f enses, ar i si ng f r om a mass shoot i ng at

a mi dni ght scr eeni ng of a "Bat man" movi e at an Aurora, Col orado

movi e t heat er . Twel ve peopl e wer e ki l l ed dur i ng t he i nci dent and

70 ot her s were wounded. Hol mes was arr est ed at t he scene soon

af t er t he vi ol ence ended. Ant i ci pat i ng t hat t he shoot i ngs woul d

gener at e wi despr ead medi a at t ent i on, t he st at e cour t pr esi di ng

over t he cr i mi nal char ges - - t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Count y of

Ar apahoe - - i mmedi at el y i ssued an or der l i mi t i ng pr et r i al

publ i ci t y i n t he case by ei t her si de, i ncl udi ng l aw enf or cement .

On J ul y 23, 2012, whi l e execut i ng a sear ch war r ant , t he

pol i ce t ook possessi on of a notebook t hat Hol mes had mai l ed to a

psychi at r i st at t he Uni ver si t y of Col or ado bef or e t he shoot i ngs.

Hol mes asser t ed that t he notebook, whi ch apparent l y cont ai ned

i ncr i mi nat i ng cont ent , woul d be i nadmi ssi bl e at t r i al because i t

const i t ut ed a pr i vi l eged communi cat i on bet ween a pat i ent and a

psychi at r i st . Two days l at er , t he Di st r i ct Cour t i ssued a second

or der addr essi ng pr et r i al publ i ci t y, pr ecl udi ng any par t y,

i ncl udi ng t he pol i ce, f r om r eveal i ng i nf or mat i on concer ni ng t he

di scover y of t he notebook or i t s cont ent s. That same day,

r espondent J ana Wi nt er - - a New Yor k- based i nvest i gat i ve r epor t er

- 2 -


3/34

- 3 - No. 245

empl oyed by Fox News - - publ i shed an onl i ne ar t i cl e ent i t l ed:

"Excl usi ve: Movi e Massacre Suspect Sent Chi l l i ng Not ebook t o

Psychi at r i st Bef or e At t ack. " I n t he ar t i cl e, Wi nt er descri bed

t he cont ent s of t he notebook and i ndi cated t hat she l earned about

i t f r om t wo uni dent i f i ed l aw enf or cement sour ces. Ot her news

out l et s al so publ i shed st or i es r eveal i ng t he exi st ence of t he

not ebook.

I n Sept ember 2012, Hol mes f i l ed a mot i on f or sanct i ons

i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t , al l egi ng t hat l aw enf or cement had vi ol at ed

t he pr et r i al publ i ci t y or der s by speaki ng t o Wi nt er and

mai nt ai ni ng t hat t hei r act i ons under mi ned hi s r i ght t o a f ai r and

i mpar t i al j ur y. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen conduct ed a hear i ng t o

i nvest i gat e t he l eak. Hol mes cal l ed 14 pol i ce of f i cer s who had

come i n cont act wi t h t he notebook or had l earned about i t pr i or

t o t he publ i cat i on of t he Wi nt er ar t i cl e. Al l t he of f i cer s

t est i f i ed t hat t hey had not l eaked t he i nf or mat i on t o Wi nt er and

di d not know who had.

Af t er t he hear i ng, Hol mes sought a cer t i f i cat e under

Col or ado' s ver si on of t he Uni f or m Act t o Secur e t he At t endance of

Wi t nesses f r om Wi t hout t he St at e i n Cr i mi nal Pr oceedi ngs ( Col o

Rev St at 16- 9- 203) - - t he f i r st st ep i n t he t wo- par t pr ocess

f or compel l i ng an out - of - st at e wi t ness, such as Wi nt er , t o

t est i f y or ot her wi se pr ovi de evi dence i n Col or ado. Hol mes

expl ai ned t hat he sought Wi nt er ' s t est i mony and any not es she had

cr eat ed i n r el at i on t o t he ar t i cl e because she "appear s t o be t he

- 3 -


4/34

- 4 - No. 245

onl y wi t ness t hat can pr ovi de t he cour t wi t h t he name of t he l aw

enf or cement agent s t hat l eaked pr i vi l eged i nf or mat i on. " I n

J anuar y 2013, t he Di st r i ct Cour t i ssued t he r equest ed

cer t i f i cat e, f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no ot her wi t ness "t hat coul d

provi de t he names of t he l aw enf or cement agent s who may have

pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on t o J ana Wi nt er " and t hat pot ent i al vi ol at i on

of t he pr et r i al publ i ci t y or der was a ser i ous mat t er . The cour t

al so not ed t hat Wi nt er ' s ar t i cl e had descr i bed her sour ces as t wo

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s and, si nce al l of t he of f i cer s who deal t

wi t h t he not ebook had deni ed havi ng spoken t o Wi nter , t he cr i me

of per j ur y i n t he f i r st degr ee "may be i mpl i cat ed. " Thus, t he

Col orado cour t f ound Wi nt er t o be a "mater i al and necessary"

wi t ness i n the sanct i on pr oceedi ng and ther ef or e request ed that

she spend t hr ee days i n t r avel and t est i mony i n t he Di st r i ct

Cour t at a speci f i ed dat e and t i me.

Si nce Wi nt er works and l i ves i n New Yor k, Hol mes t hen

commenced t hi s proceedi ng i n New York Supreme Court pur suant t o

CPL 640. 10( 2) , New Yor k' s codi f i cat i on of t he r eci pr ocal Uni f or m

Act t o Secur e At t endance of Wi t nesses f r om Wi t hout t he St at e i n

Cr i mi nal Cases, seeki ng t he i ssuance of a subpoena compel l i ng

Wi nt er t o t est i f y and pr ovi de evi dence i n Col or ado. Ant i ci pat i ng

t hat Wi nt er woul d i nvoke t he New Yor k Shi el d Law, Hol mes rel i ed

on our deci si on i n Mat t er of Codey ( Capi t al Ci t i es, Am.

Br oadast i ng Co. ) ( 82 NY2d 521 [ 1993] ) f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat

any i ssue r el at i ng t o a cl ai m of pr i vi l ege coul d not be deci ded

- 4 -


5/34


6/34

- 6 - No. 245

"sendi ng st at e, " i f i ssuance of a subpoena woul d vi ol at e a st r ong

publ i c pol i cy - - whi ch she mai nt ai ned was t he si t uat i on her e.

Supr eme Cour t gr ant ed Hol mes' appl i cat i on and i ssued a

subpoena di r ect i ng Wi nt er t o appear i n Col or ado, hol di ng t hat she

was a mat er i al and necessary wi t ness and t hat compl i ance wi t h t he

subpoena posed no undue har dshi p because Hol mes' def ense t eam

woul d pay her expenses and she was t o remai n i n Col orado f or no

l onger t han t hr ee days. The cour t r easoned t hat t he ot her i ssues

Wi nt er had r ai sed, i ncl udi ng her cl ai m of pr i vi l ege, wer e beyond

t he scope of a subpoena appl i cat i on under CPL 640. 10( 2) and

shoul d be resol ved by t he Di st r i ct Cour t i n Col or ado. 1

The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med i n a di vi ded deci si on

( 110 AD3d 134) . The maj or i t y adopt ed Supreme Cour t ' s vi ew t hat

t he onl y i ssues t o be r esol ved by a New Yor k cour t i n i t s

capaci t y as a "sendi ng st ate" under CPL 640. 10( 2) i s whet her

Hol mes est abl i shed t hat Wi nt er was a mat er i al and necessary

wi t ness i n the Col orado pr oceedi ng and whet her compel l i ng her t o

t est i f y woul d r esul t i n undue har dshi p. As t o t he l at t er , t he

1 Af t er Supr eme Cour t i ssued t he subpoena, Wi nt er compl i edunder pr otest , appear i ng i n Col or ado on t hr ee occasi ons i n whi chshe asser t ed t hat t he i nf or mat i on sought was pr i vi l eged under t heNew Yor k and Col orado Shi el d Laws. Col orado has def err edr esol ut i on of Wi nt er ' s pr i vi l ege cl ai m pendi ng di sposi t i on of

sever al ot her r el at ed i ssues. At t hi s j unct ur e, her casecont i nues t o pr esent a l i ve cont r over sy si nce an or der of t hi sCour t r ever si ng t he Appel l at e Di vi si on and di smi ssi ng Hol mes' sCPL 640. 10( 2) appl i cat i on wi l l r esul t i n nul l i f i cat i on of t hesubpoena, meani ng t hat Wi nt er wi l l have no cont i nui ng l egalobl i gat i on t o r et ur n t o Col or ado and gi ve f ur t her t est i mony - -r egar dl ess of Col or ado' s r esol ut i on of t he pr i vi l ege i ssue.

- 6 -


7/34

- 7 - No. 245

maj or i t y vi ewed t he concept nar r owl y as encompassi ng onl y

"f ami l i al , monet ar y, or j ob- r el at ed har dshi ps" per t ai ni ng t o t he

t i me, expense and i nconveni ence associ at ed wi t h t he t r i p t o t he

ot her j ur i sdi ct i on - - whi ch di d not i ncl ude any consequences

f l owi ng f r om t he test i mony t he wi t ness woul d be requi r ed t o gi ve.

Rel yi ng on Codey, t he maj or i t y r easoned t hat i t woul d be

i nef f i ci ent and i nconsi st ent wi t h t he r eci pr ocal scheme f or t he

"sendi ng st at e" t o ent er t ai n i ssues r el at i ng t o admi ssi bi l i t y and

pr i vi l ege of t he t est i mony sought . Thus, t he maj or i t y decl i ned

t o ent er t ai n Wi nt er ' s Shi el d Law ar gument , al t hough i t not ed t hat

t he r ecor d di d not est abl i sh "wi t h absol ut e cer t ai nt y" t hat t he

Col or ado Di st r i ct Cour t woul d r equi r e her t o di scl ose t he

i dent i t y of conf i dent i al sour ces.

A t wo- j ust i ce di ssent concl uded t hat t he subpoena

appl i cat i on shoul d have been deni ed. Al t hough r ecogni zi ng t he

gener al r ul e t hat i ssues rel at i ng t o admi ssi bi l i t y and pr i vi l ege

ar e not ent er t ai ned by t he "sendi ng st at e" i n t he CPL 640. 10( 2)

cont ext , t he di ssent mai nt ai ned t hat l anguage i n a f oot not e i n

Codey support ed recogni t i on of an except i on i n cases wher e t he

pr ospect i ve wi t ness makes a compel l i ng cl ai m t hat i ssuance of t he

subpoena woul d vi ol at e a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t hi s st at e. On

t he mer i t s, t he di ssent det er mi ned t hat Wi nt er shoul d be abl e t o

cl ai m t he pr ot ect i ons of t he New Yor k Shi el d Law t o avoi d

i ssuance of t he subpoena because Col orado' s Shi el d Law cont ai ns

si gni f i cant l y l ess pr ot ecti on i n r el at i on t o conf i dent i al sour ces

- 7 -


8/34

- 8 - No. 245

and t her e was a subst ant i al possi bi l i t y - - i ndeed, a near

cer t ai nt y - - t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t woul d r equi r e Wi nt er t o

di scl ose her sour ces or be hel d i n cont empt . Fi nal l y, even

absent consi der at i on of t he pr i vi l ege i ssue, t he di ssent f ound

t hat Wi nt er had est abl i shed "undue har dshi p" under t he st at ut e

because she demonst r at ed, t hr ough uncont r adi ct ed evi dence, t hat

i ssuance of t he subpoena woul d put her i n an i mpossi bl e

si t uat i on: she woul d be f or ced t o choose bet ween i ncar cer at i on

( i f she r ef used t o di vul ge t he i nf or mat i on) or l oss of her

l i vel i hood ( i f she pr ovi ded t he i nf or mat i on sought by t he

Col or ado cour t ) .

Wi nt er appeal s as of r i ght on t he t wo- J ust i ce di ssent

at t he Appel l at e Di vi si on ( CPLR 5601[ a] ) . I n t hi s Cour t , she

cont i nues t o ar gue that i ssuance of t he subpoena under t he

ci r cumst ances pr esent ed her e i s ant i t het i cal t o New Yor k' s wel l -

est abl i shed publ i c pol i cy i n f avor of pr ot ect i ng t he anonymi t y of

conf i dent i al sour ces, as embodi ed i n t he New Yor k Const i t ut i on

and t he New Yor k Shi el d Law. We t her ef ore begi n by exami ni ng

t hat publ i c pol i cy.

Ar t i cl e I , 8 and t he New Yor k Shi el d Law

New Yor k has a l ong t r adi t i on, wi t h r oot s dat i ng back

t o t he col oni al er a, of pr ovi di ng t he ut most pr ot ect i on of

f r eedom of t he pr ess. Our r ecogni t i on of t he i mpor t ance of

saf eguar di ng t hose who pr ovi de i nf or mat i on as par t of t he

newsgat her i ng f unct i on can be t r aced t o t he case of " J ohn Pet er

- 8 -


9/34


10/34

- 10 - No. 245

( O' Nei l l , 71 NY2d at 529, quot i ng Beach, 62 NY2d at 256) .

I n f ur t her ance of t hi s hi stor i cal t r adi t i on, t he

Legi sl at ure adopt ed t he Shi el d Law i n 1970. Among ot her

pr ot ect i ons, t he st at ut e gr ant s an absol ut e pr i vi l ege pr ecl udi ng

r epor t er s f r om bei ng compel l ed t o reveal t he i dent i t y of

conf i dent i al sour ces:

"Not wi t hst andi ng the pr ovi si ons of anygener al or speci f i c l aw t o t he cont r ar y, nopr of essi onal j our nal i st or newscast er . . .shal l be adj udged i n cont empt by any cour t i nconnect i on wi t h any ci vi l or cr i mi nal

pr oceedi ng . . . f or r ef usi ng or f ai l i ng t odi scl ose any news obt ai ned or r ecei ved i nconf i dence or t he i dent i t y of t he sour ce ofany such news comi ng i nto such per son' spossessi on i n t he cour se of gat her i ng orobt ai ni ng news f or publ i cat i on" ( Ci vi l Ri ght sLaw 79- h[ b] ; L 1970, ch 615, as amended byL 1975, ch 316; L 1981, ch 468 1 t o 30; L1990 ch 33, 1) .

I nf or mat i on subj ect t o t he pr i vi l ege i s " i nadmi ssi bl e i n any

act i on or pr oceedi ng or hear i ng bef or e any agency" ( Ci vi l Ri ght s

Law 79- h[ d] ) . The Shi el d Law t her ef or e pr ohi bi t s a New Yor k

cour t f r om f or ci ng a r epor t er t o r eveal a conf i dent i al sour ce,

bot h by pr event i ng such a di r ect i ve f r om bei ng enf or ced t hr ough

t he cour t ' s cont empt power and by render i ng any evi dence t hat i s

cover ed by t he pr ovi si on i nadmi ssi bl e.

Anot her subsect i on of t he st at ut e l ar gel y codi f i ed our

deci si on i n O' Nei l l v Oakgr ove Const r . ( supr a, 71 NY2d 521) ,

whi ch r ecogni zed t hat Ar t i cl e I , 8 pr ovi des r epor t er s wi t h a

"qual i f i ed exempt i on" agai nst compel l ed di scl osur e of

"nonconf i dent i al news" - - i nf or mat i on t hat was not r ecei ved i n

- 10 -


11/34

- 11 - No. 245

conf i dence - - unl ess t he par t y seeki ng di scl osur e est abl i shes

t hat t he news "( i ) i s hi ghl y mat er i al and r el evant ; ( i i ) i s

cr i t i cal or necessary t o t he mai nt enance of a par t y' s cl ai m,

def ense or pr oof of an i ssue mat er i al t her et o; and ( i i i ) i s not

obt ai nabl e f r om any al t er nat i ve sour ce" ( Ci vi l Ri ght s Law 70-

h[ c] ; added L 1990, ch 33, 2) .

I t i s cl ear f rom t he l egi s l at i ve hi story of t hese

pr ovi si ons t hat t he Legi sl at ur e bel i eved t hat such pr ot ect i ons

wer e essent i al t o mai nt enance of our f r ee and democrat i c soci et y.

Pr i or t o t he adopt i on of t he f i r st st at ut e i n 1970, l awmaker s

consi der ed af f i davi t s pr epar ed by sever al l umi nar i es of t he

pr of essi on - - i ncl udi ng Wal t er Cr onki t e, Er i c Sever ei d and Mi ke

Wal l ace - - emphasi zi ng t he cr i t i cal i mpor t ance of pr ot ect i ng t he

anonymi t y of conf i dent i al sour ces i n or der t o assur e a cont i nued

f l ow of i nf or mat i on t o r epor t er s and, t hus, t o t he publ i c ( see

Bi l l J acket , L 1970, ch 615, at 66- 76) . 2 The vi ews expr essed by

2 The af f i davi t s wer e prepar ed i n connect i on wi t h a mot i on

t o quash a subpoena i n a case t hat was pendi ng when the Shi el dLaw was under consi der at i on by t he Legi sl atur e and whi ch i nvol vedan i nvest i gat i ve r eport er f r om t he New Yor k Ti mes who wassubpoenaed by a Feder al Gr and J ur y i n Cal i f or ni a t o t est i f yconcer ni ng knowl edge he obt ai ned about t he Bl ack Pant herorgani zat i on. Two l ower cour t s hel d t hat t he Fi r st Amendmentpr ot ect ed t he r epor t er f r om bei ng compel l ed t o reveal hi s sour ces

or di scl ose i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded t o hi m i n conf i dence, di f f er i ngonl y on whet her t he report er coul d avoi d appear i ng at t he Gr andJ ury al t ogether ( Cal dwel l v Uni t ed St at es, 434 F2d 1081 [ 9t h Ci r1970] [ r eport er coul d not be compel l ed t o appear at Gr and J ur y] ,vacat i ng 311 F Supp 358 [ ND Cal 1970] [ al t hough requi r ed t o appearat Gr and J ur y, r epor t er was ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i ve or derpr ecl udi ng quest i oni ng concer ni ng conf i dent i al sour ces or

- 11 -


12/34

- 12 - No. 245

t hese report er s wer e echoed by Gover nor Nel son Rockef el l er i n hi s

memorandum appr ovi ng t he l egi sl at i on. There he emphasi zed t hat

" [ t ] he thr eat t o a news[ per son] of bei ng charged wi t h cont empt

and bei ng i mpr i soned f or f ai l i ng t o di scl ose hi s [ or her ]

i nf or mat i on or . . . sour ces can si gni f i cant l y r educe hi s [ or

her ] abi l i t y t o gat her vi t al i nf or mat i on" ( Gover nor ' s Appr oval

Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 1970, ch 615, at 91) . The Gover nor descr i bed

f r eedom of t he pr ess as "one of t he f oundat i ons upon whi ch our

f or m of gover nment i s based, " concl udi ng t hat " [ a] r epr esent at i ve

democr acy, such as our s, cannot exi st unl ess t her e i s a f r ee

pr ess bot h wi l l i ng and abl e t o keep t he publ i c i nf or med of al l

t he news" ( i d. ) . Mor eover , i t i s evi dent f r om t he appr oval

memorandum t hat he and the Legi sl atur e i nt ended t he st atut e t o

pr ovi de t he hi ghest l evel of pr ot ect i on i n t he nat i on: "Thi s

' Freedom of I nf or mat i on Bi l l f or Newsmen' wi l l make New Yor k

St at e - - t he Nat i on' s pr i nci pal cent er of news gat her i ng and

di ssemi nat i on - - t he onl y st at e t hat cl ear l y pr ot ect s t he

publ i c' s r i ght t o know" ( i d. ) .

Thi s ar t i cul at ed l egi sl at i ve pur pose t o prot ect agai nst

i ncur si ons on pr ess f r eedom was r epeat edl y reaf f i r med i n t he

year s af t er t he or i gi nal Shi el d Law was enact ed when t he st at ut e

i nf ormat i on] ) . However , deci di ng t he case wi t h Br anzbur g v Hayes( 408 US 665 [1972] ) , t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t di sagr eed,hol di ng t hat t he r eport er coul d not r el y on t he Fi r st Amendmentt o avoi d appear i ng and gi vi ng evi dence i n response t o a Gr andJ ury subpoena.

- 12 -


13/34


14/34

- 14 - No. 245

had r ecommended the removal of t he l ocal Sher i f f i n connect i on

wi t h an i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he i l l egal r et ent i on and sal e of

guns. When t hi s i nf ormat i on was r eveal ed i n a news br oadcast ,

t he second Gr and J ury was convened t o det ermi ne whet her t he

cont ent s of t he seal ed r epor t had been di scl osed t o t he r epor t er

by a gr and j ur or , publ i c of f i ci al or ot her publ i c empl oyee i n

vi ol at i on of Penal Law 215. 70 - - conduct t hat const i t ut es a

cl ass E f el ony. Subpoenas wer e i ssued t o t he r epor t er seeki ng

hi s t est i mony and notes on t he sour ce of t he news r eport .

Af t er r evi ewi ng t he hi st or y of t he Shi el d Law and

consi der i ng i t s l anguage, we rever sed t he or der of t he Appel l at e

Di vi si on, whi ch had di r ect ed t he r epor t er ' s appear ance at t he

Gr and J ur y, and or dered t hat t he subpoenas shoul d have been

quashed. We expl ai ned:

"The i nescapabl e concl usi on i s t hat t heShi el d Law pr ovi des a br oad pr ot ect i on t o

j ournal i st s wi t hout any qual i f yi ng l anguage.I t does not di st i ngui sh bet ween cr i mi nal andci vi l mat t er s, nor does i t except si t uat i onswher e the repor t er observes a cr i mi nal act .. . Al t hough t hi s may t hwar t a gr and j ur yi nvest i gat i on, t he st at ut e per mi t s a r epor t ert o ret ai n hi s or her i nf or mat i on, even whent he act of di vul gi ng t he i nf or mat i on wasi t sel f cr i mi nal conduct . Even i f one wer e t obe i n di sagr eement wi t h t he wi sdom of t hepol i cy under l yi ng sect i on 79- h and no mat t erhow hei nous t he cr i me under i nvest i gat i on,t he cour t s are not f r ee t o i gnore t he mandate

of t he Legi sl at ur e and subst i t ut e a pol i cy oft hei r own" ( Beach, 62 NY2d at 251- 252[ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i onsomi t t ed] ) .

Beach was deci ded on pur el y st at ut ory gr ounds under t he doct r i ne

- 14 -


15/34

- 15 - No. 245

of const i t ut i onal avoi dance, al t hough t hen- J udge Wacht l er not ed

i n a concur r ence t hat t he pr ot ect i on of conf i dent i al sour ces was

"essent i al t o t he t ype of f r eedom of expr essi on t r adi t i onal l y

expect ed i n thi s St at e and shoul d be recogni zed as a r i ght

guar ant eed by t he St at e Const i t ut i on" ( i d. at 256 [ Wacht l er

concur r ence] ) . I n O' Nei l , we l at er conf i r med t hat Ar t i cl e I , 8

al so encompasses a j our nal i st ' s pr i vi l ege as par t of t he

guarant ee of f r ee speech and a f r ee pr ess.

I t i s t her ef or e evi dent based on t he New Yor k

Const i t ut i on, t he Shi el d Law and our pr ecedent t hat a New Yor k

cour t coul d not compel Wi nt er t o r eveal t he i dent i t y of t he

sour ces t hat suppl i ed i nf or mat i on t o her i n r el at i on t o her

onl i ne news ar t i cl e about Hol mes' not ebook. Hol mes does not

ar gue ot her wi se but r el i es on our deci si on i n Mat t er of Codey

( Capi t al Ci t i es, Am. Br oadcast i ng Cor p. ) ( supr a, 82 NY2d 521) f or

t he pr oposi t i on that , when New Yor k f unct i ons as t he "sendi ng

st at e" i n r el at i on t o a CPL 640. 10( 2) appl i cat i on, i ssues

concer ni ng t est i moni al pr i vi l ege - - i ncl udi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y

of t he absol ut e pr i vi l ege af f or ded by t he Shi el d Law - - si mpl y

cannot be consi dered by a New Yor k cour t . We next addr ess t hi s

i ssue.

CPL 640. 10 and Codey

CPL 640. 10( 2) i s New Yor k' s codi f i cat i on of t he Uni f or m

Act t o Secur e t he At t endance of Wi t nesses Fr om Wi t hout a St ate i n

Cr i mi nal Pr oceedi ngs, whi ch has been adopt ed by al l 50 st at es.

- 15 -


16/34

- 16 - No. 245

The Uni f or m Act cr eat es a t wo- st ep procedure f or compel l i ng t he

appear ance of a wi t ness l ocat ed i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on. Fi r st ,

t he r el evant cour t i n t he demandi ng st at e - - t he j ur i sdi ct i on

t hat seeks t he wi t ness' s t est i mony - - must i ssue a "cer t i f i cat e"

f i ndi ng " t hat t her e i s a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on pendi ng i n such

cour t . . . , t hat a per son bei ng wi t hi n t hi s st at e i s a mat er i al

wi t ness i n such pr osecut i on . . . and t hat hi s [ or her ] pr esence

wi l l be r equi r ed f or a speci f i ed number of days" ( CPL 640. 10[ 2] ) .

Next , i f t he wi t ness whose test i mony i s sought i s present i n New

Yor k, meani ng New Yor k i s t he "sendi ng st at e, " t he cer t i f i cat e i s

pr esent ed to a Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce or a Count y Cour t J udge i n

t he count y wher e t he wi t ness i s l ocat ed and t hat cour t conduct s a

hear i ng t o det er mi ne whet her t o i ssue a subpoena di r ect i ng t he

wi t ness t o appear i n t he demandi ng st at e. A subpoena i s

appr opr i ate, however , onl y i f t he New Yor k cour t det er mi nes " t hat

t he wi t ness i s mat er i al and necessar y, t hat i t wi l l not cause

undue hardshi p t o the wi t ness t o be compel l ed t o at t end and

t est i f y i n t he pr osecut i on . . . , and t hat t he l aws of t he

[ demandi ng] st at e "wi l l gi ve t o hi m [ or her ] pr ot ect i on f r om

ar r est and t he ser vi ce of ci vi l and cr i mi nal pr ocess" ( CPL

640. 10[ 2] ) . The l at t er cl ause pr event s t he wi t ness f r om bei ng

subj ect ed t o ar r est f or any unr el at ed out st andi ng war r ant or f r om

bei ng ser ved wi t h pr ocess whi l e answer i ng t he subpoena - - but i t

has not been i nt er pr et ed as prot ect i ng t he wi t ness f r om bei ng

hel d i n cont empt f or f ai l i ng t o gi ve t est i mony i n t he demandi ng

- 16 -


17/34

- 17 - No. 245

state.

I n Codey, a New York news or gani zat i on was subpoenaed

by a New J er sey Gr and J ur y t hat was i nvest i gat i ng i l l egal poi nt

shavi ng and gambl i ng act i vi t i es associ at ed wi t h col l egi at e

basket bal l . The news or gani zat i on had pr evi ousl y br oadcast a

st or y t hat cont ai ned br i ef excer pt s of an i nt er vi ew wi t h an

uni dent i f i ed pl ayer who was di sgui sed i n t he repor t t o pr eser ve

hi s anonymi t y and who pr ovi ded i nf ormat i on r el evant t o t he

i nvest i gat i on. The pl ayer l at er r eveal ed hi s i dent i t y t o t he

Gr and J ur y and deci ded t o cooper at e i n t he i nvest i gat i on but he

coul d not r ecal l ever ythi ng t hat he had sai d dur i ng t he 30- mi nut e

vi deot aped i nt er vi ew wi t h t he r epor t er , onl y a smal l por t i on of

whi ch had been ai r ed dur i ng t he br oadcast . Thus, t he Gr and J ur y

sought t o obt ai n vi deot aped out - t akes of t he i nt er vi ew and t he

r epor t er ' s not es. I nvoki ng CPL 640. 10( 2) i n an ef f or t t o secur e

t he at t endance of t he New Yor k report er at i t s proceedi ngs i n New

J er sey, t he New J er sey Gr and J ury obt ai ned t he r equi si t e

cer t i f i cat e and commenced a pr oceedi ng i n t he New Yor k county

where t he news or gani zat i on was based r equest i ng i ssuance of a

subpoena. I n r esponse, t he br oadcast er cont ended t hat t he

mater i al sought was pr i vi l eged under t he New J er sey Shi el d Law,

mai nt ai ni ng that New J er sey gr ant s an absol ut e pr i vi l ege

pr ot ect i ng i nf or mat i on of t he t ype sought t her e.

Supr eme Cour t i ssued t he subpoena, wi t hout deci di ng t he

pr i vi l ege i ssue. But t he Appel l at e Di vi si on r ever sed, r easoni ng

- 17 -


18/34

- 18 - No. 245

t hat New Yor k - - whi ch was f unct i oni ng as t he sendi ng st at e - -

must r esol ve t he r epor t er ' s cl ai m t hat t he i nf or mat i on sought was

pr i vi l eged i n t he demandi ng st at e because, i f t he cl ai m had

mer i t , t he evi dence woul d be i nadmi ssi bl e i n t he demandi ng st ate

and t her ef or e coul d not be mater i al or necessar y t o t he cr i mi nal

i nvest i gat i on. The Appel l at e Di vi si on t hen anal yzed New J er sey' s

Shi el d Law, concl udi ng t hat t he request ed i nf or mat i on was

pr ot ect ed by an absol ut e pr i vi l ege, si mi l ar t o t he pr i vi l ege

gr ant ed under New Yor k' s Shi el d Law.

On appeal , we reversed and di r ect ed t hat t he subpoena

shoul d be r ei nst at ed, hol di ng t hat t he Appel l at e Di vi si on had

er r ed i n consi der i ng t he news or gani zat i on' s cl ai m t hat t he

i nf ormat i on was pr i vi l eged under New J ersey l aw. We determi ned

t hat t he i nqui r y conduct ed by t he sendi ng st at e t o det er mi ne

whet her t he i nf or mat i on sought i s " mat er i al and necessar y" wi t hi n

t he meani ng of CPL 640. 10( 2) i s l i mi t ed and does not encompass

t he concept s of admi ssi bi l i t y, di scl osabi l i t y or pr i vi l ege.

I ndi cat i ng t hat "[ i ] t woul d be i nef f i ci ent and i nconsi st ent wi t h

t he over - al l pur pose and desi gn of t hi s r eci pr ocal st at ut or y

scheme to per mi t t he sendi ng St at e' s cour t s t o resol ve quest i ons

of pr i vi l ege on a CPL 640. 10( 2) appl i cat i on, " ( Codey, 82 NY2d at

529) we concl uded t hat "evi dent i ar y quest i ons such as pr i vi l ege

ar e best r esol ved i n t he St at e - - and i n t he pr oceedi ng - - i n

whi ch t he evi dence i s t o be used" ( i d. at 530) . We expl ai ned

t hat

- 18 -


19/34

- 19 - No. 245

"[ i ] n vi ew of t he sensi t i vi t y of pr i vi l egei ssues t o l ocal pol i cy concer ns andpar t i cul ar i zed l egal r ul es, i t woul d makel i t t l e sense t o const r ue CPL 640. 10( 2) as

aut hor i zi ng t he cour t s of t hi s St at e t odet er mi ne quest i ons of pr i vi l ege t hat ar i seout of t he l aw of anot her j ur i sdi ct i on andwhi ch r el at e t o speci f i c cri mi nal pr oceedi ngspendi ng i n t hat ot her j ur i sdi ct i on" ( i d. ) .

I n Codey, we ar t i cul at ed t he gener al r ul e t hat a cl ai m

t hat t he evi dence sought wi l l be i nadmi ssi bl e i n t he demandi ng

st at e based on t he appl i cabi l i t y of a pr i vi l ege i s si mpl y not a

pr oper basi s f or a sendi ng st at e, such as New Yor k, t o deny t he

subpoena r equest under t he Uni f or m Act . I n t hi s case, t he

Appel l at e Di vi si on maj or i t y under st andabl y rel i ed on t hi s

pr oposi t i on when denyi ng Wi nt er r el i ef . However , we al so

cl ar i f i ed i n Codey t hat " [ o] ur hol di ng shoul d not be const r ued as

f or ecl osi ng t he possi bi l i t y t hat i n some f ut ur e case a st r ong

publ i c pol i cy of t hi s St at e, even one embodi ed i n an evi dent i ar y

pr i vi l ege, mi ght j ust i f y t he r ef usal of r el i ef under CPL 640. 10

even i f t he ' mat er i al and necessar y' t est set f or t h i n t he

st at ut e i s sat i sf i ed" ( i d. at 530, n 3) . Wi nt er ar gues that t hi s

i s such a "f ut ur e case" and we agr ee.

We begi n wi t h t he observat i on t hat t hi s case i s

di st i ngui shabl e f r om Codey i n sever al cri t i cal r espect s. Her e,

Wi nt er r el i es on t he j our nal i st ' s pr i vi l ege embodi ed i n t he New

Yor k Shi el d Law. I n Codey, t he news or gani zat i on ar gued t hat t he

r epor t er ' s t est i mony, al ong wi t h t he vi deo out - t akes and not es,

wer e pr i vi l eged under t he l aw of New J er sey whi ch, l i ke New Yor k,

- 19 -


20/34

- 20 - No. 245

of f er s subst ant i al pr ot ecti on t o r epor t er s i n r el at i on t o

unpubl i shed mat er i al s. Thi s di st i ncti on i s si gni f i cant f or t wo

r easons. Fi r st , si nce t he r epor t er i n Codey was r el yi ng on

anot her st at e' s l aw, i t made sense that t he ot her st at e shoul d

r esol ve any i ssue t hat ar ose concer ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he

pr i vi l ege. We emphasi zed t hi s i n t he deci si on when we noted t hat

pr i vi l ege i ssues rai se "l ocal pol i cy concer ns, " whi ch mi l i t at ed

agai nst a New Yor k cour t "det er mi n[ i ng] quest i ons of pr i vi l ege

t hat ar i se out of t he l aw of anot her j ur i sdi ct i on" ( Codey, 82

NY2d at 530) .

Second, because t here was no cl ai med di spar i t y between

t he pr ot ect i on af f or ded i n t he demandi ng st at e and t hat pr ovi ded

i n New York i n r el at i on t o the i nf or mat i on sought , no compar abl e

publ i c pol i cy i ssue was pr esent ed i n Codey. Ther e t he r epor t er

di d not argue t hat he needed t he pr ot ect i on of t he New Yor k

cour t s because New J er sey woul d r esol ve t he pr i vi l ege i ssue i n a

manner of f ensi ve t o a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t hi s St at e - - he

cont ended j ust t he opposi t e, asser t i ng t hat New Yor k shoul d

decl i ne t o i ssue the subpoena because t he vi deotaped out - t akes

wer e pr i vi l eged under New J er sey l aw. I n cont r ast , her e Wi nt er

makes a compel l i ng argument t hat t he pr omi se of conf i dent i al i t y

she pr ovi ded t o her sour ces wi l l not be honored by t he Col orado

cour t s. Col or ado of f er ed no pr i vi l ege t o r epor t er s unt i l 1990

and i t s cur r ent Shi el d Law gr ant s onl y qual i f i ed, as opposed t o

absol ut e, pr ot ect i on - - even i n r el at i on t o t he i dent i t y of

- 20 -


21/34


22/34

- 22 - No. 245

when t he source i s known. But we cannot i gnore t he obvi ous

di st i nct i on bet ween t he mater i al sought i n Codey and t he

t est i mony at i ssue her e.

I t i s cl ear f r om t he cer t i f i cat e i ssued by t he Di str i ct

Cour t i n t hi s case t hat t he onl y pur pose of r equi r i ng Wi nt er t o

appear i n Col or ado i s t o compel her t o r eveal t he i dent i t i es of

t he i ndi vi dual s who suppl i ed t he i nf or mat i on she repor t ed i n t he

news st ory - - i nf ormat i on obt ai ned i n exchange f or a pr omi se of

conf i dent i al i t y. Di scl osur e of t hi s i nf or mat i on wi l l enabl e t he

Di st r i ct Cour t t o det er mi ne t he or i gi n of t he l eaks, pr esumabl y

so t hat t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved can be sanct i oned f or vi ol at i on

of t he nondi scl osur e or der and per haps even pr osecut ed f or

per j ur y. Thi s i s a val i d obj ect i ve i n l i ght of t he appar ent

br each of t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s pr et r i al "gag" or der . But t hi s

pr edi ct abl e chai n of event s i s pr eci sel y t he har m sought t o be

avoi ded under our Shi el d Law f or i t i s f ear of r epr i sal of t hi s

t ype t hat cl oses mout hs, causi ng news sour ces t o dr y up and

i nhi bi t i ng t he f ut ur e i nvest i gat i ve ef f or t s of r epor t er s. The

Di st r i ct Cour t i s under st andabl y t r oubl ed by t he vi ol at i on of t he

r est r i ct i ons i t i mposed on pr et r i al di scl osur e, but t he New Yor k

Shi el d Law "per mi t s a r epor t er t o r et ai n hi s or her i nf or mat i on,

even when t he act of di vul gi ng t he i nf or mat i on was i t sel f

cr i mi nal conduct " ( Beach, 62 NY2d at 252) .

As we have expl ai ned, pr otect i on of t he anonymi t y

of conf i dent i al sour ces i s a cor e - - i f not t he cent r al - -

- 22 -


23/34

- 23 - No. 245

concer n under l yi ng New Yor k' s j our nal i st pr i vi l ege, wi t h r oot s

t hat can be t r aced back t o the i ncept i on of t he pr ess i n New

Yor k. Al t hough t here ar e uncer t ai nt i es concer ni ng t he

appl i cat i on of t he out er r eaches of our st at ut e, par t i cul ar l y t he

scope of t he qual i f i ed pr i vi l ege f or nonconf i dent i al news whi ch

must be det ermi ned on a case- by- case basi s ( see e. g. Peopl e v

Combest , 4 NY3d 341 [ 2005] [ cr i mi nal def endant met hi s bur den

under Shi el d Law t o compel pr oduct i on of nonconf i dent i al

vi deot apes of def endant ' s i nt er r ogat i on by pol i ce made by

document ary f i l m cr ew] ) , t her e i s no pr i nci pl e more f undament al

or wel l - est abl i shed t han t he r i ght of a r epor t er t o r ef use t o

di vul ge a conf i dent i al sour ce. And t hat concer n i s di r ect l y

i mpl i cat ed her e gi ven t hat t he onl y pur pose f or Wi nt er ' s

t est i mony i s t o ascer t ai n who l eaked t he i nf or mat i on r egar di ng

t he di scover y of t he not ebook. I ndeed, absent t hat i nf or mat i on,

t her e i s no mat er i al or necessary test i mony Wi nt er coul d of f er i n

connect i on wi t h t he Col or ado pr oceedi ng.

Moreover , as a New Yor k r epor t er , Wi nter was aware of

- - and was ent i t l ed t o r el y on - - t he absol ut e pr ot ect i on

embodi ed i n our Shi el d Law when she made t he promi ses of

conf i dent i al i t y t hat she now seeks t o honor . Gi ven t hat t hi s i s

t he case, and i n l i ght of t he si gni f i cant di spar i t y bet ween New

Yor k and Col or ado l aw, she was ent i t l ed t o have t he Shi el d Law

i ssue adj udi cat ed i n New Yor k bef ore t he subpoena was i ssued,

even t hough i t r el at es t o t est i mony sought i n t he cour t s of

- 23 -


24/34

- 24 - No. 245

anot her st at e. We t her ef or e concl ude t hat an or der f r om a New

Yor k cour t di r ect i ng a r epor t er t o appear i n anot her st at e where,

as her e, t her e i s a subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat she wi l l be

compel l ed t o i dent i f y sour ces who have been pr omi sed

conf i dent i al i t y woul d of f end our st r ong publ i c pol i cy - - a common

l aw, st at ut or y and const i t ut i onal t r adi t i on t hat has pl ayed a

si gni f i cant r ol e i n t hi s St at e becomi ng t he medi a capi t al of t he

count r y i f not t he wor l d.

Per mi t t i ng a New Yor k cour t t o consi der t he pr i vi l ege

i ssue r ai sed her e i n t he cont ext of a CPL 640. 10( 2) pr oceedi ng

wi l l not , as Hol mes suggest s, have t he ef f ect of expandi ng t he

t er r i t or i al ef f ect of New Yor k l aw beyond our bor der s - - and t hi s

i s t r ue even i f we assume t hat Wi nt er was i n Col orado when she

spoke wi t h her conf i dent i al sour ces. The out come of t hi s case

does not ( and shoul d not ) t ur n on whet her Wi nt er r ecei ved t he

i nf or mat i on whi l e she was i n Col or ado or obt ai ned i t over t he

t el ephone or vi a comput er whi l e si t t i ng i n her New Yor k of f i ce.

A r ul e pr edi cat ed on wher e a New Yor k r epor t er was l ocat ed when

she l ear ned of an anonymous t i p woul d l ead t o ar bi t r ar y resul t s

and woul d i gnor e sever al pr act i cal r eal i t i es, i ncl udi ng t he

wi despr ead use of cut t i ng- edge communi cat i on t echnol ogy to

f aci l i t at e the newsgat her i ng pr ocess and t he gl obal nat ur e of

t oday' s news mar ket ( i t i s now possi bl e f or a j our nal i st based i n

New Yor k t o cover a Cal i f or ni a st or y whi l e on assi gnment i n

Si ngapore t hr ough t he use of e- mai l , t ext messagi ng and t he

- 24 -


25/34

- 25 - No. 245

l i ke) . New Yor k j our nal i st s shoul d not have t o consul t t he l aw

i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on wher e a sour ce i s l ocat ed or wher e a st or y

"br eaks" ( assumi ng ei t her i s ascer t ai nabl e) i n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her t hey can i ssue a bi ndi ng pr omi se of conf i dent i al i t y.

The di ssent appar ent l y vi ews t hi s case as present i ng a

conf l i ct of l aws i ssue and woul d r esol ve i t pur suant t o

Rest atement [ Second] of Conf l i ct of Laws 139. Under t hat

pr ovi si on - - whi ch we have never appl i ed - - i f t her e i s a

di spar i t y bet ween t he l aws i n t wo st at es such t hat a

communi cat i on i s pr i vi l eged i n one but not t he ot her , t he gener al

r ul e i s t hat t he pr i vi l ege wi l l not be honor ed by the cour t of

t he "f or um" st at e ( t he cour t wher e t he evi dence i s sought t o be

admi t t ed) . 4 We ci t ed t he Rest at ement i n Codey i n suppor t of t he

pr oposi t i on t hat i n most i nst ances pr i vi l ege i ssues shoul d be

r esol ved i n t he cour t s of t he demandi ng j ur i sdi ct i on ( Codey, 82

NY2d at 530) - - a vi ew t hat we do not r et r eat f r om t oday. But we

4Subsect i on 1 di r ect s t hat evi dence t hat was not pr i vi l eged

i n t he st at e "whi ch has t he most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p wi t ht he communi cat i on wi l l be admi t t ed, " even i f t he evi dence woul dbe pr i vi l eged i n t he "f or um" st at e - - t he j ur i sdi ct i on wher e t hej udi ci al proceedi ng i s underway - - unl ess t o do so woul d vi ol at ea st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t he f or um st at e. Li kewi se, undersubsect i on 2, evi dence t hat i s pr i vi l eged i n t he st at e "whi ch has

t he most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p wi t h t he communi cat i on" butt hat i s not pr i vi l eged i n t he f or um j ur i sdi cti on shoul d al so beadmi t t ed "unl ess t her e i s some speci al r eason why t he f orumpol i cy f avor i ng admi ssi on shoul d not be gi ven ef f ect . " TheRest at ement t her ef or e r ef l ect s a pol i cy f avor i ng t headmi ssi bi l i t y of pr i vi l eged t est i mony i n t he event of a conf l i ct .

- 25 -


26/34

- 26 - No. 245

cer t ai nl y di d not appl y the Rest at ement anal ysi s, whi ch af f or ds

si gni f i cance to t he l ocat i on wher e t he communi cat i on occur r ed,

among ot her f act ors.5

We need not deci de whet her sect i on 139

r ef l ect s a pol i cy t hat shoul d be adopt ed i n New Yor k i n ot her

cont exts - - pl ai nl y, New Yor k l aw gover ns her e si nce we ar e

appl yi ng New Yor k st atut ory and deci si onal l aw ( CPL 640. 10[ 2] and

Codey) t o det ermi ne whet her a New Yor k cour t shoul d i ssue a

subpoena. I t i s enough t o not e t hat t he pr ovi si on was cl ear l y

not desi gned t o r esol ve cont r over si es i nvol vi ng j our nal i st shi el d

l aws ( a t ype of pr i vi l ege not ment i oned i n t he comment ary) , nor

does i t suppl y a wor kabl e rul e that woul d be consi st ent wi t h New

Yor k publ i c pol i cy. 6

5 I f we had, we woul d surel y have ment i oned i n Codey thatt he vi deot aped i nt er vi ew bet ween t he Nort h Carol i na St ateUni ver si t y basket bal l pl ayer and t he New Yor k repor t er occur r edat a hot el i n Al bany, New Yor k - - a f act t hat t he di ssent woul d

appar ent l y vi ew as i mpor t ant i f not di sposi t i ve, even t hough t hel aw of t he f orum st ate al ways gover ns under t he Rest atement .

6Al t hough t he i nqui r y i s not di sposi t i ve under t he

Rest atement because t he l aw of t he f orum st ate i s paramount ,sect i on 139 suggest s t hat t he f ocus shoul d be on t he "st ate whi chhas t he most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p wi t h t he communi cat i on, "not i ng i n comment e t hat t hi s " wi l l usual l y be t he st at e wher et he communi cat i on t ook pl ace" unl ess t her e was a "pr i orr el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es t o t he communi cat i on" i n whi chcase "t he st at e of most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p wi l l be t hatwher e t he r el at i onshi p was cent er ed" ( Rest atement [ Second] of

Conf l i ct of Laws 139, Comment e) . But t her e i s al so anexcept i on t o t hi s except i on, because t he l at t er r ul e wi l l notappl y i f " t he st ate wher e the communi cat i on t ook pl ace hassubst ant i al cont act s wi t h t he par t i es and t he t r ansact i on" ( i d. )I n or der t o navi gat e t hi s compl i cat ed t est , t he cour t woul d havet o know t he i dent i t y of bot h par t i es t o t he communi cat i on, t henat ur e and scope of t hei r pr i or r el at i onshi p ( i f any) , and t he

- 26 -


27/34

- 27 - No. 245

And l est t her e be any conf usi on, we r ei t er at e t hat t he

i ssue we conf r ont i s whet her a New Yor k cour t shoul d i ssue a

subpoena compel l i ng a New Yor k j our nal i st t o appear as a wi t ness

i n anot her st at e t o gi ve t est i mony when such a r esul t i s

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he cor e pr ot ect i on of our Shi el d Law. Thus,

t he nar r ow except i on we r ecogni ze t oday, whi ch permi t s a New Yor k

cour t t o consi der and appl y New Yor k' s j our nal i st ' s pr i vi l ege i n

r el at i on t o i ssuance of i t s own pr ocess - - a subpoena - - i n a

narr ow subset of cases, i s not t ant amount t o gi vi ng a New Yor k

l aw ext rat err i t or i al ef f ect .

Thi s i s not t he f i r st t i me t hat we have r el i ed on t he

Shi el d Law t o recogni ze an except i on t o the t ypi cal r ul es

gover ni ng subpoenas. I n Beach we hel d t hat a Gr and J ury subpoena

shoul d have been quashed wher e the onl y t est i mony sought was t he

i dent i t y of a br oadcast r epor t er ' s conf i dent i al sour ce. Thi s

devi at ed f r om t he gener al r ul e gover ni ng subpoenas ad

t est i f i candum, whi ch i s t hat a cl ai m of pr i vi l ege cannot be

asser t ed unt i l t he wi t ness appear s bef or e t he r equi si t e t r i bunal

and i s present ed wi t h a quest i on t hat i mpl i cat es prot ect ed

i nf or mat i on. We decl i ned t o appl y t hat r ul e i n Beach because

l ocat i on of t he conver sat i on ( whi ch r ai ses i t s own pr obl ems, as

not ed above, si nce t hey may not have been i n t he same pl ace) . I na case such as t hi s i nvol vi ng an at t empt t o di scover t he i dent i t yof a conf i dent i al sour ce, t he st andar d woul d be i mpossi bl e t oappl y because most of t he i nf ormat i on needed t o appl y the t estwoul d be t he ver y same i nf ormat i on t he report er seeks t o pr otectas pri vi l eged under t he Shi el d Law.

- 27 -


28/34


29/34

- 29 - No. 245

not ant i ci pat e t hat t oday' s hol di ng wi l l be i nt er pr et ed as an

er osi on of t he doct r i ne of comi t y or as ot her wi se si gni f i cant l y

i mpai r i ng t he pr ocedur e f or secur i ng t he at t endance of out - of -

st at e wi t nesses. To obt ai n r el i ef , a par t y seeki ng t o avoi d

i ssuance of a subpoena under CPL 640. 10( 2) wi l l have t o est abl i sh

t hat a st r ong publ i c pol i cy i s i mpl i cat ed and t hat t her e i s a

subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat an or der compel l i ng t he wi t ness' s

appear ance and t est i mony i n t he ot her j ur i sdi ct i on woul d di r ect l y

of f end t hat pol i cy. Even i n Shi el d Law cases si mi l ar t o t hi s

one, t hi s st andar d wi l l be di f f i cul t t o meet si nce many

j ur i sdi ct i ons of f er comparabl e prot ect i ons i n r el at i on t o t he

i dent i t y of conf i dent i al sour ces; 7 when t he demandi ng st at e f al l s

7 For exampl e, i t appear s t hat at l east 16 st at es haveadopt ed pr i vi l ege st at ut es t hat pr ovi de absol ut e pr ot ect i on t o ar epor t er ' s conf i dent i al sour ces: Al abama, Ar i zona, Cal i f or ni a,Del awar e, Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, I ndi ana, Kent ucky, Mar yl and,

Mont ana, Nebr aska, Nevada, New York, Ohi o, Okl ahoma, Or egon,Pennsyl vani a ( see The Commi t t ee on Communi cat i ons and Medi a Law,New Yor k Ci t y Bar Associ at i on, "The Federal Common Law ofJ ournal i st s' Pr i vi l ege: A Posi t i on Paper , " The Recor d, Vol 60,I ssue 1, 214- 235, at 228 [ 2005] ) . Sever al ot her s pr ovi de st r ong- - t hough not absol ut e - - pr ot ect i on, adopt i ng st andar ds t hatpr ecl ude a r epor t er f r om bei ng r equi r ed t o di vul ge a sour ceexcept i n ver y l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances. For exampl e, i n Ar kansasr evel at i on of a sour ce cannot be compel l ed absent pr oof t hat " t hear t i cl e was wr i t t en, publ i shed, or br oadcast i n bad f ai t h, wi t hmal i ce, and not i n t he i nt er est of t he publ i c wel f ar e" ( Ar k CodeAnn 16- 85- 510) . West Vi r gi ni a r ecent l y enact ed a pr ovi si on

pr ecl udi ng a r epor t er f r om bei ng r equi r ed t o di vul ge t he i dent i t yof a sour ce ( wi t hout hi s or her consent ) "unl ess such t est i monyor i nf or mat i on i s necessar y t o pr event i mmi nent deat h, ser i ousbodi l y i nj ur y or unj ust i ncar cer at i on" ( W Va Code 57- 3-10[ b] [ 1] ) . Al t hough we may l ead t he st at es i n r el at i on t o t hescope of our j our nal i st pr i vi l ege, New Yor k i s not al one i n i t sr ecogni t i on of t he need t o pr ot ect sour ces.

- 29 -


30/34

- 30 - No. 245

i nt o t hi s cat egor y, t he pr i vi l ege i ssue coul d be def er r ed f or

r esol ut i on by the ot her j ur i sdi ct i on under Codey wi t hout

of f endi ng New Yor k' s publ i c pol i cy. Mor eover , bef or e t he

except i on may be i nvoked, t he record must i ndi cat e that t he

pr ospect i ve wi t ness r easonabl y r el i ed on t he pr ot ect i ons af f or ded

under New Yor k l aw when engaged i n t he conduct t hat gave r i se t o

t he subpoena r equest . The st andard we set t oday i s hi gh and

wi l l , we suspect , sel dom be met . Her e, however , wher e t her e i s a

subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat a New Yor k r epor t er wi l l be compel l ed

t o di vul ge t he i dent i t y of a conf i dent i al sour ce ( or f ace a

cont empt sanct i on) i f r equi r ed t o appear i n t he other

j ur i sdi ct i on - - a r esul t t hat woul d of f end t he cor e prot ect i on of

t he Shi el d Law, a New Yor k publ i c pol i cy of t he hi ghest or der - -

al l of t hese hur dl es have been cl ear ed. We t her ef or e concl ude

t hat t he subpoena appl i cat i on shoul d have been deni ed.

I n l i ght of our r esol ut i on of t he pr i vi l ege i ssue, we

have no occasi on t o addr ess Wi nt er ' s al t er nat i ve argument t hat

her st at ut or y cl ai m of undue har dshi p af f or ded a separ at e basi s

f or r el i ef .

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d

be r ever sed, wi t hout cost s, and t he pet i t i on di smi ssed.

- 30 -


31/34

Mat t er of J ames Hol mes v J ana Wi nter

No. 245

SMI TH, J . ( di ssent i ng) :

I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat New York' s Shi el d Law

r ef l ect s a st r ong publ i c pol i cy of t he st at e t o pr ot ect

conf i dent i al sour ces, and t hat t hat pol i cy woul d j ust i f y, i n a

pr oper case, a ref usal t o i ssue a subpoena under t he Uni f or m Act

t o Secur e At t endance of Wi t nesses f r om Wi t hout t he St at e i n

Cr i mi nal Cases. I do not t hi nk t hi s i s a pr oper case, however ,

because t he al l egedl y pr i vi l eged communi cat i ons t ook pl ace whol l y

i n Col orado, and t he New Yor k Shi el d Law does not appl y t o t hem.

Whi l e the r ecord does not say wher e J ana Wi nter was

when she spoke t o her Col orado l aw enf orcement sources, her br i ef

i n t hi s Cour t concedes t hat she was i n Col orado. ( Even wi t hout

t hat concessi on, we woul d not assume other wi se f r om a si l ent

r ecor d; i t i s Wi nt er ' s bur den t o est abl i sh t he exi st ence of a

pr i vi l ege. ) The maj or i t y hol ds t he Col or ado l ocat i on of t he

communi cat i ons t o be i r r el evant , apparent l y on t he gr ound t hat

Wi nt er ' s of f i ce i s l ocat ed i n New Yor k. The maj or i t y i s hol di ng,

i n subst ance, t hat a New Yor k r epor t er t akes t he pr ot ect i on of

New Yor k' s Shi el d Law wi t h her when she t r avel s - - pr esumabl y,

anywher e i n t he wor l d. Thi s seems t o me an excessi ve expansi on

of New Yor k' s j ur i sdi ct i on, one t hat i s unl i kel y to be honor ed by

- 1 -


32/34

- 2 - No. 245

ot her st at es or count r i es or t o at t ai n t he pr edi ct abi l i t y t hat

t he maj or i t y says i s i t s goal .

Accor di ng t o t he Rest at ement ( Second) of Conf l i ct of

Laws ( Rest at ement ) , t he quest i on of whet her a par t i cul ar

communi cat i on i s pr i vi l eged shoul d be deci ded ei t her by the " l aw

of t he f orum" or t he "l aw of t he st ate whi ch has t he most

si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p wi t h t he communi cat i on" ( Rest at ement ,

139) . Her e, under t he Rest at ement r ul e, t her e i s no conf l i ct t o

r esol ve, because Col or ado i s bot h t he f or um - - i . e. , t he l ocat i on

of t he pr oceedi ng i n whi ch a par t y seeks t o of f er an al l egedl y

pr i vi l eged communi cat i on i n evi dence - - and t he st at e wi t h t he

most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p. A comment t o t he Rest atement says

t hat , "[ t ] he st at e whi ch has t he most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p

wi t h a communi cat i on wi l l usual l y be t he st ate wher e t he

communi cat i on t ook pl ace" ( Rest at ement , 139, comment e) , and I

see no r eason why t hi s case shoul d be an except i on.

I am t her ef or e unper suaded by t he maj or i t y' s cl ai m t hat

Wi nt er "was ent i t l ed t o r el y on" t he absol ut e pr ot ect i on of t he

New Yor k Shi el d Law ( maj or i t y op at 23) . Anot her Rest at ement

comment ( 139, comment c) says t hat " i f [ t he par t i es t o the

communi cat i on] r el i ed on any l aw at al l , t hey woul d have r el i ed

on t he l ocal l aw of t he st at e of most si gni f i cant r el at i onshi p. "

Wi nt er chose t o l eave New Yor k, f l y t o Col orado, and have

conver sat i ons i n Col orado wi t h her sour ces. She and her sour ces

coul d reasonabl y expect t he quest i on of whet her t hei r

- 2 -


33/34

- 3 - No. 245

communi cat i ons were pr i vi l eged t o be governed by Col orado l aw,

j ust as i t woul d be i f Wi nt er wer e a New Yor k l awyer who had

f l own out t o meet a Col orado cl i ent , or a wi f e who went t o

Col orado to t al k t o her husband.

The maj or i t y makes t he super f i ci al l y appeal i ng ar gument

t hat New Yor k j our nal i st s and t hei r sour ces cannot saf el y assume

t hat t hei r conver sat i ons wi l l be conf i dent i al unl ess t he New Yor k

Shi el d Law f ol l ows t he j our nal i st ever ywher e ( maj or i t y op at

24- 25) . I t i s t r ue t hat t he uni ver sal appl i cat i on of New Yor k

l aw woul d enhance cer t ai nt y - - but t hat i s a r esul t t hat New Yor k

cour t s do not have t he power t o achi eve. The maj or i t y says: "New

Yor k j ournal i st s shoul d not have t o consul t t he l aw i n t he

j ur i sdi ct i on where a source i s l ocat ed . . . i n or der t o

determi ne whether t hey can i ssue a bi ndi ng pr omi se of

conf i dent i al i t y" ( i d. ) - - but t hey wi l l al ways have t o do t hat ,

despi t e t oday' s deci si on, because they cannot be assur ed t hat New

Yor k cour t s wi l l deci de every case. I f Wi nt er had been

subpoenaed when she was i n Col orado - - or i f she were t o be

subpoenaed at some l at er dat e, when she t r avel s t o Col orado agai n

- - no New Yor k cour t woul d be i nvol ved, and i f a Col orado cour t

chose t o enf or ce t he subpoena she woul d have t o choose bet ween

di scl osi ng her sour ces and commi t t i ng cont empt . Ther e i s not hi ng

t he New Yor k cour t s can do about t hat .

The si mpl e f act t hat no one j ur i sdi ct i on can r ul e t he

wor l d i s the r eason conf l i ct of l aws r ul es exi st . The maj or i t y' s

- 3 -


34/34

Holmes v. Winter

Documents

Transcript of Holmes v. Winter