Case Brief: Branzburg V. Hayes

Case Brief: Branzburg v. Hayes

FACTS:

In 1972, Branzburg v. Hayes decided by the Supreme Court, is the consolidation of four cases that addressed the issue of reporters’ privilege. The issue on these cases is to require newsmen to appear and testify as well before a state or federal grand jury that abridges the freedom of speech and press of the First Amendment.

The Petitioners, Branzburg, Pappas and Caldwell, newspaper reporters brought a suit seeking a declaration that the freedom of the press extended to personal protection regarding sources and story information.

Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story in a Louisville newspaper, stating a drug case where he observed the making of hashish from marijuana. Branzburg was later called before a grand jury to implicate the persons involved; however, he refused to participate in the grand juries, as well as, testify, and released the identities of his sources.

ISSUE:

Should news reporters have the obligation as other citizens to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries?

RULE OF LAW:

This case stands for the intention that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a reporter and they cannot be obligated to testify about their stories.

ANALYSIS:

The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a vital state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. On this case, Justice Byron White argued that there was no Constitutional violation due to no governmental intervention to impose prior restraint, as well as, no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately. The fact that reporters receive confidential information from sources does mean that it gives them the privilege to reserve and/or withhold that information during the investigation. Regular citizens are often forced to disclose information even if it is received in confidence when they are called to testify in court.

For the decision...