Thursday, March 12, 2009

Wuterich Continued

The always reliable North County Times has this report on the Wuterich hearing regarding CBS News excerpts of an interview with Frank Wuterich which were the subject of a hearing on Wednesday at Camp Pendleton:
There is no First Amendment protection for journalists in the military justice system and thus CBS should hand over all its material from an interview with a Marine who led his men in the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians, a prosecutor is asserting. . . "The question is unresolved on reporter privilege and it's not for this court to decide," Gannon told the judge, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Meeks, during a court hearing Wednesday. . . . CBS asserts they don't and maintains that any off-camera statements Wuterich made to its reporter, Scott Pelley, also shed no new light.Network attorney Carl Benedetti told Meeks a wide range of federal court case law protects journalists from being compelled to disclose all of their work product. Forcing the network to give prosecutors all its work on the Wuterich story violates that protection, he said.
According to the story Meeks will rule today after reviewing the unaired portions in camera. CBS has all along asserted that the unaired portions don't contain anything relevant, which may moot the entire constitutional issue. I will let you know when a ruling comes out. If any of our readers get a copy, please email it to us. I don't personally know anyone involved in the case so I doubt they will be able to provide it to us for posting ;-)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I is an officer in in the Corps. I want, I yell, I get. Screw your "rights".

***There is no First Amendment protection for journalists in the military justice system and thus CBS should hand over all its material from an interview with a Marine who led his men in the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians, a prosecutor is asserting.***

Anonymous said...

I am sure the readers here know, there is no First Amendment (or any other Federal constitutional) protection for journalists in the justice system, military or otherwise.

There are various state (but not Federal, military or civilian) reporter shield _statutes_.

Anonymous said...

Anon 13:19 it appears CAAF believed that the trial judge acted too quickly in not even reviewing the tapes that he claimed were irrelevant so it seems with this judge you might need to raise your voice to get heard.

Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte said...

MJ denied the government's access. However, I really doubt that this will be the last stop on this litigation train.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/12/military/z5d2b8e46ab33219f88257577005527b7.txt