James Risen US Court of Appeals Decision

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 47 | Comments: 0 | Views: 876
of 118
Download PDF   Embed   Report

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to hear New York Times report James Risen's appeal. The government wants Risen to reveal the name of his source who allegedly provided him classified information about Iran's nuclear program.

Comments

Content


PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T


No. 11-5028


UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Plaintiff − Appellant,

v.

J EFFREY ALEXANDER STERLI NG,

Def endant – Appel l ee,

J AMES RI SEN,

Intervenor − Appellee.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

THE THOMAS J EFFERSON CENTER FOR THE PROTECTI ON OF FREE
EXPRESSI ON; ABC, I NCORPORATED; ADVANCE PUBLI CATI ONS,
I NCORPORATED; ALM MEDI A, I NCORPORATED; THE ASSOCI ATED PRESS;
BLOOMBERG, L. P. ; CABLE NEWS NETWORK, I NCORPORATED; CBS
CORPORATI ON; COX MEDI A GROUP, I NC. ; DAI LY NEWS, L. P. ; DOW
J ONES AND COMPANY, I NCORPORATED; THE E. W. SCRI PPS COMPANY;
FI RST AMENDMENT COALI TI ON; FOX NEWS NETWORK, L. L. C. ; GANNETT
COMPANY, I NCORPORATED; THE HEARST CORPORATI ON; THE MCCLATCHY
COMPANY; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF BROADCASTERS; NATI ONAL
PUBLI C RADI O, I NCORPORATED; NBCUNI VERSAL MEDI A, LLC; THE NEW
YORK TI MES COMPANY; NEWSPAPER ASSOCI ATI ON OF AMERI CA; THE
NEWSWEEK DAI LY BEAST COMPANY LLC; RADI O TELEVI SI ON DI GI TAL
NEWS ASSOCI ATI ON; REPORTERS COMMI TTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS; REUTERS AMERI CA LLC; TI ME I NC. ; TRI BUNE COMPANY; THE
WASHI NGTON POST; WNET,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng I nt er venor .



2

Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er n
Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Al exandr i a. Leoni e M. Br i nkema,
Di st r i ct J udge. ( 1:10−cr−00485−LMB−1)


Ar gued: May 18, 2012 Deci ded: J ul y 19, 2013


Bef or e TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, and GREGORY and DI AZ, Ci r cui t
J udges.


Af f i r med i n par t , r ever sed i n par t , and r emanded by publ i shed
opi ni on. Chi ef J udge Tr axl er wr ot e t he opi ni on f or t he cour t i n
Par t I , i n whi ch J udge Gr egor y and J udge Di az j oi ned. Chi ef
J udge Tr axl er wr ot e t he opi ni on f or t he cour t i n Par t s I I - V, i n
whi ch J udge Di az j oi ned. J udge Gr egor y wr ot e t he opi ni on f or
t he cour t i n Par t VI , i n whi ch Chi ef J udge Tr axl er and J udge
Di az j oi ned. J udge Gr egor y wr ot e t he opi ni on f or t he cour t i n
Par t VI I , i n whi ch J udge Di az j oi ned. Chi ef J udge Tr axl er wr ot e
an opi ni on concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t as t o Par t
VI I . J udge Gr egor y wr ot e an opi ni on di ssent i ng as t o Par t s I I -
V.


ARGUED: Rober t A. Par ker , UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE,
Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ant . J oel Kur t zber g, CAHI LL, GORDON
& REI NDEL, New Yor k, New Yor k; Edwar d Br i an MacMahon, J r . ,
Mi ddl ebur g, Vi r gi ni a; Bar r y J oel Pol l ack, MI LLER & CHEVALI ER,
CHARTERED, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ees. ON BRIEF: Nei l H.
MacBr i de, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, J ames L. Tr ump, Seni or
Li t i gat i on Counsel , OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY,
Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a; Wi l l i am M. Wel ch I I , Seni or Li t i gat i on
Counsel , Ti mot hy J . Kel l y, Tr i al At t or ney, Cr i mi nal Di vi si on,
Lanny A. Br euer , Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Myt hi l i Raman,
Pr i nci pal Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , UNI TED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ant . Mi a
Haessl y, MI LLER & CHEVALI ER, CHARTERED, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or
Appel l ee J ef f r ey Al exander St er l i ng. Davi d N. Kel l ey, CAHI LL,
GORDON & REI NDEL, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Appel l ee J ames Ri sen.
J . J oshua Wheel er , THE THOMAS J EFFERSON CENTER FOR THE
PROTECTI ON OF FREE EXPRESSI ON, Char l ot t esvi l l e, Vi r gi ni a; Br uce
D. Br own, Laur i e A. Babi nski , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Washi ngt on,
D. C. , f or The Thomas J ef f er son Cent er f or t he Pr ot ect i on of Fr ee
Expr essi on, Ami cus Suppor t i ng J ames Ri sen. Lee Levi ne, J eanet t e
Mel endez Bead, LEVI NE SULLI VAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP, Washi ngt on,
D. C. , f or Ami ci Cur i ae; J ohn W. Zucker , I ndi r a Sat yendr a, ABC,
3

I NC. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus ABC, I nc. ; Ri char d A.
Ber nst ei n, SABI N, BERMANT & GOULD LLP, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or
Ami cus Advance Publ i cat i ons, I nc. ; Al l i son C. Hof f man, Fabi o B.
Ber t oni , ALM MEDI A, LLC, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus ALM
Medi a, LLC; Kar en Kai ser , THE ASSOCI ATED PRESS, New Yor k, New
Yor k, f or Ami cus The Associ at ed Pr ess; Char l es J . Gl asser , J r . ,
BLOOMBERG L. P. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Bl oomber g L. P. ;
Davi d C. Vi gi l ant e, J ohni t a P. Due, CABLE NEWS NETWORK, I NC. ,
At l ant a, Geor gi a, f or Ami cus Cabl e News Net wor k, I nc. ; Ant hony
M. Bongi or no, CBS CORPORATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus
CBS Cor por at i on; Lance Lovel l , COX MEDI A GROUP, I NC. , At l ant a,
Geor gi a, f or Ami cus Cox Medi a Gr oup, I nc. ; Anne B. Car r ol l ,
DAI LY NEWS, L. P. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Dai l y News,
L. P. ; Mar k H. J ackson, J ason P. Cont i , Gai l C. Gove, DOWJ ONES &
COMPANY, I NC. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Dow J ones &
Company, I nc. ; Davi d M. Gi l es, THE E. W. SCRI PPS COMPANY,
Ci nci nnat i , Ohi o, f or Ami cus The E. W. Scr i pps Company; Pet er
Scheer , FI RST AMENDMENT COALI TI ON, San Raf ael , Cal i f or ni a, f or
Ami cus Fi r st Amendment Coal i t i on; Di anne Br andi , Chr i st opher
Si l vest r i , FOX NEWS NETWORK, L. L. C. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or
Ami cus Fox News Net wor k, L. L. C. ; Bar bar a W. Wal l , GANNETT CO. ,
I NC. , McLean, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Gannet t Co. , I nc. ; Eve
Bur t on, J onat han Donnel l an, THE HEARST CORPORATI ON, New Yor k,
New Yor k, f or Ami cus The Hear st Cor por at i on; Kar ol e Mor gan-
Pr ager , St ephen J . Bur ns, THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, Sacr ament o,
Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus The McCl at chy Company; J ane E. Mago,
J er i anne Ti mmer man, NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF BROADCASTERS,
Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus Nat i onal Associ at i on of
Br oadcast er s; Deni se Lear y, Ashl ey Messenger , NATI ONAL PUBLI C
RADI O, I NC. , Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus Nat i onal Publ i c Radi o,
I nc. ; Susan E. Wei ner , NBCUNI VERSAL MEDI A, LLC, New Yor k, New
Yor k, f or Ami cus NBCUni ver sal Medi a, LLC; Geor ge Fr eeman, THE
NEW YORK TI MES COMPANY, New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus The New
Yor k Ti mes Company; Kur t Wi mmer , COVI NGTON & BURLI NG, LP,
Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus Newspaper Associ at i on of Amer i ca;
Randy L. Shapi r o, THE NEWSWEEK/ DAI LY BEAST COMPANY LLC, New
Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus The Newsweek/ Dai l y Beast Company LLC;
Kat hl een A. Ki r by, WI LEY REI N & FI ELDI NG LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. ,
f or Ami cus Radi o Tel evi si on Di gi t al News Associ at i on; Lucy A.
Dal gl i sh, Gr egg P. Lesl i e, REPORTERS COMMI TTEE FOR FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS, Ar l i ngt on, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Repor t er s Commi t t ee
f or Fr eedom of t he Pr ess; Shmuel R. Bul ka, REUTERS AMERI CA LLC,
New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Reut er s Amer i ca LLC; Andr ew B.
Lachow, TI ME I NC. , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus Ti me I nc. ;
Davi d S. Br al ow, Kar en H. Fl ax, Kar l ene W. Gol l er , TRI BUNE
COMPANY, Chi cago, I l l i noi s, f or Ami cus Tr i bune Company; Er i c N.
Li eber man, J ames A. McLaughl i n, THE WASHI NGTON POST, Washi ngt on,
4

D. C. , f or Ami cus The Washi ngt on Post ; Rober t A. Fei nber g, WNET,
New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Ami cus WNET.


5

TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge:
J ef f r ey St er l i ng i s a f or mer CI A agent who has been
i ndi ct ed f or , i nt er al i a, t he unaut hor i zed r et ent i on and
di scl osur e of nat i onal def ense i nf or mat i on, i n vi ol at i on of t he
Espi onage Act , 18 U. S. C. § 793( d) & ( e) . The i ndi ct ment
f ol l owed t he gr and j ur y’ s pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on t hat
St er l i ng i l l egal l y di scl osed cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on about a
cover t CI A oper at i on per t ai ni ng t o t he I r ani an nucl ear weapons
oper at i on t o J ames Ri sen, f or publ i cat i on i n a book wr i t t en by
Ri sen, and t hat he may have done so i n r et al i at i on f or t he CI A’ s
deci si on t o t er mi nat e hi s empl oyment and t o i nt er f er e wi t h hi s
ef f or t s t o publ i sh such cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i n hi s per sonal
memoi r s. Pr i or t o t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t made t hr ee
evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs t hat ar e t he subj ect of t hi s appeal . We
af f i r m i n par t , r ever se i n par t , and r emand f or f ur t her
pr oceedi ngs.
I . Backgr ound
A.
Accor di ng t o t he i ndi ct ment , Def endant J ef f r ey St er l i ng was
hi r ed as a CI A case of f i cer i n 1993, and gr ant ed a t op secr et
secur i t y cl ear ance. As a condi t i on of hi s hi r e, and on sever al
occasi ons t her eaf t er , St er l i ng si gned agr eement s wi t h t he CI A
expl i ci t l y acknowl edgi ng t hat he was not per mi t t ed t o r et ai n or
di scl ose cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t hat he obt ai ned i n t he cour se
6

of hi s empl oyment , wi t hout pr i or aut hor i zat i on f r om t he CI A, and
t hat doi ng so coul d be a cr i mi nal of f ense.
I n November 1998, t he CI A assi gned St er l i ng t o a hi ghl y
cl assi f i ed pr ogr am i nt ended t o i mpede I r an’ s ef f or t s t o acqui r e
or devel op nucl ear weapons ( “Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1”) .
St er l i ng al so ser ved as t he case of f i cer f or a cover t asset
( “Human Asset No. 1”) who was assi st i ng t he CI A wi t h t hi s
pr ogr am. I n May 2000, St er l i ng was r eassi gned and hi s
i nvol vement wi t h Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr amNo. 1 ended.
I n August 2000, shor t l y af t er St er l i ng’ s r eassi gnment and
af t er bei ng t ol d t hat he had not met per f or mance t ar get s,
St er l i ng f i l ed an equal oppor t uni t y compl ai nt al l egi ng t hat t he
CI A had deni ed hi m cer t ai n assi gnment s because he was Af r i can
Amer i can. The EEO of f i ce of t he CI A i nvest i gat ed St er l i ng’ s
compl ai nt and det er mi ned t hat i t was wi t hout mer i t . I n August
2001, St er l i ng f i l ed a f eder al l awsui t agai nst t he CI A al l egi ng
t hat he had been t he vi ct i m of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on, and
seeki ng monet ar y compensat i on. Sever al set t l ement demands wer e
r ej ect ed, and t he l awsui t was di smi ssed i n Mar ch 2004, f ol l owi ng
t he gover nment ’ s i nvocat i on of t he st at e secr et s doct r i ne. We
af f i r med t he di smi ssal . See St er l i ng v. Tenet , 416 F. 3d 338,
341 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) .
St er l i ng was of f i ci al l y t er mi nat ed f r om t he CI A on J anuar y
31, 2002, but he had been “out pr ocessed” and ef f ect i vel y r emoved
7

f r om ser vi ce i n Oct ober 2001. As par t of hi s t er mi nat i on,
St er l i ng was asked t o si gn a f i nal acknowl edgment of hi s
cont i nui ng l egal obl i gat i on not t o di scl ose cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on. St er l i ng r ef used.
On November 4, 2001, J ames Ri sen publ i shed an ar t i cl e i n
The New Yor k Ti mes, under t he headl i ne “Secr et C. I . A. Si t e i n
New Yor k Was Dest r oyed on Sept . 11. ” J . A. 655. A “f or mer
agency of f i ci al ” was ci t ed as a sour ce. J . A. 655. I n Mar ch
2002, Ri sen publ i shed an ar t i cl e about St er l i ng’ s di scr i mi nat i on
sui t i n The New Yor k Ti mes, under t he headl i ne “Fi r ed by C. I . A. ,
He Says Agency Pr act i ced Bi as. ” J . A. 156, 725. The ar t i cl e
st at es t hat St er l i ng pr ovi ded Ri sen wi t h a copy of one of hi s
CI A per f or mance eval uat i ons, whi ch i s i dent i f i ed as a cl assi f i ed
document . The ar t i cl e al so st at es t hat St er l i ng “r el i shed hi s
secr et assi gnment t o r ecr ui t I r ani ans as spi es. ” J . A. 156.
I n J anuar y 2002, i n accor dance wi t h hi s non- di scl osur e
agr eement s wi t h t he CI A, St er l i ng submi t t ed a book pr oposal and
sampl e chapt er s of hi s memoi r s t o t he CI A’ s Publ i cat i ons Revi ew
Boar d. The Boar d expr essed concer ns about St er l i ng’ s i ncl usi on
of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i n t he mat er i al s he submi t t ed.
On J anuar y 7, 2003, St er l i ng cont act ed t he Boar d and
expr essed “ext r eme unhappi ness” over t he Boar d’ s edi t s t o hi s
memoi r s, and st at ed t hat “he woul d be comi ng at . . . t he CI A
wi t h ever yt hi ng at hi s di sposal . ” J . A. 35- 36 ( i nt er nal
8

quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . On Mar ch 4, 2003,
St er l i ng f i l ed a second ci vi l l awsui t agai nst t he CI A, al l egi ng
t hat t he agency had unl awf ul l y i nf r i nged hi s r i ght t o publ i sh
hi s memoi r s. The act i on was subsequent l y di smi ssed by
st i pul at i on of t he par t i es. See St er l i ng v. CI A, No. 1: 03- cv-
00603- TPJ ( D. D. C. J ul y 30, 2004) .
The day af t er he f i l ed hi s second ci vi l sui t , St er l i ng met
wi t h t wo st af f member s of t he Senat e Sel ect Commi t t ee on
I nt el l i gence ( “SSCI ”) and r ai sed, f or t he f i r st t i me, concer ns
about t he CI A’ s handl i ng of Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr amNo. 1, as wel l as
concer ns about hi s di scr i mi nat i on l awsui t .
1
Accor di ng t o a SSCI
st af f member , St er l i ng “t hr eat ened t o go t o t he pr ess, ” al t hough
i t was uncl ear “i f St er l i ng’ s t hr eat r el at ed t o [ Cl assi f i ed
Pr ogr amNo. 1] or hi s l awsui t . ” J . S. A 29.
Tel ephone r ecor ds i ndi cat e t hat St er l i ng cal l ed Ri sen seven
t i mes bet ween Febr uar y 27 and Mar ch 29, 2003. St er l i ng al so
sent an e- mai l t o Ri sen on Mar ch 10, 2003 - f i ve days af t er hi s
meet i ng wi t h t he SSCI st af f - i n whi ch he r ef er enced an ar t i cl e
f r om CNN’ s websi t e ent i t l ed, “Repor t : I r an has ‘ ext r emel y

1
CI A empl oyees who ar e ent r ust ed wi t h cl assi f i ed, nat i onal
secur i t y i nf or mat i on and have concer ns about i nt el l i gence
pr ogr ams or ot her gover nment act i vi t i es may voi ce t hei r
concer ns, wi t hout publ i c di scl osur e and i t s accompanyi ng
consequences, t o t he House and Senat e I nt el l i gence Commi t t ees,
or t o t he CI A’ s Of f i ce of t he I nspect or Gener al . See
I nt el l i gence Communi t y Whi st l ebl ower Pr ot ect i on Act of 1998,
Pub. L. No. 105- 272, Ti t l e VI I , 112 St at . 2396 ( 1998) .
9

advanced’ nucl ear pr ogr am, ” and asked, “qui t e i nt er est i ng, don’ t
you t hi nk? Al l t he mor e r eason t o wonder . . . ” J . A. 37, 726;
J . S. A 31.
On Apr i l 3, 2003, Ri sen i nf or med t he CI A and t he Nat i onal
Secur i t y Counci l t hat he had cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on concer ni ng
Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr amNo. 1 and t hat he i nt ended t o publ i sh a st or y
about i t i n The New Yor k Ti mes. I n r esponse, seni or
admi ni st r at i on of f i ci al s, i ncl udi ng Nat i onal Secur i t y Advi sor
Condol eezza Ri ce and Di r ect or of t he CI A Geor ge Tenet , met wi t h
Ri sen and J i l l Abr amson, t hen Washi ngt on Bur eau Chi ef of The New
Yor k Ti mes, t o di scuss t he damage t hat publ i cat i on woul d cause
t o nat i onal secur i t y i nt er est s and t he danger t o t he per sonal
saf et y of t he CI A asset i nvol ved i n t he oper at i on. Sever al days
l at er , Ms. Abr amson advi sed t he admi ni st r at i on t hat t he
newspaper woul d not publ i sh t he st or y.
Appr oxi mat el y t hr ee mont hs l at er , St er l i ng moved f r om
Vi r gi ni a t o Mi ssour i t o l i ve wi t h f r i ends. Dur i ng t hi s t i me, 19
t el ephone cal l s t ook pl ace bet ween t he New Yor k Ti mes’
Washi ngt on of f i ce and St er l i ng’ s f r i ends’ home t el ephone number .
St er l i ng’ s f r i ends deni ed any i nvol vement i n t hese cal l s. A
f or ensi c anal ysi s of t he comput er St er l i ng used dur i ng t hi s t i me
r eveal ed 27 e- mai l s bet ween St er l i ng and Ri sen, sever al of whi ch
i ndi cat ed t hat St er l i ng and Ri sen wer e meet i ng and exchangi ng
i nf or mat i on dur i ng t hi s t i me per i od.
10

Al t hough The New Yor k Ti mes had agr eed not t o publ i sh
i nf or mat i on about Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1, Ri sen publ i shed a
book, St at e of War : The Secr et Hi st or y of t he CI A and t he Bush
Admi ni st r at i on ( “St at e of War ”) , i n J anuar y 2006, whi ch di d
di scl ose t he cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on. J . A. 721. Speci f i cal l y,
Chapt er 9 of t he book, ent i t l ed “A Rogue Oper at i on, ” r eveal s
det ai l s about Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1. J . S. A. 219- 32. I n t he
book, Ri sen ent i t l ed t he pr ogr am “Oper at i on Mer l i n” and
descr i bed i t as a “f ai l ed at t empt by t he CI A t o have a f or mer
Russi an sci ent i st pr ovi de f l awed nucl ear weapon bl uepr i nt s t o
I r an. ” J . A. 722. Ri sen does not r eveal hi s sour ces f or t he
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i n Chapt er 9, nor has he i ndi cat ed
whet her he had mor e t han one sour ce. However , much of t he
chapt er i s t ol d f r om t he poi nt of vi ew of a CI A case of f i cer
r esponsi bl e f or handl i ng Human Asset No. 1. The chapt er al so
descr i bes t wo cl assi f i ed meet i ngs at whi ch St er l i ng was t he onl y
common at t endee.
B.
On December 22, 2010, a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed
St er l i ng on si x count s of unaut hor i zed r et ent i on and
communi cat i on of nat i onal def ense i nf or mat i on, i n vi ol at i on of
18 U. S. C. § 793( d) and ( e) ; one count of unl awf ul r et ent i on of
nat i onal def ense i nf or mat i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. §
793( e) ; one count of mai l f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. §
11

1341; one count of unaut hor i zed conveyance of gover nment
pr oper t y, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 641; and one count of
obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 1512( c) ( 1) .
St er l i ng’ s t r i al was set t o begi n on Oct ober 17, 2011.
On May 23, 2011, At t or ney Gener al Er i c Hol der aut hor i zed
t he gover nment t o i ssue a t r i al subpoena seeki ng Ri sen’ s
t est i mony about t he i dent i t y of hi s sour ce f or i nf or mat i on about
Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1 and aski ng Ri sen t o conf i r m t hat
st at ement s at t r i but ed t o sour ces wer e act ual l y made by t hose
sour ces. The gover nment al so f i l ed a mot i on i n l i mi ne t o admi t
Ri sen’ s t est i mony. Ri sen moved t o quash t he subpoena and f or a
pr ot ect i ve or der , asser t i ng t hat he was pr ot ect ed f r om compel l ed
t est i mony by t he Fi r st Amendment or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, by a
f eder al common- l aw r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege.
2


2
Dur i ng t he gr and j ur y pr oceedi ngs, t wo si mi l ar subpoenas
wer e i ssued f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony. The f i r st gr and j ur y
subpoena was aut hor i zed by Uni t ed St at es At t or ney Gener al
Mi chael Mukasey, on behal f of t he Bush Admi ni st r at i on, on
J anuar y 28, 2008. Ri sen’ s mot i on t o quash was gr ant ed i n par t
and deni ed i n par t . The di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed a r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege under t he Fi r st Amendment . Because Ri sen had
di scl osed St er l i ng’ s name and some i nf or mat i on about hi s
r epor t i ng t o a t hi r d par t y, however , t he di st r i ct cour t f ound a
par t i al wai ver as t o t hi s i nf or mat i on. See Uni t ed St at es v.
St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d 945, 947 ( E. D. Va. 2011) . Bot h Ri sen
and t he gover nment sought r econsi der at i on of t he di st r i ct
cour t ’ s or der , but t he gr and j ur y expi r ed pr i or t o f i nal
di sposi t i on of t he mot i on.

The second gr and j ur y subpoena was aut hor i zed by At t or ney
Gener al Er i c Hol der , on behal f of t he Obama Admi ni st r at i on, on

12

The mot i ons wer e deni ed i n par t and gr ant ed i n par t by t he
di st r i ct cour t . The subpoena was “quashed f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony
about hi s r epor t i ng and sour ce( s) except t o t he ext ent t hat
Ri sen [ woul d] be r equi r ed t o pr ovi de t est i mony t hat
aut hent i cat es t he accur acy of hi s j our nal i sm, subj ect t o a
pr ot ect i ve or der . ” Uni t ed St at es v. St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d
945, 947 ( E. D. Va. 2011) . The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Ri sen
had “a qual i f i ed Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t hat may
be i nvoked when a subpoena ei t her seeks i nf or mat i on about
conf i dent i al sour ces or i s i ssued t o har ass or i nt i mi dat e t he
j our nal i st , ” i d. at 951 ( emphasi s added) , and t hat t he
gover nment coul d over come t he pr i vi l ege onl y by meet i ng t he
t hr ee- par t t est t hat t hi s ci r cui t est abl i shed f or r epor t er s’
cl ai ms of pr i vi l ege i n ci vi l cases i n LaRouche v. Nat i onal
Br oadcast i ng Co. , 780 F. 2d 1134 ( 4t h Ci r . 1986) . The di st r i ct
cour t hel d t hat , whi l e t he i nf or mat i on sought was cl ear l y
r el evant under t he f i r st pr ong of t he LaRouche t est , t he
Gover nment had f ai l ed t o demonst r at e t hat t he i nf or mat i on was


J anuar y 19, 2010. On Ri sen’ s mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t quashed
t he subpoena, agai n based upon t he Fi r st Amendment and i t s
concl usi on t hat t her e was “mor e t han enough [ ci r cumst ant i al ]
evi dence t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause t o i ndi ct St er l i ng. ” I d.
at 950 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . However , t he
di st r i ct cour t “i ndi cat ed t hat i t mi ght be l ess l i kel y t o quash
a t r i al subpoena, because . . . at t hat st age t he gover nment
must pr ove [ St er l i ng’ s] gui l t beyond a [ r easonabl e] doubt . ” I d.
13

unavai l abl e f r om ot her means and t hat i t had a compel l i ng
i nt er est i n pr esent i ng i t t o t he j ur y.
I n addi t i on t o t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der quashi ng Ri sen’ s
t r i al subpoena, t he di st r i ct cour t handed down t wo ot her
evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs t hat ar e t he subj ect of t hi s appeal . The
di st r i ct cour t suppr essed t he t est i mony of t wo gover nment
wi t nesses as a sanct i on f or t he gover nment ’ s l at e di scl osur e of
i mpeachment mat er i al under Gi gl i o v. Uni t ed St at es, 405 U. S. 150
( 1972) . The di st r i ct cour t al so deni ed t he gover nment ’ s mot i on
t o wi t hhol d f r om St er l i ng and t he j ur y, pur suant t o t he
Cl assi f i ed I nf or mat i on Pr ocedur es Act ( “CI PA”) , 18 U. S. C. app.
3, t he t r ue names and i dent i t i es of sever al cover t CI A of f i cer s
and cont r act or s i t i nt ends t o cal l t o t est i f y at t r i al .
I n a maj or i t y opi ni on wr i t t en by Chi ef J udge Tr axl er , we
now r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der hol di ng t hat Ri sen has a
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t hat ent i t l es hi m t o r ef use t o t est i f y at
t r i al concer ni ng t he sour ce and scope of t he cl assi f i ed nat i onal
def ense i nf or mat i on i l l egal l y di scl osed t o hi m ( I ssue I ) . I n a
separ at e maj or i t y opi ni on wr i t t en by J udge Gr egor y, we r ever se
t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der suppr essi ng t he t est i mony of t he t wo
Gover nment wi t nesses ( I ssue I I ) , and af f i r m i n par t and r ever se
i n par t t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s CI PA r ul i ng ( I ssue I I I ) .

14

TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, wr i t i ng f or t he cour t on I ssue I :

I I . The Repor t er ’ s Pr i vi l ege Cl ai m
We begi n wi t h t he gover nment ’ s appeal of t he di st r i ct cour t
or der quashi ng t he t r i al subpoena i ssued t o Ri sen on t he basi s
of a Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, and Ri sen’ s chal l enge
t o our j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der t hi s por t i on of t he appeal .
A. J ur i sdi ct i on
Ri sen cont ends t hat we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der t he
di st r i ct cour t ’ s r ul i ng under 18 U. S. C. § 3731, because t he
di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat t he l i mi t at i ons on Ri sen’ s t est i mony
mi ght be r econsi der ed under t he LaRouche t est as t he t est i mony
devel oped at t r i al . We di sagr ee.
Sect i on 3731 pr ovi des f or i nt er l ocut or y appeal s by t he
Uni t ed St at es of pr et r i al or der s suppr essi ng or excl udi ng
evi dence upon cer t i f i cat i on t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he
appeal i s not t aken f or t he pur pose of del ay and t hat t he
evi dence i n quest i on i s subst ant i al pr oof of a f act mat er i al t o
t he pr oceedi ngs. We have hel d t hat we have j ur i sdi ct i on under §
3731 even when t he di st r i ct cour t “r epeat edl y i ndi cat ed t hat i t s
r ul i ngs wer e pr el i mi nar y and coul d change as t he t r i al
pr ogr essed. ” Uni t ed St at es v. Si egel , 536 F. 3d 306, 314 ( 4t h
Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Todar o, 744 F. 2d 5, 8 n. 1
( 2d Ci r . 1984) ( f i ndi ng t hat a condi t i onal suppr essi on or der may
15

be i mmedi at el y appeal ed by t he gover nment under § 3731) ; cf .
Uni t ed St at es v. Hor wi t z, 622 F. 2d 1101, 1104 ( 2d Ci r . 1980)
( “[ W] e do not t hi nk t hat t he condi t i onal nat ur e of t he di st r i ct
cour t ’ s r ul i ng, whi ch r ai ses t he r emot e pr ospect t hat
suppr essi on wi l l not be or der ed, necessar i l y depr i ves t hi s cour t
of j ur i sdi ct i on under sect i on 3731 t o hear t he gover nment ’ s
appeal . ”) .
Whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t l ef t i t sel f some
r oom i n i t s or der t o adj ust t he scope of Ri sen’ s t r i al
t est i mony, i t al so made cl ear t hat i t di d not expect t o r evi si t
i t s deci si on t hat Ri sen was ent i t l ed t o asser t a r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege under t he Fi r st Amendment and coul d not be compel l ed
t o r eveal hi s sour ces. Thus, we hol d t hat we have j ur i sdi ct i on
over t he appeal . “To concl ude ot her wi se woul d i nsul at e t he
di st r i ct cour t ’ s r ul i ng f r om appel l at e r evi ew” because once
j eopar dy at t aches, t he Gover nment cannot appeal , “t hus
f r ust r at i ng r at her t han f ur t her i ng t he pur poses of § 3731. ”
Si egel , 536 F. 3d at 315.
B. The Fi r st Amendment Cl ai m
1.
Ther e i s no Fi r st Amendment t est i moni al pr i vi l ege, absol ut e
or qual i f i ed, t hat pr ot ect s a r epor t er f r om bei ng compel l ed t o
t est i f y by t he pr osecut i on or t he def ense i n cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs about cr i mi nal conduct t hat t he r epor t er per sonal l y
16

wi t nessed or par t i ci pat ed i n, absent a showi ng of bad f ai t h,
har assment , or ot her such non- l egi t i mat e mot i ve, even t hough t he
r epor t er pr omi sed conf i dent i al i t y t o hi s sour ce. I n Br anzbur g
v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 ( 1972) , t he Supr eme Cour t “i n no
uncer t ai n t er ms r ej ect ed t he exi st ence of such a pr i vi l ege. ” I n
r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1146 ( D. C.
Ci r . 2006) .
Li ke Ri sen, t he Br anzbur g r epor t er s wer e subpoenaed t o
t est i f y r egar di ng t hei r per sonal knowl edge of cr i mi nal act i vi t y.
One r epor t er was subpoenaed t o t est i f y r egar di ng hi s
obser vat i ons of per sons synt hesi zi ng hashi sh and smoki ng
mar i j uana; t wo ot her s wer e subpoenaed t o t est i f y r egar di ng t hei r
obser vat i ons of suspect ed cr i mi nal act i vi t i es of t he Bl ack
Pant her Par t y.
3
Al l r esi st ed on t he gr ound t hat t hey possessed a
qual i f i ed pr i vi l ege agai nst bei ng “f or ced ei t her t o appear or t o
t est i f y bef or e a gr and j ur y or at t r i al , ” unl ess a t hr ee- par t
showi ng was made: ( 1) “t hat t he r epor t er possesses i nf or mat i on
r el evant t o a cr i me, ” ( 2) “t hat t he i nf or mat i on t he r epor t er has
i s unavai l abl e f r om ot her sour ces, ” and ( 3) “t hat t he need f or
t he i nf or mat i on i s suf f i ci ent l y compel l i ng t o over r i de t he
cl ai med i nvasi on of Fi r st Amendment i nt er est s occasi oned by t he
di scl osur e. ” Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 680. “The hear t of t he

3
Br anzbur g was a consol i dat ed pr oceedi ng. For ease of
r ef er ence, we r ef er t o al l r epor t er s as t he Br anzbur g r epor t er s.
17

[ r epor t er s’ ] cl ai m [ was] t hat t he bur den on news gat her i ng
r esul t i ng f r om compel l i ng [ t hem] t o di scl ose conf i dent i al
i nf or mat i on out wei gh[ ed] any publ i c i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng t he
i nf or mat i on. ” I d. at 681.
Havi ng so def i ned t he cl ai m, t he Cour t pr oceeded t o
unequi vocal l y r ej ect i t . Not i ng “t he l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e
t hat t he publ i c . . . has a r i ght t o ever y man’ s evi dence,
except f or t hose per sons pr ot ect ed by a const i t ut i onal , common-
l aw, or st at ut or y pr i vi l ege, ” i d. at 688 ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks omi t t ed) , t he Cour t hel d as f ol l ows:
Unt i l now t he onl y t est i moni al pr i vi l ege f or
unof f i ci al wi t nesses t hat i s r oot ed i n t he Feder al
Const i t ut i on i s t he Fi f t h Amendment pr i vi l ege agai nst
compel l ed sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on. We ar e asked t o cr eat e
anot her by i nt er pr et i ng t he Fi r st Amendment t o gr ant
newsmen a t est i moni al pr i vi l ege t hat ot her ci t i zens do
not enj oy. Thi s we decl i ne t o do.
I d. at 689- 90 ( emphasi s added) ; see i d. at 690 n. 29 ( not i ng t hat
“t est i moni al pr i vi l eges [ ar e] di sf avor [ ed] . . . si nce such
pr i vi l eges obst r uct t he sear ch f or t r ut h” and ser ve as
“‘ obst acl e[ s] t o t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce’ ” ( quot i ng 8 J .
Wi gmor e, Evi dence § 2192 ( McNaught on r ev. 1961) ) ) .
The Fi r st Amendment cl ai m i n Br anzbur g was gr ounded i n t he
same ar gument of f er ed by Ri sen - - t hat t he absence of such a
qual i f i ed pr i vi l ege woul d chi l l t he f ut ur e newsgat her i ng
abi l i t i es of t he pr ess, t o t he det r i ment of t he f r ee f l ow of
i nf or mat i on t o t he publ i c. And t he Br anzbur g cl ai m, t oo, was
18

suppor t ed by af f i davi t s and ami cus cur i ae memor anda f r om
j our nal i st s cl ai mi ng t hat t hei r news sour ces and news r epor t i ng
woul d be adver sel y i mpact ed i f r epor t er s wer e r equi r ed t o
t est i f y about conf i dent i al r el at i onshi ps. However , t he
Br anzbur g Cour t r ej ect ed t hat r at i onal e as i nappr opr i at e i n
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs:
The pr ef er ence f or anonymi t y of . . .
conf i dent i al i nf or mant s i nvol ved i n act ual cr i mi nal
conduct i s pr esumabl y a pr oduct of t hei r desi r e t o
escape cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, [ but ] t hi s pr ef er ence,
whi l e under st andabl e, i s har dl y deser vi ng of
const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on. I t woul d be f r i vol ous t o
asser t – and no one does i n t hese cases – t hat t he
Fi r st Amendment , i n t he i nt er est of secur i ng news or
ot her wi se, conf er s a l i cense on ei t her t he r epor t er or
hi s news sour ces t o vi ol at e val i d cr i mi nal l aws.
Al t hough st eal i ng document s or pr i vat e wi r et appi ng
coul d pr ovi de newswor t hy i nf or mat i on, nei t her r epor t er
nor sour ce i s i mmune f r om convi ct i on f or such conduct ,
what ever t he i mpact on t he f l ow of news. Nei t her i s
i mmune, on Fi r st Amendment gr ounds, f r om t est i f yi ng
agai nst t he ot her , bef or e t he gr and j ur y or at a
cr i mi nal t r i al .
I d. at 691 ( emphasi s added) ; see al so i d. at 690- 91 ( not i ng t hat
t her e was “no basi s f or hol di ng t hat t he publ i c i nt er est i n l aw
enf or cement and i n ensur i ng ef f ect i ve gr and j ur y pr oceedi ngs i s
i nsuf f i ci ent t o over r i de t he consequent i al , but uncer t ai n,
bur den on news gat her i ng t hat i s sai d t o r esul t f r om i nsi st i ng
t hat r epor t er s, l i ke ot her ci t i zens, r espond t o r el evant
19

quest i ons put t o t hem i n t he cour se of a val i d gr and j ur y
i nvest i gat i on or cr i mi nal t r i al ”) .
4

I n sum, t he Br anzbur g Cour t decl i ned t o t r eat r epor t er s
di f f er ent l y f r om al l ot her ci t i zens who ar e compel l ed t o gi ve
evi dence of cr i mi nal act i vi t y, and r ef used t o r equi r e a
“compel l i ng i nt er est ” or ot her speci al showi ng si mpl y because i t
i s a r epor t er who i s i n possessi on of t he evi dence. Compar e i d.
at 708 ( hol di ng t hat gover nment need not “demonst r at e[ ] some
‘ compel l i ng need’ f or a newsman’ s t est i mony”) , wi t h i d. at 743
( St ewar t , J . , di ssent i ng) ( advocat i ng adopt i on of t he t hr ee- par t
t est t hat i ncl udes demonst r at i on of a “compel l i ng and over r i di ng
i nt er est i n t he i nf or mat i on”) .
Al t hough t he Cour t soundl y r ej ect ed a Fi r st Amendment
pr i vi l ege i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs, t he Cour t di d obser ve, i n t he
concl udi ng par agr aph of i t s anal ysi s, t hat t he pr ess woul d not
be whol l y wi t hout pr ot ect i on:
[ N] ews gat her i ng i s not wi t hout i t s Fi r st Amendment
pr ot ect i ons, and gr and j ur y i nvest i gat i ons i f
i nst i t ut ed or conduct ed ot her t han i n good f ai t h,
woul d pose whol l y di f f er ent i ssues f or r esol ut i on
under t he Fi r st Amendment . Of f i ci al har assment of t he

4
Br anzbur g ar ose i n t he cont ext of a gr and j ur y
i nvest i gat i on, but i t s l anguage and r easoni ng appl y equal l y t o
subpoenas i n t he ensui ng cr i mi nal t r i al s, wher e t he gover nment
bear s t he same char ge t o ef f ect uat e t he publ i c i nt er est i n l aw
enf or cement but must meet an even hi gher bur den of pr oof . See
408 U. S. at 686, 690- 91; I n r e Shai n, 978 F. 2d 850, 852 ( 4t h
Ci r . 1992) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 135 F. 3d 963, 971 ( 5t h Ci r .
1998) .
20

pr ess under t aken not f or pur poses of l aw enf or cement
but t o di sr upt a r epor t er ’ s r el at i onshi p wi t h hi s news
sour ces woul d have no j ust i f i cat i on.
I d. at 707- 08 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) ( emphasi s added) ( f oot not e
omi t t ed) . Thi s i s t he hol di ng of Br anzbur g, and t he Supr eme
Cour t has never var i ed f r om i t . As t he Cour t obser ved near l y
t wo decades l at er :
I n Br anzbur g, t he Cour t r ej ect ed t he not i on t hat under
t he Fi r st Amendment a r epor t er coul d not be r equi r ed
t o appear or t o t est i f y as t o i nf or mat i on obt ai ned i n
conf i dence wi t hout a speci al showi ng t hat t he
r epor t er ’ s t est i mony was necessar y. Pet i t i oner s
t her e, l i ke pet i t i oner her e, cl ai med t hat r equi r i ng
di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on col l ect ed i n conf i dence
woul d i nhi bi t t he f r ee f l ow of i nf or mat i on i n
cont r avent i on of Fi r st Amendment pr i nci pl es. I n t he
cour se of r ej ect i ng t he Fi r st Amendment ar gument , t hi s
Cour t not ed t hat t he Fi r st Amendment does not
i nval i dat e ever y i nci dent al bur deni ng of t he pr ess
t hat may r esul t f r om t he enf or cement of ci vi l or
cr i mi nal st at ut es of gener al appl i cabi l i t y. We al so
i ndi cat ed a r el uct ance t o r ecogni ze a const i t ut i onal
pr i vi l ege wher e i t was uncl ear how of t en and t o what
ext ent i nf or mer s ar e act ual l y det er r ed f r om f ur ni shi ng
i nf or mat i on when newsmen ar e f or ced t o t est i f y bef or e
a gr and j ur y. We wer e unwi l l i ng t hen, as we ar e
t oday, t o embar k t he j udi ci ar y on a l ong and di f f i cul t
j our ney t o . . . an uncer t ai n dest i nat i on.
Uni ver si t y of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U. S. 182, 201 ( 1990) ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Cohen v. Cowl es Medi a Co. ,
501 U. S. 663, 669 ( 1991) ( “[ T] he Fi r st Amendment [ does not ]
r el i eve a newspaper r epor t er of t he obl i gat i on shar ed by al l
ci t i zens t o r espond t o a gr and j ur y subpoena and answer
21

quest i ons r el evant t o a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on, even t hough t he
r epor t er mi ght be r equi r ed t o r eveal a conf i dent i al sour ce. ”) .
5

The cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y i s cl ear . “I n l anguage as
r el evant t o t he al l eged i l l egal di scl osur e of t he i dent i t y of
cover t agent s as i t was t o t he al l eged i l l egal pr ocessi ng of
hashi sh [ i n Br anzbur g] , t he Cour t st at ed t hat i t coul d not
‘ ser i ousl y ent er t ai n t he not i on t hat t he Fi r st Amendment
pr ot ect s a newsman’ s agr eement t o conceal t he cr i mi nal conduct
of hi s sour ce, or evi dence t her eof . . . . ’ ” J udi t h Mi l l er , 438
F. 3d at 1147 ( quot i ng Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 692) ; see i d. at
1165- 66 ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) ( “I f , as Br anzbur g concl udes,
t he Fi r st Amendment per mi t s compul si on of r epor t er s’ t est i mony

5
Thi s pl ai n i nt er pr et at i on of Br anzbur g i s al so conf i r med
by r ecent cases f r om our si st er ci r cui t s. See Uni t ed St at es v.
Mol oney ( I n r e Pr i ce) , 685 F. 3d 1, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)
( “Br anzbur g . . . hel d t hat t he f act t hat di scl osur e of t he
mat er i al s sought by a subpoena i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs woul d
r esul t i n t he br eaki ng of a pr omi se of conf i dent i al i t y by
r epor t er s i s not by i t sel f a l egal l y cogni zabl e Fi r st Amendment
or common l aw i nj ur y. Si nce Br anzbur g, t he Cour t has t hr ee
t i mes af f i r med i t s basi c pr i nci pl es i n t hat opi ni on. ” ( ci t at i ons
omi t t ed) ( ci t i ng Cohen v. Cowl es Medi a Co. , 501 U. S. 663 ( 1991) ;
Uni ver si t y of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U. S. 182 ( 1990) ; and Zur cher v.
St anf or d Dai l y, 436 U. S. 547 ( 1978) ) ) ; ACLU v. Al var ez, 679 F. 3d
583, 598 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng t hat “[ t ] he [ Br anzbur g] Cour t
decl i ned t o f ashi on a speci al j our nal i st s’ pr i vi l ege” because,
i nt er al i a, “t he publ i c i nt er est i n det ect i ng, puni shi ng, and
det er r i ng cr i me was much st r onger t han t he mar gi nal i ncr ease i n
t he f l ow of news about cr i me t hat a j our nal i st ’ s t est i moni al
pr i vi l ege mi ght pr ovi de” ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; I n
r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1146- 47
( D. C. Ci r . 2006) ( unani mousl y concl udi ng, i n a nat i onal secur i t y
l eak case, t hat Br anzbur g r ej ect ed such a Fi r st Amendment
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege) .
22

about i ndi vi dual s manuf act ur i ng dr ugs or pl ot t i ng agai nst t he
gover nment , al l i nf or mat i on t he gover nment coul d have obt ai ned
f r om an under cover i nvest i gat i on of i t s own, t he case f or a
const i t ut i onal pr i vi l ege appear s weak i ndeed wi t h r espect t o
l eaks [ of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on] , whi ch i n al l l i kel i hood wi l l
be ext r emel y di f f i cul t t o pr ove wi t hout t he r epor t er ’ s ai d. ”
( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Accor di ngl y, “i f Br anzbur g i s t o be
l i mi t ed or di st i ngui shed i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, we
must l eave t hat t ask t o t he Supr eme Cour t . ” I d. at 1166.
Not wi t hst andi ng t he cl ar i t y of J ust i ce Whi t e’ s opi ni on f or
t he Cour t i n Br anzbur g, and t he f act t hat J ust i ce Powel l j oi ned
t hat opi ni on, Ri sen ar gues t hat J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r i ng
opi ni on i n Br anzbur g shoul d i nst ead be i nt er pr et ed as a t aci t
endor sement of J ust i ce St ewar t ’ s di ssent i ng opi ni on, whi ch
ar gued i n f avor of r ecogni zi ng a Fi r st Amendment pr i vi l ege i n
cr i mi nal cases t hat coul d be over come onl y i f t he gover nment
car r i es t he heavy bur den of est abl i shi ng a compel l i ng i nt er est
or need. See Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 739, 743 ( St ewar t , J . ,
di ssent i ng) .
We cannot accept t hi s st r ai ned r eadi ng of J ust i ce Powel l ’ s
opi ni on. By hi s own wor ds, J ust i ce Powel l concur r ed i n J ust i ce
Whi t e’ s opi ni on f or t he maj or i t y, and he r ej ect ed t he cont r ar y
vi ew of J ust i ce St ewar t :
23

I add t hi s br i ef st at ement t o emphasi ze what
seems t o me t o be t he l i mi t ed nat ur e of t he Cour t ’ s
hol di ng. The Cour t does not hol d t hat newsmen,
subpoenaed t o t est i f y bef or e a gr and j ur y, ar e wi t hout
const i t ut i onal r i ght s wi t h r espect t o t he gat her i ng of
news or i n saf eguar di ng t hei r sour ces. Cer t ai nl y, we
do not hol d, as suggest ed i n MR. J USTI CE STEWART’ s
di ssent i ng opi ni on, t hat st at e and f eder al aut hor i t i es
ar e f r ee t o ‘ annex’ t he news medi a as ‘ an
i nvest i gat i ve ar mof gover nment . ’ . . .
As i ndi cat ed i n t he concl udi ng por t i on of t he
[ maj or i t y] opi ni on, t he Cour t st at es t hat no
har assment of newsmen wi l l be t ol er at ed. I f a newsman
bel i eves t hat t he gr and j ur y i nvest i gat i on i s not
bei ng conduct ed i n good f ai t h he i s not wi t hout
r emedy. I ndeed, i f t he newsman i s cal l ed upon t o gi ve
i nf or mat i on bear i ng onl y a r emot e and t enuous
r el at i onshi p t o t he subj ect of t he i nvest i gat i on, or
i f he has some ot her r eason t o bel i eve t hat hi s
t est i mony i mpl i cat es conf i dent i al sour ce r el at i onshi ps
wi t hout a l egi t i mat e need of l aw enf or cement , he wi l l
have access t o t he cour t on a mot i on t o quash and an
appr opr i at e pr ot ect i ve or der may be ent er ed. The
asser t ed cl ai m t o pr i vi l ege shoul d be j udged on i t s
f act s by t he st r i ki ng of a pr oper bal ance bet ween
f r eedom of t he pr ess and t he obl i gat i on of al l
ci t i zens t o gi ve r el evant t est i mony wi t h r espect t o
cr i mi nal conduct . The bal ance of t hese vi t al
const i t ut i onal and soci et al i nt er est s on a case- by-
case basi s accor ds wi t h t he t r i ed and t r adi t i onal way
of adj udi cat i ng such quest i ons.
I d. at 709- 10 ( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) ( emphasi s added) .
J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence expr esses no di sagr eement wi t h
t he maj or i t y’ s det er mi nat i on t hat r epor t er s ar e ent i t l ed t o no
speci al pr i vi l ege t hat woul d al l ow t hem t o wi t hhol d r el evant
i nf or mat i on about cr i mi nal conduct wi t hout a showi ng of bad
f ai t h or ot her such i mpr oper mot i ve, nor wi t h t he maj or i t y’ s
cl ear r ej ect i on of t he t hr ee- par t compel l i ng i nt er est t est
24

advocat ed by t he Br anzbur g r epor t er s. To t he ext ent J ust i ce
Powel l addr essed any f ur t her i nqui r y t hat mi ght t ake pl ace i n a
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng, he appear ed t o i ncl ude wi t hi n t he r eal m of
har assment a r equest t hat “i mpl i cat es conf i dent i al sour ce
r el at i onshi ps wi t hout a l egi t i mat e need of l aw enf or cement , ” i d.
at 710 ( emphasi s added) , and he agai n r ej ect ed t he di ssent ’ s
cont r ar y vi ew t hat t he heavy bur dens of t he t hr ee- par t ,
compel l i ng i nt er est t est wer e appr opr i at e:
Mor eover , absent t he const i t ut i onal pr econdi t i ons t hat
. . . t h[ e] di ssent i ng opi ni on woul d i mpose as heavy
bur dens of pr oof t o be car r i ed by t he St at e, t he cour t
– when cal l ed upon t o pr ot ect a newsman f r om i mpr oper
or pr ej udi ci al quest i oni ng – woul d be f r ee t o bal ance
t he compet i ng i nt er est s on t hei r mer i t s i n t he
par t i cul ar case. The new const i t ut i onal r ul e endor sed
by t h[ e] di ssent i ng opi ni on woul d, as a pr act i cal
mat t er , def eat such a f ai r bal anci ng and t he essent i al
soci et al i nt er est i n t he det ect i on and pr osecut i on of
cr i me woul d be heavi l y subor di nat ed.
I d. at 710 n. * ( emphasi s added) .
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence i n
Br anzbur g si mpl y does not al l ow f or t he r ecogni t i on of a Fi r st
Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng whi ch
can onl y be over come i f t he gover nment sat i sf i es t he heavy
bur dens of t he t hr ee- par t , compel l i ng- i nt er est t est . Accept i ng
t hi s pr emi se i s “t ant amount t o our subst i t ut i ng, as t he hol di ng
of Br anzbur g, t he di ssent wr i t t en by J ust i ce St ewar t . . . f or
t he maj or i t y opi ni on. ” St or er Commc’ ns. v Gi ovan ( I n r e Gr and
25

J ur y Pr oceedi ngs) , 810 F. 2d 580, 584 ( 6t h Ci r . 1987) .
6
The
Br anzbur g Cour t consi der ed t he ar gument s we consi der t oday,
bal anced t he r espect i ve i nt er est s of t he pr ess and t he publ i c i n
newsgat her i ng and i n pr osecut i ng cr i mes, and hel d t hat , so l ong
as t he subpoena i s i ssued i n good f ai t h and i s based on a
l egi t i mat e need of l aw enf or cement , t he gover nment need not make
any speci al showi ng t o obt ai n evi dence of cr i mi nal conduct f r om
a r epor t er i n a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng. The r epor t er must appear
and gi ve t est i mony j ust as ever y ot her ci t i zen must . We ar e not
at l i ber t y t o concl ude ot her wi se.
2.
Al t hough Br anzbur g al one compel s us t o r ej ect Ri sen’ s cl ai m
t o a Fi r st Amendment pr i vi l ege, we ar e al so bound by our ci r cui t
pr ecedent , f or t hi s i s not t he f i r st t i me we have passed upon
t he quest i on of whet her and t o what ext ent a r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege can be asser t ed i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs.
a.

6
See al so J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1148 ( “J ust i ce
Powel l ’ s concur r i ng opi ni on was not t he opi ni on of a j ust i ce who
r ef used t o j oi n t he maj or i t y. He j oi ned t he maj or i t y by i t s
t er ms, r ej ect i ng none of J ust i ce Whi t e’ s r easoni ng on behal f of
t he maj or i t y. ”) ; i d. ( “J ust i ce Whi t e’ s opi ni on i s not a
pl ur al i t y opi ni on. . . . [ I ] t i s t he opi ni on of t he maj or i t y of
t he Cour t . As such i t i s aut hor i t at i ve pr ecedent . I t says what
i t says. I t r ej ect s t he pr i vi l ege asser t ed by” t he r epor t er s. ) ;
Scar ce v. Uni t ed St at es ( I n r e Gr and J ur y Pr oceedi ngs) , 5 F. 3d
397, 400 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ( not i ng t hat J ust i ce Powel l ’ s
concur r ence does not aut hor i ze a “r ebal anci ng [ of ] t he i nt er est s
at st ake i n ever y cl ai mof pr i vi l ege made bef or e a gr and j ur y”) .
26

I n r eachi ng i t s deci si on i n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t
r el i ed upon our pr ecedent i n LaRouche v. Nat i onal Br oadcast i ng
Co. , 780 F. 2d 1134 ( 4t h Ci r . 1986) . I n LaRouche, we consi der ed
a ci vi l l i t i gant ’ s r i ght t o compel evi dence f r om a r epor t er and
t he Fi r st Amendment cl ai m of t he pr ess t o pr ot ect i t s
newsgat her i ng act i vi t i es. We r ecogni zed a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege
i n t hi s ci vi l cont ext t hat coul d onl y be over come i f t he
l i t i gant met t he t hr ee- par t t est t hat t he Br anzbur g Cour t
r ej ect ed i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext . Speci f i cal l y, we hel d t hat
di st r i ct cour t s, bef or e r equi r i ng di scl osur e of a r epor t er ’ s
sour ce i n a ci vi l pr oceedi ng, must consi der “( 1) whet her t he
i nf or mat i on i s r el evant , ( 2) whet her t he i nf or mat i on can be
obt ai ned by al t er nat i ve means, and ( 3) whet her t her e i s a
compel l i ng i nt er est i n t he i nf or mat i on. ” I d. at 1139.
I n LaRouche, we f ol l owed t he l ead of ot her ci r cui t s,
i ncl udi ng t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t i n Mi l l er v. Tr ansamer i can Pr ess,
I nc. , 621 F. 2d 721, modi f i ed, 628 F. 2d 932 ( 5t h Ci r . 1980) ,
whi ch hel d t hat Br anzbur g di d not pr ecl ude r ecogni t i on of a
qual i f i ed r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege or appl i cat i on of t he t hr ee- par t
t est i n ci vi l cases. I n such cases, of cour se, “t he publ i c
27

i nt er est i n ef f ect i ve cr i mi nal l aw enf or cement i s absent . ”
Zer i l l i v. Smi t h, 656 F. 2d 705, 711- 12 ( D. C. Ci r . 1981) .
7

b.
LaRouche, however , of f er s no aut hor i t y f or us t o r ecogni ze
a Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n t hi s cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ng. Not onl y does Br anzbur g pr ecl ude t hi s ext ensi on,
t he di st i nct i on i s cr i t i cal , and our ci r cui t has al r eady
consi der ed and r ej ect ed such “a qual i f i ed [ r epor t er ’ s]
pr i vi l ege, gr ounded on t he Fi r st Amendment , agai nst bei ng
compel l ed t o t est i f y i n [ a] cr i mi nal t r i al . ” I n r e Shai n, 978
F. 2d 850, 851 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992) ( emphasi s added) .
The Shai n r epor t er s wer e hel d i n cont empt f or t hei r r ef usal
t o compl y wi t h subpoenas t o t est i f y i n t he cr i mi nal t r i al of a
f or mer st at e senat or whom t hey had pr evi ousl y i nt er vi ewed. At
t he t i me, t wo of our si st er ci r cui t s had ext ended t he t hr ee- par t
t est t hat had been adopt ed i n ci vi l act i ons t o cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs, al bei t wi t h l i t t l e t o no di scussi on of t he
Br anzbur g opi ni on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Capor al e, 806 F. 2d

7
Li ke t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t , t he D. C. Ci r cui t al so hel d “t hat
t he bal anci ng appr oach empl oyed [ i n ci vi l act i ons] sur vi ved t he
Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n Br anzbur g. ” Zer i l l i v. Smi t h, 656
F. 2d 705, 712 n. 43 ( D. C. Ci r . 1981) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Bot h
ci r cui t s subsequent l y conf i r med t hat t he pr i vi l ege does not
appl y i n t he absence of har assment or bad f ai t h, and r ef used t o
appl y t he t hr ee- par t t est t o subpoenas i ssued i n cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs. See J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1149; Smi t h, 135
F. 3d at 971- 72.
28

1487, 1503- 04 ( 11t h Ci r . 1986) ( ci t i ng Mi l l er , 621 F. 2d at 726) ;
Uni t ed St at es v. Bur ke, 700 F. 2d 70, 76- 77 ( 2d Ci r . 1983)
( ci t i ng Zer i l l i , 656 F. 2d at 713- 15) .
Thi s cour t i n Shai n, however , decl i ned t o f ol l ow t hat pat h.
We di d not r ecogni ze a br oad pr i vi l ege nor di d we ext end t he
LaRouche t hr ee- par t t est t o cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs. I nst ead, we
f ol l owed Br anzbur g and hel d t hat “absent evi dence of
gover nment al har assment or bad f ai t h, t he r epor t er s have no
pr i vi l ege di f f er ent f r om t hat of any ot her ci t i zen not t o
t est i f y about knowl edge r el evant t o a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on. ”
Shai n, 978 F. 2d at 852. We al so consi der ed t he ef f ect of
J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r i ng opi ni on i n Br anzbur g, expl ai ni ng
t hat J ust i ce Powel l “j oi ned i n t he Cour t ’ s opi ni on” and wr ot e
separ at el y onl y
t o emphasi ze t he Cour t ’ s admoni shment agai nst of f i ci al
har assment of t he pr ess and t o add, “We do not hol d .
. . t hat st at e and f eder al aut hor i t i es ar e f r ee t o
‘ annex’ t he news medi a as ‘ an i nvest i gat i ve ar m of
gover nment . ’ ” J ust i ce Powel l concl uded t hat when
evi dence i s pr esent ed t o quest i on t he good f ai t h of a
r equest f or i nf or mat i on f r om t he pr ess, a “pr oper
bal ance” must be st r uck “bet ween f r eedom of t he pr ess
and t he obl i gat i on of al l ci t i zens t o gi ve r el evant
t est i mony wi t h r espect t o cr i mi nal conduct . ”
I d. at 853 ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng
Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 710 ( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) ) ; see i d.
( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. St eel hammer , 539 F. 2d 373, 376 ( 4t h
Ci r . 1976) ( Wi nt er , J . , di ssent i ng) , adopt ed by t he cour t en
29

banc, 561 F. 2d 539, 540 ( 4t h Ci r . 1977) ( per cur i am) ( not i ng
t hat “[ i ] n St eel hammer , we appl i ed Br anzbur g t o compel t est i mony
f r om t he pr ess i n a ci vi l cont empt t r i al , r ecogni zi ng t hat onl y
when evi dence of har assment i s pr esent ed do we bal ance t he
i nt er est s i nvol ved” ( emphasi s added) ) .
To t he ext ent our cour t has addr essed t he i ssue si nce
Shai n, we have cont i nued t o r ecogni ze t he i mpor t ant di st i nct i on
bet ween enf or ci ng subpoenas i ssued t o r epor t er s i n cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs and enf or ci ng subpoenas i ssued t o r epor t er s i n ci vi l
l i t i gat i on. Subpoenas i n cr i mi nal cases ar e dr i ven by t he qui t e
di f f er ent and compel l i ng publ i c i nt er est i n ef f ect i ve cr i mi nal
i nvest i gat i on and pr osecut i on, an i nt er est t hat si mpl y i s not
pr esent i n ci vi l cases. See Ashcr af t v. Conoco, I nc. , 218 F. 3d
282, 287 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( appl yi ng t he LaRouche t est t o
conf i dent i al sour ce i nf or mat i on i n t he ci vi l cont ext , but not i ng
Br anzbur g’ s “hol di ng t hat [ a] r epor t er , l i ke [ an] or di nar y
ci t i zen, must r espond t o gr and j ur y subpoenas and answer
quest i ons r el at ed t o cr i mi nal conduct he per sonal l y obser ved and
wr ot e about , r egar dl ess of any pr omi ses of conf i dent i al i t y he
gave t o subj ect s of st or i es” ( emphasi s added) ) .
Ther e i s good r eason f or t hi s di st i nct i on bet ween ci vi l and
cr i mi nal cases. I t has r oot s i n bot h t he maj or i t y and
concur r i ng opi ni ons i n Br anzbur g, bot h of whi ch hi ghl i ght t he
cr i t i cal i mpor t ance of cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs and t he r i ght t o
30

compel al l avai l abl e evi dence i n such mat t er s. As t he Cour t has
subsequent l y obser ved as wel l :
Th[ i s] di st i nct i on . . . bet ween cr i mi nal and
ci vi l pr oceedi ngs i s not j ust a mat t er of f or mal i sm. .
. . [ T] he need f or i nf or mat i on i n t he cr i mi nal
cont ext i s much wei ght i er because “our hi st or i c[ al ]
commi t ment t o t he r ul e of l aw . . . i s nowher e mor e
pr of oundl y mani f est t han i n our vi ew t hat ‘ t he t wof ol d
ai m [ of cr i mi nal j ust i ce] i s t hat gui l t shal l not
escape or i nnocence suf f er . ’ ” [ Uni t ed St at es v.
Ni xon, 418 U. S. 683, 708- 09 ( 1974) ] ( quot i ng Ber ger v.
Uni t ed St at es, 295 U. S. 78, 88 ( 1935) ) . I n l i ght of
t he “f undament al ” and “compr ehensi ve” need f or “ever y
man’ s evi dence” i n t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em, 418
U. S. at 709, 710, . . . pr i vi l ege cl ai ms t hat shi el d
i nf or mat i on f r om a gr and j ur y pr oceedi ng or a cr i mi nal
t r i al ar e not t o be “expansi vel y const r ued, f or t hey
ar e i n der ogat i on of t he sear ch f or t r ut h, ” i d. at
710. The need f or i nf or mat i on f or use i n ci vi l cases,
whi l e f ar f r om negl i gi bl e, does not shar e t he ur gency
or si gni f i cance of t he cr i mi nal subpoena r equest s i n
Ni xon. . . . [ T] he r i ght t o pr oduct i on of r el evant
evi dence i n ci vi l pr oceedi ngs does not have t he same
“const i t ut i onal di mensi ons. ” I d. at 711.
Cheney v. Uni t ed St at es Di st . Cour t f or t he Di st . of Col umbi a,
542 U. S. 367, 384 ( 2004) ( t hi r d al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ; see
al so J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1149; Smi t h, 135 F. 3d at 972.
3.
Li ke t he Br anzbur g r epor t er s, Ri sen has “di r ect i nf or mat i on
. . . concer ni ng t he commi ssi on of ser i ous cr i mes. ” Br anzbur g,
408 U. S. at 709. I ndeed, he can pr ovi de t he onl y f i r st - hand
account of t he commi ssi on of a most ser i ous cr i me i ndi ct ed by
t he gr and j ur y –- t he i l l egal di scl osur e of cl assi f i ed, nat i onal
secur i t y i nf or mat i on by one who was ent r ust ed by our gover nment
31

t o pr ot ect nat i onal secur i t y, but who i s char ged wi t h havi ng
endanger ed i t i nst ead. The subpoena f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony was
not i ssued i n bad f ai t h or f or t he pur poses of har assment . See
i d. at 707- 08; i d. at 709- 10 ( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) . Ri sen i s
not bei ng “cal l ed upon t o gi ve i nf or mat i on bear i ng onl y a r emot e
and t enuous r el at i onshi p t o t he subj ect of t he i nvest i gat i on, ”
and t her e i s no “r eason t o bel i eve t hat hi s t est i mony i mpl i cat es
conf i dent i al sour ce r el at i onshi ps wi t hout a l egi t i mat e need of
l aw enf or cement . ” I d. at 710 ( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) . Nor i s
t he gover nment at t empt i ng t o “annex” Ri sen as i t s “i nvest i gat i ve
ar m. ” I d. at 709 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Rat her ,
t he gover nment seeks t o compel evi dence t hat Ri sen al one
possesses - - evi dence t hat goes t o t he hear t of t he pr osecut i on.
The cont r ol l i ng maj or i t y opi ni on i n Br anzbur g and our
deci si on i n Shai n pr ecl ude Ri sen’ s cl ai m t o a Fi r st Amendment
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t hat woul d per mi t hi m t o r esi st t he
l egi t i mat e, good f ai t h subpoena i ssued t o hi m. The onl y
const i t ut i onal , t est i moni al pr i vi l ege t hat Ri sen was ent i t l ed t o
i nvoke was t he Fi f t h Amendment pr i vi l ege agai nst sel f -
i ncr i mi nat i on, but he has been gr ant ed i mmuni t y f r om pr osecut i on
f or hi s pot ent i al exposur e t o cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y. Accor di ngl y,
we r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s deci si on gr ant i ng Ri sen a
qual i f i ed Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t hat woul d shi el d
32

hi m f r om bei ng compel l ed t o t est i f y i n t hese cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs.
I I I . The Common- Law Pr i vi l ege Cl ai m
Ri sen next ar gues t hat , even i f Br anzbur g pr ohi bi t s our
r ecogni t i on of a Fi r st Amendment pr i vi l ege, we shoul d r ecogni ze
a qual i f i ed, f eder al common- l aw r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege pr ot ect i ng
conf i dent i al sour ces.
8
We decl i ne t o do so.
A.
I n t he cour se of r ej ect i ng t he Fi r st Amendment cl ai m i n
Br anzbur g, t he Supr eme Cour t al so pl ai nl y obser ved t hat t he
common l aw r ecogni zed no such t est i moni al pr i vi l ege:
I t i s t hus not sur pr i si ng t hat t he gr eat wei ght
of aut hor i t y i s t hat newsmen ar e not exempt f r om t he
nor mal dut y of appear i ng bef or e a gr and j ur y and
answer i ng quest i ons r el evant t o a cr i mi nal
i nvest i gat i on. At common l aw, cour t s consi st ent l y
r ef used t o r ecogni ze t he exi st ence of any pr i vi l ege
aut hor i zi ng a newsman t o r ef use t o r eveal conf i dent i al
i nf or mat i on t o a gr and j ur y.
Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 685; i d. at 693 ( “[ T] he evi dence f ai l s t o
demonst r at e t hat t her e woul d be a si gni f i cant const r i ct i on of
t he f l ow of news t o t he publ i c i f t hi s Cour t r eaf f i r ms t he pr i or
common- l aw and const i t ut i onal r ul e r egar di ng t he t est i moni al
obl i gat i ons of newsmen” ( emphasi s added) ) ; i d. at 698- 99 ( “[ T] he
common l aw r ecogni zed no such pr i vi l ege, and t he const i t ut i onal

8
The di st r i ct cour t , havi ng r ecogni zed a Fi r st Amendment
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, di d not addr ess Ri sen’ s cl ai m t o a common-
l aw pr i vi l ege. See St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d at 951 n. 3.
33

ar gument was not even asser t ed unt i l 1958”) ; Swi dl er & Ber l i n v.
Uni t ed St at es, 524 U. S. 399, 410 ( 1998) ( not i ng t hat “Br anzbur g
deal t wi t h t he cr eat i on of [ a] pr i vi l ege[ ] not r ecogni zed by t he
common l aw” ( emphasi s added) ) ; see al so J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d
at 1154 ( Sent el l e, J . , concur r i ng) ( Br anzbur g i s “as di sposi t i ve
of t he quest i on of common l aw pr i vi l ege as i t i s of a Fi r st
Amendment pr i vi l ege”) ; I n r e Speci al Pr oceedi ngs, 373 F. 3d 37,
44 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( Br anzbur g “f l at l y r ej ect ed any not i on of a
gener al - pur pose r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege f or conf i dent i al sour ces,
whet her by vi r t ue of t he Fi r st Amendment or a newl y hewn common-
l aw pr i vi l ege”) .
B.

Ri sen does not t ake i ssue wi t h t he cl ar i t y of Br anzbur g’ s
st at ement s r egar di ng t he st at e of t he common l aw. Rat her , he
ar gues t hat Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 501, as i nt er pr et ed by t he
Supr eme Cour t i n J af f ee v. Redmond, 518 U. S. 1 ( 1996) , gr ant s us
aut hor i t y t o r econsi der t he quest i on and now gr ant t he
pr i vi l ege. We di sagr ee.
Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 501, i n i t s cur r ent f or m, pr ovi des
t hat :
[ t ] he common l aw – as i nt er pr et ed by Uni t ed St at es
cour t s i n t he l i ght of r eason and exper i ence – gover ns
a cl ai m of pr i vi l ege unl ess [ t he Uni t ed St at es
Const i t ut i on, a f eder al st at ut e, or t he r ul es
pr escr i bed by t he Supr eme Cour t ] pr ovi de[ ] ot her wi se.
Fed. R. Evi d. 501 ( emphasi s added) .
34

Congr essi onal enact ment of Rul e 501 post dat es Br anzbur g,
but t he Rul e ef f ect i vel y l ef t our aut hor i t y t o r ecogni ze common-
l aw pr i vi l eges i n st at us quo. The Rul e i mpl ement ed t he
pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed aut hor i t y of f eder al cour t s t o consi der
common- l aw pr i vi l eges “‘ i n t he l i ght of r eason and exper i ence. ’ ”
J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 8 ( f oot not e omi t t ed) . “The aut hor s of t he
Rul e bor r owed t h[ e] phr ase f r om[ t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s] opi ni on i n
Wol f l e v. Uni t ed St at es, 291 U. S. 7, 12 ( 1934) , whi ch i n t ur n
r ef er r ed t o t he of t - r epeat ed obser vat i on t hat ‘ t he common l aw i s
not i mmut abl e but f l exi bl e, and by i t s own pr i nci pl es adapt s
i t sel f t o var yi ng condi t i ons. ’ ” J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 8 ( f oot not e
omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Funk v. Uni t ed St at es, 290 U. S. 371, 383
( 1933) ) .
I ndeed, Rul e 501 seems t o be mor e not abl e f or what i t
f ai l ed t o do, t han f or what i t di d. The pr oposed Rul es
or i gi nal l y “def i ned [ ni ne] speci f i c nonconst i t ut i onal pr i vi l eges
whi ch t he f eder al cour t s [ woul d have been compel l ed t o]
r ecogni ze ( i . e. r equi r ed r epor t s, l awyer - cl i ent ,
psychot her api st - pat i ent , husband- wi f e, communi cat i ons t o
cl er gymen, pol i t i cal vot e, t r ade secr et s, secr et s of st at e and
ot her of f i ci al i nf or mat i on, and i dent i t y of i nf or mer ) ” and
“pr ovi ded t hat onl y t hose pr i vi l eges set f or t h [ t her ei n] or i n
some ot her Act of Congr ess coul d be r ecogni zed by t he f eder al
cour t s. ” Fed. R. Evi d. 501 advi sor y commi t t ee’ s not e; see al so
35

J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 8 n. 7 Thi s excl usi ve l i st of enumer at ed
pr i vi l eges was ul t i mat el y r ej ect ed. I nst ead, Congr ess “l ef t t he
l aw of pr i vi l eges i n i t s pr esent st at e and f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat
pr i vi l eges shal l cont i nue t o be devel oped by t he cour t s of t he
Uni t ed St at es under ” t he “r eason and exper i ence” st andar d. Fed.
R. Evi d. 501 advi sor y commi t t ee’ s not e.
Si nce enact ment of Rul e 501, t he Supr eme Cour t has t wi ce
not ed t hat , whi l e not di sposi t i ve of t he quest i on of whet her a
cour t shoul d r ecogni ze a new pr i vi l ege, t he enumer at ed
pr i vi l eges pr oposed f or i ncl usi on i n Rul e 501 wer e “t hought t o
be ei t her i ndel i bl y ensconced i n our common l aw or an i mper at i ve
of f eder al i sm. ” Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l l ock, 445 U. S. 360, 368
( 1980) ( decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze under Rul e 501 a l egi sl at i ve
pr i vi l ege f or st at e l egi sl at or s i n a f eder al , cr i mi nal
pr osecut i on, i n par t , because i t was not one of t he ni ne
enumer at ed pr i vi l eges r ecommended by t he Advi sor y Commi t t ee) ;
see al so J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 15 ( not i ng t hat , unl i ke i n Gi l l ock,
t he i ncl usi on of t he psychot her api st - pat i ent pr i vi l ege was one
of t he ni ne, and suppor t ed t he Cour t ’ s adopt i on of t he pr i vi l ege
under Rul e 501) . Not abl y absent f r om t he ni ne enumer at ed
pr i vi l eges was one f or a r epor t er - sour ce r el at i onshi p.
I n J af f ee, t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed a psychot her api st -
pat i ent pr i vi l ege pr ot ect i ng pr i vat e communi cat i ons t hat t ook
pl ace dur i ng counsel i ng sessi ons bet ween a pol i ce of f i cer and a
36

l i censed cl i ni cal soci al wor ker f ol l owi ng a f at al shoot i ng.
Appl yi ng Rul e 501, t he Cour t wei ghed t he compet i ng i nt er est s and
concl uded t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng evi dence of
t he conf i dent i al communi cat i ons i n t he ensui ng excessi ve- f or ce
act i on was out wei ghed by t he pat i ent ’ s pr i vat e i nt er est i n
mai nt ai ni ng conf i dence and t r ust wi t h hi s ment al heal t h pr ovi der
and t he publ i c’ s i nt er est i n pr ot ect i ng t hat pr i vacy i n or der t o
“f aci l i t at [ e] t he pr ovi si on of appr opr i at e t r eat ment f or
i ndi vi dual s suf f er i ng t he ef f ect s of a ment al or emot i onal
pr obl em. ” I d. at 11. As not ed above, t he Cour t al so r el i ed, i n
par t , upon t he f act t hat a psychot her api st - pat i ent pr i vi l ege was
one of t he ni ne, enumer at ed pr i vi l eges consi der ed when Rul e 501
was adopt ed and had f ound near unani mous suppor t i n st at e l aws
as wel l .
Cont r ar y t o Ri sen’ s cl ai m on appeal , Rul e 501 and t he
Supr eme Cour t ’ s use of i t t o r ecogni ze a psychot her api st - pat i ent
pr i vi l ege i n J af f ee does not aut hor i ze us t o i gnor e Br anzbur g or
suppor t our r ecogni t i on of a common- l aw r epor t er - sour ce
pr i vi l ege t oday.
Cl ear l y, nei t her Rul e 501 nor J af f ee over r ul es Br anzbur g or
under mi nes i t s r easoni ng. See I n r e Scar ce, 5 F. 3d at 403 n. 3
( “We di scer n not hi ng i n t he t ext of Rul e 501 . . . t hat
37

sanct i ons t he cr eat i on of pr i vi l eges by f eder al cour t s i n
cont r adi ct i on of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s mandat e” i n Br anzbur g. ) .
9

“I n r ej ect i ng t he pr oposed Rul es and enact i ng Rul e 501,
Congr ess mani f est ed an af f i r mat i ve i nt ent i on not t o f r eeze t he
l aw of pr i vi l ege, ” but “r at her . . . t o pr ovi de t he cour t s wi t h
t he f l exi bi l i t y t o devel op r ul es of pr i vi l ege on a case- by- case
basi s. ” Tr ammel v. Uni t ed St at es, 445 U. S. 40, 47 ( 1980)
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.
Weber Ai r cr af t Cor p. , 465 U. S. 792, 803 n. 25 ( 1984) ( “Rul e 501
was adopt ed pr eci sel y because Congr ess wi shed t o l eave pr i vi l ege
quest i ons t o t he cour t s r at her t han at t empt t o codi f y t hem. ”) ;
Uni t ed St at es v. Dunf or d, 148 F. 3d 385, 390- 91 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998)
( same) . Rul e 501 t hus l eaves t he door open f or cour t s t o adopt
new common- l aw pr i vi l eges, and modi f y exi st i ng ones, i n

9
Ri sen’ s r el i ance upon our deci si on i n St eel hammer , 539
F. 2d at 377- 78 ( Wi nt er , J . , di ssent i ng) , adopt ed by t he cour t en
banc, 561 F. 2d at 540, al so does not avai l hi m. I n t he panel
deci si on i n St eel hammer , J udge Wi nt er st at ed, i n a f oot not e i n
hi s di ssent i ng opi ni on, hi s vi ew t hat r epor t er s “shoul d be
af f or ded a common l aw pr i vi l ege [ under Rul e 501] not t o t est i f y
i n ci vi l l i t i gat i on bet ween pr i vat e par t i es, ” but decl i ned t o
“pr ol ong t h[ e] opi ni on by devel opi ng t h[ e] poi nt . ” St eel hammer ,
539 F. 2d at 377 n. * ( Wi nt er , J . , di ssent i ng) . Gi ven t he odd
manner i n whi ch t he en banc cour t deci ded t he case, i t i s
di f f i cul t t o di scer n what i f any pr ecedent i al ef f ect r emai ns,
par t i cul ar l y si nce Br anzbur g di d not pr ecl ude r ecogni t i on of a
Fi r st Amendment pr i vi l ege i n t he ci vi l cont ext and we r ecogni zed
one and adopt ed t he t hr ee- par t t est i n LaRouche. I n any event ,
we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat J udge Wi nt er ’ s undevel oped di ct a has no
ef f ect one way or t he ot her on t he Fi r st Amendment or common- l aw
i ssues bef or e us t oday.
38

appr opr i at e cases. But not hi ng i n Rul e 501 or i t s l egi sl at i ve
hi st or y aut hor i zes f eder al cour t s t o i gnor e exi st i ng Supr eme
Cour t pr ecedent .
Even i f we wer e t o bel i eve t hat J af f ee si gnal s t hat t he
Supr eme Cour t mi ght r ul e di f f er ent l y on t he exi st ence of a
common- l aw r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t oday, we ar e not at l i ber t y t o
t ake t hat cr i t i cal st ep. See Rodr i guez de Qui j as v.
Shear son/ Am. Expr ess, I nc. , 490 U. S. 477, 484 ( 1989) ( “I f a
pr ecedent of t hi s Cour t has di r ect appl i cat i on i n a case, yet
appear s t o r est on r easons r ej ect ed i n some ot her l i ne of
deci si ons, t he Cour t of Appeal s shoul d f ol l ow t he case whi ch
di r ect l y cont r ol s, l eavi ng t o t hi s Cour t t he pr er ogat i ve of
over r ul i ng i t s own deci si ons. ”) . Under Ri sen’ s vi ew of Rul e 501
and J af f ee, i nf er i or f eder al cour t s woul d be at l i ber t y t o
r econsi der common- l aw pr i vi l eges t hat have been r ej ect ed by t he
Supr eme Cour t , based upon t he passage of t i me. Rul e 501 does
not sanct i on such aut hor i t y on our par t .
Her e, “[ t ] he Supr eme Cour t has r ej ect ed a common l aw
pr i vi l ege f or r epor t er s” and “t hat r ej ect i on st ands unl ess and
unt i l t he Supr eme cour t i t sel f over r ul es t hat par t of
Br anzbur g. ” J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1155 ( Sent el l e, J . ,
concur r i ng) . J ust as t he Supr eme Cour t must det er mi ne whet her a
Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege shoul d exi st , see J udi t h
Mi l l er , 438 U. S. at 1166 ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) , “onl y t he
39

[ Supr eme Cour t ] and not t hi s one . . . may act upon t h[ e]
ar gument ” t hat a f eder al common- l aw pr i vi l ege shoul d now be
r ecogni zed under Rul e 501, i d. at 1155 n. 3 ( Sent el l e, J . ,
concur r i ng) .
C.

Even i f we wer e at l i ber t y t o r econsi der t he exi st ence of a
common- l aw r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege under Rul e 501, we woul d decl i ne
t o do so.
As t he Supr eme Cour t made cl ear i n J af f ee, t he f eder al
cour t s’ l at i t ude f or adopt i ng evi dent i ar y pr i vi l eges under Rul e
501 r emai ns qui t e nar r ow i ndeed. Because t hey “cont r avene t he
f undament al pr i nci pl e t hat t he publ i c has a r i ght t o ever y man’ s
evi dence, ” Uni ver si t y of Pa. , 493 U. S. at 189 ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) , such pr i vi l eges “ar e
not l i ght l y cr eat ed nor expansi vel y const r ued, f or t hey ar e i n
der ogat i on of t he sear ch f or t r ut h, ” Ni xon, 418 U. S. at 710.
“When consi der i ng whet her t o r ecogni ze a pr i vi l ege, a cour t must
begi n wi t h ‘ t he pr i mar y assumpt i on t hat t her e i s a gener al dut y
t o gi ve what t est i mony one i s capabl e of gi vi ng, and t hat any
exempt i ons whi ch may exi st ar e di st i nct l y except i onal , bei ng so
many der ogat i ons f r om a posi t i ve gener al r ul e. ” Vi r mani v.
Novant Heal t h I nc. , 259 F. 3d 284, 287 ( 4t h Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng
J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 9) . New or expanded pr i vi l eges “may be
r ecogni zed ‘ onl y t o t he ver y l i mi t ed ext ent t hat per mi t t i ng a
40

r ef usal t o t est i f y or excl udi ng r el evant evi dence has a publ i c
good t r anscendi ng t he nor mal l y pr edomi nant pr i nci pl e of
ut i l i zi ng al l r at i onal means f or ascer t ai ni ng t r ut h. ’ ” Dunf or d,
148 F. 3d at 391 ( quot i ng Tr ammel , 445 U. S. at 50) .
Ri sen cont ends t hat t he publ i c and pr i vat e i nt er est s i n
r ecogni zi ng a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege “ar e sur el y as gr eat as t he
si gni f i cant publ i c i nt er est at st ake i n pat i ent and
psychot her api st communi cat i on. ” Ri sen’ s Br i ef at 50. But we
see sever al cr i t i cal di st i nct i ons.
1.
Fi r st , unl i ke i n t he case of t he spousal , at t or ney- cl i ent ,
and psychot her api st - pat i ent pr i vi l eges t hat have been
r ecogni zed, t he r epor t er - sour ce pr i vi l ege does not shar e t he
same r el at i onal pr i vacy i nt er est s or ul t i mat e goal . The
r ecogni zed pr i vi l eges pr omot e t he publ i c’ s i nt er est i n f ul l and
f r ank communi cat i ons bet ween per sons i n speci al r el at i onshi ps by
pr ot ect i ng t he conf i dent i al i t y of t hei r pr i vat e communi cat i ons.
J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 10. A r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege mi ght al so
pr omot e f r ee and f ul l di scussi on bet ween a r epor t er and hi s
sour ce, but Ri sen does not seek t o pr ot ect f r om publ i c
di scl osur e t he “conf i dent i al communi cat i ons” made t o hi m. I d.
Ri sen publ i shed i nf or mat i on conveyed t o hi m by hi s sour ce or
sour ces. Hi s pr i mar y goal i s t o pr ot ect t he i dent i t y of t he
per son or per sons who communi cat ed wi t h hi m because t hei r
41

communi cat i ons vi ol at ed f eder al , cr i mi nal l aws. See e. g. , 1
McCor mi ck on Evi dence § 72 n. 7 ( Kennet h S. Br oun ed. , 7t h ed.
2013) ( r equi r i ng f or al l pr i vi l eges t hat “[ t ] he communi cat i ons
must or i gi nat e i n a conf i dence t hat t hey wi l l not be di scl osed”
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . I n sum, beyond t he shar ed
compl ai nt t hat communi cat i ons mi ght be chi l l ed i n t he absence of
a t est i moni al pr i vi l ege, Ri sen’ s pr of f er ed r at i onal e f or
pr ot ect i ng hi s sour ces shar es l i t t l e i n common wi t h t he
pr i vi l eges hi st or i cal l y r ecogni zed i n t he common l aw and
devel oped under Rul e 501.
10

We ar e al so mi ndf ul t hat t he Cour t i n Br anzbur g consi der ed
and was unper suaded by a vi r t ual l y i dent i cal ar gument t hat a
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege was necessar y t o pr event a chi l l i ng ef f ect
on newsgat her i ng.
We ar e admoni shed t hat r ef usal t o pr ovi de a Fi r st
Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege wi l l under mi ne t he
f r eedom of t he pr ess t o col l ect and di ssemi nat e news.
But t hi s i s not t he l esson hi st or y t eaches us. As
not ed pr evi ousl y, t he common l aw r ecogni zed no such
pr i vi l ege, and t he const i t ut i onal ar gument was not

10
Thi s i mpor t ant di st i nct i on was al so not l ost on t he
Br anzbur g di ssent . I n t he cont ext of advocat i ng a Fi r st
Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, t he di ssent al so not ed t he
“l ongst andi ng pr esumpt i on agai nst cr eat i on of common- l aw
t est i moni al pr i vi l eges, ” but di st i ngui shed common- l aw pr i vi l eges
f r om t he const i t ut i onal one sought because t he f or mer ar e
“gr ounded i n an i ndi vi dual i nt er est whi ch has been f ound . . .
t o out wei gh t he publ i c i nt er est i n t he sear ch f or t r ut h r at her
t han i n t he br oad publ i c concer ns t hat i nf or m t he Fi r st
Amendment . ” See Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 738 n. 24 ( St ewar t ,
di ssent i ng) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
42

even asser t ed unt i l 1958. Fr om t he begi nni ng of our
count r y t he pr ess has oper at ed wi t hout const i t ut i onal
pr ot ect i on f or pr ess i nf or mant s, and t he pr ess has
f l our i shed. The exi st i ng const i t ut i onal r ul es have
not been a ser i ous obst acl e t o ei t her t he devel opment
or r et ent i on of conf i dent i al news sour ces by t he
pr ess.
I d. at 698- 99; see al so i d. at 693 ( “[ T] he evi dence f ai l s t o
demonst r at e t hat t her e woul d be a si gni f i cant const r i ct i on of
t he f l ow of news t o t he publ i c i f t hi s Cour t r eaf f i r ms t he pr i or
common- l aw and const i t ut i onal r ul e r egar di ng t he t est i moni al
obl i gat i ons of newsmen. ”) .
Br anzbur g al so wei ghed t he publ i c i nt er est i n newsgat her i ng
agai nst t he publ i c’ s i nt er est i n enf or ci ng i t s cr i mi nal l aws:
Mor e i mpor t ant , i t i s obvi ous t hat agr eement s t o
conceal i nf or mat i on r el evant t o commi ssi on of cr i me
have ver y l i t t l e t o r ecommend t hem f r om t he st andpoi nt
of publ i c pol i cy. Hi st or i cal l y, t he common l aw
r ecogni zed a dut y t o r ai se t he “hue and cr y” and
r epor t f el oni es t o t he aut hor i t i es. Mi spr i son of a
f el ony – t hat i s, t he conceal ment of a f el ony “whi ch a
man knows, but never assent ed t o . . . [ so as t o
become] ei t her pr i nci pal or accessor y, ” 4 W.
Bl ackst one, Comment ar i es, was of t en sai d t o be a
common- l aw cr i me. . . . I t i s appar ent f r om [ t he
f eder al st at ut e def i ni ng t he cr i me of mi spr i son] , as
wel l as f r om our hi st or y and t hat of Engl and, t hat
conceal ment of cr i me and agr eement s t o do so ar e not
l ooked upon wi t h f avor . Such conduct deser ves no
encomi um, and we decl i ne now t o af f or d i t Fi r st
Amendment pr ot ect i on . . . .
I d. at 695- 97; see al so i d. at 695 ( “Accept i ng t he f act ,
however , t hat an undet er mi ned number of i nf or mant s not
t hemsel ves i mpl i cat ed i n cr i me wi l l never t hel ess, f or what ever
r eason, r ef use t o t al k t o newsmen i f t hey f ear i dent i f i cat i on by
43

a r epor t er i n an of f i ci al i nvest i gat i on, we cannot accept t he
ar gument t hat t he publ i c i nt er est i n possi bl e f ut ur e news about
cr i me f r om undi scl osed, unver i f i ed sour ces must t ake pr ecedence
over t he publ i c i nt er est i n pur sui ng and pr osecut i ng t hose
cr i mes r epor t ed t o t he pr ess by i nf or mant s and i n t hus det er r i ng
t he commi ssi on of such cr i mes i n t he f ut ur e. ”) .
We f ai l t o see how t hese pol i cy consi der at i ons woul d di f f er
i n a Rul e 501 anal ysi s. Unl i ke t he i ndi vi dual pr i vacy i nt er est s
i n conf i dent i al communi cat i ons shar ed by t hose pr ot ect ed by a
common- l aw pr i vi l ege, “[ t ] he pr ef er ence f or anonymi t y of t hose
conf i dent i al i nf or mant s i nvol ved i n act ual cr i mi nal conduct . .
. , whi l e under st andabl e, i s har dl y deser vi ng of const i t ut i onal
pr ot ect i on. ” I d. at 691. The pr ef er ence i s equal l y undeser vi ng
of pr ot ect i on under t he common l aw. I ndeed, even t hose common-
l aw pr i vi l eges t hat do pr ot ect conf i dent i al communi cat i ons
bet ween per sons i n speci al r el at i onshi ps have yi el ded wher e t he
communi cat i on f ur t her s or shi el ds ongoi ng cr i mi nal act i vi t y.
See Uni t ed St at es v. Zol i n, 491 U. S. 554, 562- 63 ( 1989) ( “The
at t or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege must necessar i l y pr ot ect t he
conf i dences of wr ongdoer s, but t he r eason f or t hat pr ot ect i on –
t he cent r al i t y of open cl i ent and at t or ney communi cat i on t o t he
pr oper f unct i oni ng of our adver sar y syst em of j ust i ce – ceases
t o oper at e at a cer t ai n poi nt , namel y, wher e t he desi r ed advi ce
r ef er s not t o pr i or wr ongdoi ng, but t o f ut ur e wr ongdoi ng”)
44

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Cl ar k v. Uni t ed St at es, 289
U. S. 1, 15 ( 1933) ( “A cl i ent who consul t s an at t or ney f or advi ce
t hat wi l l ser ve hi m i n t he commi ssi on of a f r aud wi l l have no
hel p f r om t he l aw. He must l et t he t r ut h be t ol d. ”) ; Dunf or d,
148 F. 3d at 391 ( decl i ni ng t o deci de whet her par ent - mi nor chi l d
t est i moni al pr i vi l ege exi st s i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs because,
“even i f such a pr i vi l ege wer e t o be r ecogni zed, i t woul d have
t o be nar r owl y def i ned and woul d have obvi ous l i mi t s, . . . such
as wher e . . . ongoi ng cr i mi nal act i vi t y woul d be shi el ded by
asser t i on of t he pr i vi l ege”) .
J ust as t he Fi r st Amendment and t he common- l aw at t or ney-
cl i ent pr i vi l ege do not “conf er [ ] a l i cense . . t o vi ol at e val i d
cr i mi nal l aws, ” Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 691, t he common l aw woul d
not ext end so f ar as t o pr ot ect i l l egal communi cat i ons t hat t ook
pl ace bet ween Ri sen and hi s sour ce or sour ces i n vi ol at i on of
t he Espi onage Act .
2.
Ri sen’ s r el i ance upon st at e st at ut es and deci si ons t hat
have adopt ed a r epor t er ’ s shi el d al so f ai l s t o per suade us t hat
we can or shoul d cr eat e a f eder al common- l aw pr i vi l ege.
At t he t i me of Br anzbur g, “[ a] number of St at es ha[ d]
pr ovi ded newsmen a st at ut or y pr i vi l ege of var yi ng br eadt h. ” I d.
at 689. And, as Ri sen ar gues, near l y al l of t he r emai ni ng
st at es have si nce “r ecogni zed a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n one
45

cont ext or anot her . ” Ri sen’ s Br i ef at 55. Gener al l y speaki ng,
such “pol i cy deci si ons of t he St at es bear on t he quest i on
whet her f eder al cour t s shoul d r ecogni ze a new pr i vi l ege or amend
t he cover age of an exi st i ng one. ” J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 12- 13.
However , t her e i s st i l l no “uni f or m j udgment of t he St at es” on
t he i ssue of a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege or shi el d, nor was t he
pr i vi l ege “among t he ni ne speci f i c pr i vi l eges r ecommended by t he
Advi sor y Commi t t ee i n i t s pr oposed pr i vi l ege r ul es. ” I d. at 14.
I f anyt hi ng, t he var yi ng act i ons of t he st at es i n t hi s ar ea onl y
r ei nf or ces Br anzbur g’ s obser vat i on t hat j udi ci al l y cr eat ed
pr i vi l eges i n t hi s ar ea “woul d pr esent pr act i cal and concept ual
di f f i cul t i es of a hi gh or der , ” Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 704, t hat
ar e best deal t wi t h i nst ead by l egi sl at ur es of t he st at e and
f eder al gover nment s. As t he Cour t not ed i n Br anzbur g:
At t he f eder al l evel , Congr ess has f r eedom t o
det er mi ne whet her a st at ut or y newsman’ s pr i vi l ege i s
necessar y and desi r abl e and t o f ashi on st andar ds and
r ul es as nar r ow or br oad as deemed necessar y t o deal
wi t h t he evi l di scer ned and, equal l y i mpor t ant , t o
r ef ashi on t hose r ul es as exper i ence f r om t i me t o t i me
may di ct at e. Ther e i s al so mer i t i n l eavi ng st at e
l egi sl at ur es f r ee, wi t hi n Fi r st Amendment l i mi t s, t o
f ashi on t hei r own st andar ds i n l i ght of t he condi t i ons
and pr obl ems wi t h r espect t o t he r el at i ons bet ween l aw
enf or cement of f i ci al s and pr ess i n t hei r own ar eas. I t
goes wi t hout sayi ng, of cour se, t hat we ar e power l ess
t o bar st at e cour t s f r om r espondi ng i n t hei r own way
and const r ui ng t hei r own const i t ut i ons so as t o
r ecogni ze a newsman' s pr i vi l ege, ei t her qual i f i ed or
absol ut e.
46

I d. at 706; cf . J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1161 ( Hender son, J . ,
concur r i ng) ( not i ng t hat cour t s “shoul d pr oceed as caut i ousl y as
possi bl e when er ect i ng bar r i er s bet ween us and t he t r ut h,
r ecogni zi ng t hat t he Legi sl at ur e r emai ns t he mor e appr opr i at e
i nst i t ut i on t o r econci l e t he compet i ng i nt er est s – pr osecut i ng
cr i mi nal act s ver sus const r uct i ng t he f l ow of i nf or mat i on t o t he
publ i c – t hat i nf or m any r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t o wi t hhol d
r el evant i nf or mat i on f r om a bona f i de gr and j ur y” ( ci t at i on and
i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .
The Br anzbur g Cour t ’ s obser vat i ons r egar di ng t he pr act i cal
di f f i cul t i es of def i ni ng and managi ng a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege,
and i t s “unwi l l i ng[ ness] t o embar k t he j udi ci ar y on a l ong and
di f f i cul t j our ney t o such an uncer t ai n dest i nat i on, ” Br anzbur g,
408 U. S. at 703, ar e wel l - t aken, and we see not hi ng i n “r eason
[ or ] exper i ence” t hat woul d l ead us t o a cont r ar y vi ew t oday,
Fed. Rul e Evi d. 501. Si nce Br anzbur g, addi t i onal st at e
l egi sl at ur es have exer ci sed t hei r “f r ee[ dom] , wi t hi n Fi r st
Amendment l i mi t s, t o f ashi on t hei r own st andar ds i n l i ght of t he
condi t i ons and pr obl ems wi t h r espect t o t he r el at i ons bet ween
l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s and pr ess i n t hei r own ar eas. ”
Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 706. Despi t e cont i nued ef f or t s, however ,
Congr ess has st i l l not pr ovi ded a r epor t er ’ s shi el d by f eder al
st at ut e. See i d. at 689 & n. 28 ( not i ng t he ear l i er f eder al
l egi sl at i ve at t empt s t o pr ovi de a pr i vi l ege) .
47

We decl i ne t he i nvi t at i on t o st ep i n now and cr eat e a
t est i moni al pr i vi l ege under common l aw t hat t he Supr eme Cour t
has sai d does not exi st and t hat Congr ess has consi der ed and
f ai l ed t o pr ovi de l egi sl at i vel y. I f Ri sen i s t o be pr ot ect ed
f r om bei ng compel l ed t o t est i f y and gi ve what evi dence of cr i me
he possesses, i n cont r avent i on of ever y ci t i zen’ s dut y t o do so,
we bel i eve t hat deci si on shoul d r est wi t h t he Supr eme Cour t ,
whi ch can r evi si t Br anzbur g and t he pol i cy ar gument s i t
r ej ect ed, or wi t h Congr ess, whi ch can mor e ef f ect i vel y and
compr ehensi vel y wei gh t he pol i cy ar gument s f or and agai nst
adopt i ng a pr i vi l ege and def i ne i t s scope.
I V. The LaRouche Test
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we hol d t hat t her e i s no Fi r st
Amendment or f eder al common- l aw pr i vi l ege t hat pr ot ect s Ri sen
f r om havi ng t o r espond t o t he gover nment ’ s subpoena and gi ve
what evi dence he has of t he cr i mi nal conduct at i ssue. We not e,
however , t hat even i f we wer e t o r ecogni ze a qual i f i ed
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege and appl y t he t hr ee- par t LaRouche t est t o
t he i nqui r y, as t he di st r i ct cour t di d, we woul d st i l l r ever se.
I n LaRouche, we r ecogni zed a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n ci vi l
cases t hat can be over come i f ( 1) t he i nf or mat i on i s r el evant ,
( 2) t he i nf or mat i on cannot be obt ai ned by al t er nat i ve means, and
( 3) t her e i s a compel l i ng i nt er est i n t he i nf or mat i on.
48

LaRouche, 780 F. 2d at 1139. Her e, t he gover nment has met al l
t hr ee pr ongs.
A.
Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t he i nf or mat i on sought f r om Ri sen
i s r el evant . Mor eover , i t “can[ not ] be obt ai ned by al t er nat i ve
means. ” I d. at 1139. The ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat t he
gover nment has been abl e t o gl ean f r om i ncompl et e and
i nconcl usi ve document s, and f r om t he hear say st at ement s of
wi t nesses wi t h no per sonal or f i r st - hand knowl edge of t he
cr i t i cal aspect s of t he char ged cr i mes, does not ser ve as a f ai r
or r easonabl e subst i t ut e.
1.
The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he gover nment had f ai l ed t o
est abl i sh t he second f act or of t he LaRouche t est because i t has
successf ul l y obt ai ned subst ant i al ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat
St er l i ng i s t he sour ce of t he i l l egal l y- di scl osed i nf or mat i on.
Fundament al l y, t he hol di ng appear s t o be gr ounded i n t he pr emi se
t hat ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of gui l t shoul d ser ve as an
adequat e subst i t ut e f or a di r ect , f i r st - hand account of t he
cr i me because “‘ ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s no l ess pr obat i ve
t han di r ect evi dence. ’ ” St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d at 956
( quot i ng St amper v. Munci e, 944 F. 2d 170, 174 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) ) .
Because t he di st r i ct cour t bel i eved t hat t he gover nment has
uncover ed subst ant i al ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat St er l i ng i s
49

gui l t y, t he cour t ’ s r ul i ng depr i ves t he j ur y of t he best and
onl y di r ect evi dence t hat suppor t s t he pr osecut i on of t hi s
cr i me.
I t i s t r ue, of cour se, t hat a def endant cannot or di nar i l y
over t ur n a convi ct i on based sol el y upon t he cl ai m t hat t he j ur y
had onl y ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o consi der . See Uni t ed St at es
v. Bonner , 648 F. 3d 209, 213 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ; St amper , 944 F. 2d
at 174. But t hi s does not mean t hat ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of
a f act pr esent ed t o a j ur y wi l l al ways be as convi nci ng as
di r ect evi dence of i t , par t i cul ar l y wher e t he i dent i t y of t he
per pet r at or i s cont est ed. See Bonner , 648 F. 3d at 214
( r ever si ng convi ct i on because “[ w] hi l e i t i s possi bl e t o convi ct
a def endant sol el y on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, i n cases wher e
t he i dent i t y of t he per pet r at or i s i n di sput e, usual l y t her e i s
some speci f i c ‘ i dent i t y’ evi dence or uncont r over t ed physi cal
evi dence t hat l i nks t he def endant t o t he scene of t he cr i me”) .
Nor i s i t l i kel y t hat a j ur y, char ged wi t h f i ndi ng gui l t beyond
a r easonabl e doubt , woul d equat e ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of t he
cr uci al f act s wi t h t he di r ect t est i mony of t he onl y wi t ness wi t h
f i r st - hand knowl edge of t hem. The nat ur e and st r engt h of t he
evi dence i s ver y di f f er ent . See 1 McCor mi ck on Evi dence § 185
( Kennet h S. Br oun ed. , 7t h ed. 2013) ( “Di r ect evi dence i s
evi dence whi ch, i f bel i eved, r esol ves a mat t er i n i ssue.
Ci r cumst ant i al evi dence al so may be t est i moni al , but even i f t he
50

ci r cumst ances depi ct ed ar e accept ed as t r ue, addi t i onal
r easoni ng i s r equi r ed t o r each t he desi r ed concl usi on. ”
( f oot not e omi t t ed) ) .
As t he gover nment cor r ect l y poi nt s out , “no ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence, or combi nat i on t her eof , i s as pr obat i ve as Ri sen’ s
t est i mony or as cer t ai n t o f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y of
r easonabl e doubt . ” Gover nment ’ s Br i ef at 14. See, e. g. , New
Yor k Ti mes Co. v. Gonzal es, 459 F. 3d 160, 170 ( 2d Ci r . 2006)
( “[ A] s t he r eci pi ent s of t he di scl osur es, [ t he r epor t er s] ar e
t he onl y wi t nesses –- ot her t han t he sour ce( s) –- avai l abl e t o
i dent i f y t he conver sat i ons i n quest i on and t o descr i be t he
ci r cumst ances of t he l eaks. . . . Ther e i s si mpl y no subst i t ut e
f or t he evi dence t hey have. ”) ; J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1181
( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) ( not i ng t hat whi l e “speci al counsel
appear s al r eady t o have at l east ci r cumst ant i al gr ounds f or a
per j ur y char ge, i f not hi ng el se[ , ] [ t he r epor t er ’ s] t est i mony .
. . coul d set t l e t he mat t er ”) . Ri sen i s t he onl y eyewi t ness t o
t he cr i me. He i s i next r i cabl y i nvol ved i n i t . Wi t hout hi m, t he
al l eged cr i me woul d not have occur r ed, si nce he was t he
r eci pi ent of i l l egal l y- di scl osed, cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on. And
i t was t hr ough t he publ i cat i on of hi s book, St at e of War , t hat
t he cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on made i t s way i nt o t he publ i c domai n.
He i s t he onl y wi t ness who can speci f y t he cl assi f i ed
51

i nf or mat i on t hat he r ecei ved, and t he sour ce or sour ces f r om
whomhe r ecei ved i t .
I n any event , t he LaRouche t est does not ask whet her t her e
i s ot her evi dence, ci r cumst ant i al or di r ect , t hat t he gover nment
mi ght r el y upon as a subst i t ut e t o pr ove gui l t ; i t asks “whet her
t he i nf or mat i on [ sought f r om t he r epor t er ] can be obt ai ned by
al t er nat i ve means. ” LaRouche, 780 F. 2d at 1139 ( emphasi s
added) . Cl ear l y, i t cannot be. Ther e ar e no ot her wi t nesses
who can of f er t hi s t est i mony, nor i s i t f ound i n any ot her f or m
of evi dence. Cf . Gonzal es, 459 F. 3d at 172 n. 5 ( not i ng t hat
such ci r cumst ances do not f al l wi t hi n “t he par adi gmat i c case
wher e a newsper son i s one of many wi t nesses t o an event and t he
act i ons and st at e of mi nd of t he newsper son ar e not i n i ssue”) .
Ot her t han St er l i ng hi msel f , Ri sen i s t he onl y wi t ness who can
i dent i f y St er l i ng as a sour ce ( or not ) of t he i l l egal l eak.
2.
Even i f ci r cumst ant i al evi dence coul d ser ve as a r easonabl e
al t er nat i ve t o di r ect evi dence, t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i n
t hi s case does not possess t he st r engt h t he di st r i ct cour t
ascr i bes t o i t - - par t i cul ar l y when one r emember s t he
pr osecut i on’ s hi gh bur den of pr oof .
St er l i ng was not t he onl y CI A agent i nvol ved i n Cl assi f i ed
Pr ogr amNo. 1. Mor eover , St er l i ng met wi t h st af f member s of t he
SSCI t o voi ce compl ai nt s about t he pr ogr amnot mor e t han a mont h
52

bef or e t he gover nment l ear ned t hat Ri sen had t he cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on, and St er l i ng cl ai ms t o be i n possessi on of evi dence
t hat an SSCI empl oyee was i mpl i cat ed i n a pr evi ous unaut hor i zed
di scl osur e of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t hat made i t s way t o
Ri sen.
11

Dur i ng t hese pr oceedi ngs, St er l i ng has of t en r epr esent ed
t hat he i nt ends t o poi nt hi s f i nger at t hese t hi r d par t i es as
t he sour ce of t he l eak.
12
The di st r i ct cour t ’ s r ul i ng, however ,
woul d r equi r e t he gover nment t o compel t he t est i mony of ever y
ot her possi bl e sour ce, sour ces who coul d do l i t t l e mor e t han
asser t t hei r own pr i vi l ege or of f er a si mpl e deni al of gui l t ,
whi l e al l owi ng Ri sen, t he onl y per son who can i dent i f y t he
per pet r at or or per pet r at or s, t o pr ot ect hi s sour ces f r om t he

11
See, e. g. , J . A. 893 ( asser t i ng t hat St er l i ng has been
“gi ven di scover y t hat st at ed unequi vocal l y t hat [ one SSCI
st af f er ] was f i r ed f r om her SSCI j ob f or l eaki ng i nf or mat i on t o
Mr . Ri sen”) .

12
See J . A. 667 ( st at i ng t hat “[ a] n obvi ous def ense at t r i al
wi l l be t hat any di scl osur e t o t he t hi r d par t y was done by
anot her per son or by mul t i pl e i ndi vi dual s – and not by Mr .
St er l i ng”) ; J . A. 665 ( not i ng t hat “whi l e t he I ndi ct ment al l eges
Mr . St er l i ng had f ami l i ar i t y wi t h ‘ Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1’
si nce 1998, and knew J ames Ri sen si nce at l east November 2001,
t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat Mr . Ri sen came i nt o possessi on of
any i nf or mat i on r el at i ng t o ‘ Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1’ unt i l
Apr i l 2003, l ess t han a mont h af t er Senat e st af f er s l ear ned
about t he Pr ogr am” ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ; J . A. 667 ( ar gui ng t hat
“[ t ] he t i mi ng [ of St er l i ng’ s cont act wi t h t he Senat e st af f er s
and Ri sen’ s cont act wi t h t he CI A] i s hi ghl y suggest i ve t hat i t
was one of t he st af f member s and not Mr . St er l i ng who unl awf ul l y
di scl osed cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on”) .
53

cr i mi nal consequences of t hei r behavi or . By depr i vi ng t he j ur y
of t he onl y di r ect t est i mony t hat can l i nk St er l i ng t o t he
char ged cr i mes and al l owi ng St er l i ng t o pr esent ar gument t hat
sever al ot her s coul d have been t he pr i mar y sour ce or sour ces,
t he di st r i ct cour t woul d al l ow seeds of doubt t o be pl aced wi t h
t he j ur or s whi l e denyi ng t he gover nment a f ai r oppor t uni t y t o
di spel t hose doubt s. As t he gover nment not es, t he r ul i ng woul d
open t he door f or St er l i ng t o mi sl ead t he j ur y and di st or t t he
t r ut h- seeki ng f unct i on of t he t r i al .
The t el ephone r ecor ds and e- mai l messages, and t he hear say
st at ement s by wi t nesses who wer e i n cont act wi t h St er l i ng, whi ch
wer e r el i ed upon by t he di st r i ct cour t t o uphol d a r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege, al so f ai l t o ser ve as r easonabl e al t er nat i ves t o
Ri sen’ s f i r st - hand t est i mony.
Tel ephone r ecor ds, e- mai l messages, and t he l i ke i ndi cat e
t hat Ri sen and St er l i ng wer e communi cat i ng wi t h one anot her .
However , i t appear s t hat none of t he r ecor ds cont ai n cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on, and t he cont ent s of t he conver sat i ons and
communi cat i ons ar e ot her wi se l ar gel y unknown. Thi s cat egor y of
pr oof i s an obvi ousl y poor subst i t ut e f or Ri sen’ s di r ect
t est i mony. See e. g. , J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1175 ( Tat el ,
J . , concur r i ng) ( “I nsof ar as t he conf i dent i al exchange of
i nf or mat i on l eaves nei t her paper t r ai l nor smoki ng gun, t he
gr eat maj or i t y of l eaks wi l l l i kel y be unpr ovabl e wi t hout
54

evi dence f r om ei t her l eaker or l eakee. Of cour se, i n some
cases, ci r cumst ant i al evi dence such as t el ephone r ecor ds may
poi nt t owar ds t he sour ce, but f or t he par t y wi t h t he bur den of
pr oof , par t i cul ar l y t he gover nment i n a cr i mi nal case, such
evi dence wi l l of t en be i nadequat e. ”) .
The pr of f er ed hear say t est i mony f r om t he f or mer CI A agent
and St er l i ng’ s t hen- gi r l f r i end al so pal es i n compar i son t o
Ri sen’ s f i r st - hand t est i mony. Even assumi ng t hat t he hear say
t est i mony woul d be admi ssi bl e, whi ch we need not deci de t oday,
i t i s not a r easonabl e equi val ent t o Ri sen’ s t est i mony.
I t i s r epr esent ed t o us t hat St er l i ng’ s gi r l f r i end wi l l
t est i f y t hat St er l i ng t ol d her at some unspeci f i ed poi nt t hat he
had a meet i ng wi t h “J i m” and, dur i ng a much l at er t r i p t o a
bookst or e, t ol d her t hat Chapt er 9 of St at e of War was about hi s
wor k i n t he CI A. However , i t i s undi sput ed t hat Ri sen and
St er l i ng had been i n cont act about ot her mat t er s, such as hi s
f i r i ng by t he CI A, and t he pr of f er ed t est i mony t el l s us not hi ng
about t he subst ance of any l eak of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on.
Mor eover , t he per sons t o whom St er l i ng poi nt s as al t er nat i ve
sour ces of t he l eak woul d have been pr i vy t o t he same
i nf or mat i on at about t he same t i me, and Ri sen has not di scl osed
whet her t her e i s mor e t han one pr i mar y sour ce of cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on.
55

I t i s al so r epr esent ed t o us t hat a f or mer CI A agent wi l l
t est i f y t hat Ri sen t ol d hi m t hat St er l i ng was hi s sour ce. Thi s
char act er i zat i on of t he hear say t est i mony, however , i s much mor e
gener ous t han war r ant ed. The pr of f er ed t est i mony does not
est abl i sh whet her St er l i ng was t he pr i mar y or onl y sour ce of
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t hat made i t s way i nt o St at e of War , nor
does i t addr ess t he br eadt h of i nf or mat i on f ound i n t he book.
I t t oo i s a poor subst i t ut e f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony.
Addi t i onal l y, St er l i ng has i ndi cat ed t hat he wi l l of f er
anot her def ense t o t hi s hear say t est i mony, ei t her t hr ough cr oss-
exami nat i on of Ri sen or t hr ough ot her exper t t est i mony.
Speci f i cal l y, St er l i ng has sought t o pr esent exper t t est i mony
t hat “[ j ] our nal i st s commonl y use t echni ques t o di sgui se t hei r
sour ces, ” and t hat “st at ement s made t o t hi r d par t i es, i ncl udi ng
pr ospect i ve sour ces, pur por t i ng t o i dent i f y ot her sour ces f r om
whom t he aut hor has obt ai ned i nf or mat i on ar e i nher ent l y suspect
and shoul d not be accept ed at f ace val ue. ” J . A. 863. Whet her
or not St er l i ng can per suade t he j ur y on t hi s poi nt , t he
ar gument i s not a l ost one. Unl i ke Ri sen, t he f or mer CI A agent
si mpl y cannot t est i f y t hat he knows St er l i ng t o be Ri sen’ s
sour ce, because he does not know t hat t o be t r ue. He cannot
r ef ut e t he possi bi l i t y t hat Ri sen mi ght have f al sel y poi nt ed t he
f i nger at St er l i ng t o pr ot ect hi s r eal sour ce f r om scr ut i ny, or
56

t o ent i ce t he f or mer CI A agent t o pr ovi de si mi l ar or conf i r mi ng
i nf or mat i on. Onl y Ri sen can answer t hese quest i ons.
Accor di ngl y, even i f we wer e t o r ecogni ze a r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege t hat coul d depr i ve a j ur y of t he onl y di r ect , f i r st -
hand evi dence of gui l t or i nnocence, Ri sen’ s st at ement t o t he
f or mer CI A agent woul d be i n vi ol at i on of t he conf i dent i al i t y
agr eement t hat he r el i es upon t o cr eat e t he pr i vi l ege.
Not wi t hst andi ng any evi dence of a st andar d j our nal i st i c pr act i ce
of decept i on i n i nvest i gat i ve t echni ques, Ri sen has wai ved any
pr i vi l ege by vi ol at i ng t he pr omi se of conf i dent i al i t y and
di scl osi ng t he i nf or mat i on t o a t hi r d par t y. To r ul e ot her wi se
woul d not onl y al l ow j our nal i st s t o pr ot ect t hei r conf i dent i al
sour ces i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs, but woul d al so per mi t
j our nal i st s t o pr omi se conf i dent i al i t y t o t hose engaged i n
ongoi ng cr i mi nal conduct , whi l e at t he same t i me di scl osi ng
t hei r i dent i t i es t o anyone except l aw enf or cement , gr and j ur i es
i nvest i gat i ng t he cr i mes, and j ur i es cal l ed upon t o det er mi ne
i nnocence or gui l t .
Cl ear l y, Ri sen’ s di r ect , f i r st - hand account of t he cr i mi nal
conduct i ndi ct ed by t he gr and j ur y cannot be obt ai ned by
al t er nat i ve means, as Ri sen i s wi t hout di sput e t he onl y wi t ness
who can of f er t hi s cr i t i cal t est i mony. The i nf or mat i on sought
f r om Ri sen i s not r easonabl y or f ai r l y equal ed by t he
57

i nconcl usi ve r ecor ds of phone cal l s and emai l s, or t he hear say
t est i mony of t he ot her wi t nesses.
B.
The gover nment has al so demonst r at ed a compel l i ng i nt er est
i n pr esent i ng Ri sen’ s t est i mony t o t he j ur y.
“I t i s ‘ obvi ous and unar guabl e’ t hat no gover nment al
i nt er est i s mor e compel l i ng t han t he secur i t y of t he Nat i on. ”
Hai g v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 ( 1981) . Thi s i nt er est ext ends
t o “pr ot ect i ng bot h t he secr ecy of i nf or mat i on t o our nat i onal
secur i t y and t he appear ance of conf i dent i al i t y so essent i al t o
t he ef f ect i ve oper at i on of our f or ei gn i nt el l i gence ser vi ce. ”
Uni t ed St at es v. Abu Al i , 528 F. 3d 210, 247 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008)
( quot i ng CI A v. Si ms, 471 U. S. 159, 175 ( 1985) ) . Cl ear l y, t he
gover nment al so has a compel l i ng i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng di r ect
evi dence t hat St er l i ng compr omi sed t hese cr i t i cal nat i onal -
secur i t y i nt er est s by di scl osi ng cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i n
vi ol at i on of val i dl y- enact ed cr i mi nal l aws, and i n pr esent i ng
t hi s evi dence t o t he j ur y char ged wi t h det er mi ni ng hi s gui l t or
i nnocence. See LaRouche, 780 F. 2d at 1139.
Ri sen’ s t est i mony i s t he best evi dence t o pr ove St er l i ng’ s
gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt t o a j ur y char ged wi t h t he
sear ch f or t he t r ut h. He i s t he onl y one who can i dent i f y
St er l i ng as t he per pet r at or of t he char ged of f enses, and he i s
t he onl y one who can ef f ect i vel y addr ess St er l i ng’ s expect ed
58

ef f or t s t o poi nt t he f i nger at ot her s. I f Ri sen i dent i f i es
St er l i ng as hi s sour ce, he wi l l have pr ovi ded unequal ed evi dence
of gui l t on t hi s poi nt , yet not depr i ved St er l i ng of hi s def ense
t hat t he i nf or mat i on i n Ri sen’ s book was not , i n f act , nat i onal
def ense i nf or mat i on at al l . And shoul d Ri sen i dent i f y di f f er ent
or addi t i onal sour ces of nat i onal def ense i nf or mat i on, whi ch
coul d excul pat e St er l i ng, t he gover nment mai nt ai ns an equal l y
compel l i ng i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng t he onl y avai l abl e i ncul pat or y
evi dence agai nst al l who j eopar di zed t he secur i t y of t he Uni t ed
St at es and at l east one of i t s cover t asset s.
To dat e, St er l i ng has not sought t o compel Ri sen t o t est i f y
r egar di ng t he i dent i t y of hi s sour ce, and he pr of esses t o
“t ake[ ] no posi t i on” as t o whet her Ri sen has pr oper l y i nvoked a
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege. Def endant - Appel l ee’ s Br i ef at 5.
St er l i ng has, however , sei zed upon t he gover nment ’ s unsuccessf ul
at t empt s t o compel Ri sen’ s t est i mony t o r epeat edl y poi nt out
“how l i t t l e evi dence t he Gover nment r eal l y has [ agai nst hi m] i n
t hi s case. ” J . A. 892. St er l i ng even goes so f ar as t o poi nt
out t he absence of di r ect evi dence of hi s gui l t , ar gui ng t hat :
[ w] hi l e i t i s cr yst al cl ear t hat t he Gover nment
bel i eves . . . t hat Mr . St er l i ng was at l east one of
t he sour ces f or St at e of War , t he Gover nment admi t s
now publ i cl y t hat i t has no di r ect evi dence t hat Mr .
St er l i ng ever t ol d Mr . Ri sen anyt hi ng about Cl assi f i ed
Pr ogr amNo. 1.
59

J . A. 892 ( emphasi s added) ; see al so J . A. 893 ( asser t i ng t hat
“[ t ] he Gover nment now admi t s t hat i t s case i s ent i r el y
specul at i ve even as t o venue. I t admi t s t hat i t has ‘ no di r ect
evi dence, ot her t han Ri sen’ s t est i mony, t hat est abl i shes wher e
t he subst ant i ve di scl osur es of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on occur r ed’
. . . . I n shor t , t he Gover nment i s so f i xat ed on compel l i ng
Mr . Ri sen’ s t est i mony –- or per haps j ai l i ng hi m –- t hat i t i s
wi l l i ng t o concede t hat i t s case i s weak and t hat i t needs Mr .
Ri sen . . . t o come t o t he r escue. ” ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i on
omi t t ed) ) . Har dl y a bet t er ar gument coul d be made as t o why t he
evi dence sought f r om Ri sen i s unavai l abl e f r om al t er nat i ve
sour ces and why t he gover nment has demonst r at ed a compel l i ng
need f or i t .
V.
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s
or der gr ant i ng Ri sen’ s mot i on t o quash hi s t r i al subpoena and
denyi ng t he gover nment ’ s mot i on i n l i mi ne t o admi t hi s
t est i mony, whi ch woul d al l ow Ri sen t o pr ot ect t he i dent i t y of
t he sour ce of t he cl assi f i ed, nat i onal secur i t y i nf or mat i on t hat
t he gr and j ur y f ound pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve was i l l egal l y
l eaked t o Ri sen.

60

GREGORY, Ci r cui t J udge, wr i t i ng f or t he cour t on I ssues I I and
I I I :
VI . Di st r i ct Cour t ’ s Suppr essi on Or der
The Gover nment chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der
excl udi ng t wo of i t s wi t nesses as a sanct i on f or vi ol at i ng a
di scover y or der . The di scover y or der at i ssue, ent er ed by t he
di st r i ct cour t wi t h t he par t i es’ consent , pr ovi ded t hat al l
Gi gl i o
13
mat er i al had t o be t ur ned over t o t he def ense no l at er
t han f i ve cal endar days pr i or t o t he st ar t of t r i al . The t r i al
was i ni t i al l y sl at ed t o begi n on Sept ember 12, 2011. However ,
i n ear l y J ul y 2011, St er l i ng and t he Gover nment r equest ed a
cont i nuance based on t he compl exi t y of t he pr et r i al di scover y
i ssues. See 18 U. S. C. § 3161( h) ( 7) ( B) ( i i ) . The di st r i ct cour t
agr eed, r eschedul i ng t he t r i al t o begi n on Oct ober 17, 2011.
Thus, t he new di scover y deadl i ne was Oct ober 12, 2011, f i ve days
pr i or t o t he t r i al dat e.
Dur i ng t he mont hs l eadi ng up t o t r i al , t he Gover nment
pr oduced near l y 20, 000 pages of di scover y mat er i al , al ong wi t h
var i ous i t ems i n el ect r oni c f or mat . As t he t r i al dat e
appr oached, t he Gover nment cont i nued t o sear ch t he CI A’ s f i l es,
and at t he el event h hour i t di scover ed i mpeachment mat er i al s i n
t he per sonnel f i l es of si x of i t s wi t nesses. Due t o t he r i sk of

13
Gi gl i o v. Uni t ed St at es, 405 U. S. 150 ( 1972) ( r equi r i ng
t he gover nment t o di scl ose t o t he def endant pr i or t o t r i al any
evi dence t endi ng t o i mpeach a pr osecut i on wi t ness) .
61

cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on bei ng cont ai ned i n t he CI A’ s f i l es, al l
of t hi s di scover y mat er i al had t o be pr esent ed t o t he CI A f or a
l i ne- by- l i ne cl assi f i cat i on r evi ew bef or e t he i nf or mat i on coul d
be t ur ned over t o t he def ense.
The CI A compl et ed i t s l i ne- by- l i ne r evi ew of t he di sput ed
mat er i al and pr ovi ded i t t o t he Gover nment on t he eveni ng of
Oct ober 12, 2011. The Gover nment t ur ned t he i nf or mat i on over t o
t he def ense on t he mor ni ng of Oct ober 13, 2011—t he day af t er t he
di scover y per i od expi r ed.
At a pr e- t r i al hear i ng on Oct ober 13, t he def ense di d not
obj ect t o t he l at e di scl osur e. At a hear i ng on Oct ober 14, t he
Fr i day bef or e t he Monday on whi ch t he t r i al was t o commence, t he
di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat t he Gover nment had not t i mel y compl i ed
wi t h t he di scover y schedul e. The Gover nment apol ogi zed f or t he
del ay and t hanked t he def ense f or not obj ect i ng—at whi ch poi nt ,
def ense counsel l odged an obj ect i on. I n addr essi ng a possi bl e
r emedy, t he def ense st at ed t he cour t coul d gr ant a br i ef
cont i nuance, but obser ved t hat t hi s opt i on woul d not be
par t i cul ar l y pal at abl e t o t he cour t . The def ense t hen st at ed
t hat t he cour t coul d sanct i on t he Gover nment by st r i ki ng a
wi t ness. At t hat poi nt t he di st r i ct cour t deci ded t o st r i ke t wo
wi t nesses, t o “even up t he pl ayi ng f i el d. ” J . C. A. 577.
The Gover nment obj ect ed t o t he cour t ’ s or der ar gui ng t hat
t he del ay i n pr oduct i on was not i n bad f ai t h. As an al t er nat i ve
62

sanct i on f or t he del ay, t he Gover nment suggest ed t hat t he cour t
gr ant a cont i nuance and of f er ed t o assi st t he def ense i n
l ocat i ng t hr ee peopl e whose unf avor abl e r at i ngs of a CI A
col l eague compr i sed a por t i on of t he Gi gl i o mat er i al as t o t hat
col l eague. The cour t asked t he def ense about i t s schedul e,
seeki ng t o det er mi ne whet her counsel ’ s ot her obl i gat i ons woul d
accommodat e a br i ef cont i nuance. However , t he cour t had al r eady
st r uck t wo cr uci al pr osecut i on wi t nesses, and t he def ense
pr ef er r ed t hi s sanct i on t o a cont i nuance. Thus, al t hough t he
cour t subsequent l y f ound t he Gover nment di d not act i n bad
f ai t h, i t mai nt ai ned i t s deci si on t o st r i ke t he t wo wi t nesses.
We have j ur i sdi ct i on over t he Gover nment ’ s appeal of t hi s
or der pur suant t o 18 U. S. C. § 3731.
The Due Pr ocess Cl ause r equi r es t he pr osecut i on t o di scl ose
upon r equest evi dence t hat i s f avor abl e t o t he def ense and
mat er i al t o gui l t or puni shment . Uni t ed St at es v. Hi ggs, 663
F. 3d 726, 734- 35 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) . Evi dence i s f avor abl e i f i t
i s excul pat or y, Br ady v. Mar yl and, 373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) , or i f i t
may be used f or i mpeachment , Gi gl i o v. Uni t ed St at es, 405 U. S.
150 ( 1972) . The gover nment br eaches i t s dut y i f i t f ai l s t o
pr oduce evi dence t hat i t i s obl i gat ed t o t ur n over t o t he
def ense, or i f i t f ai l s t o t i mel y compl y wi t h a di scover y or der
i n t ur ni ng over r equi r ed evi dence. A f ai l ur e t o di scl ose
vi ol at es due pr ocess onl y i f t he evi dence i n quest i on ( 1) i s
63

f avor abl e t o t he def endant because i t i s ei t her excul pat or y or
i mpeachi ng; ( 2) was suppr essed by t he gover nment ; and ( 3) i s
mat er i al i n t hat i t s suppr essi on pr ej udi ced t he def endant .
St r i ckl er v. Gr eene, 527 U. S. 263, 281- 82 ( 1999) ; Vi nson v.
Tr ue, 436 F. 3d 412, 420 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) . Undi scl osed evi dence
i s mat er i al when i t s cumul at i ve ef f ect i s such t hat “t her e i s a
r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , had t he evi dence been di scl osed t o
t he def ense, t he r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been
di f f er ent . ” Kyl es v. Whi t l ey, 514 U. S. 419, 433- 34 ( 1995)
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . A r easonabl e
pr obabi l i t y i s one suf f i ci ent t o under mi ne conf i dence i n t he
out come. I d. at 434.
When t he gover nment ’ s cont umaci ous conduct i nvol ves a del ay
i n pr oduci ng di scover y, r at her t han a f ai l ur e t o t ur n over
r equi r ed mat er i al s, t he r el evant i nqui r y i s “whet her t he
def endant ’ s counsel was pr event ed by t he del ay f r om usi ng t he
di scl osed mat er i al ef f ect i vel y i n pr epar i ng and pr esent i ng t he
def endant ’ s case. ” Uni t ed St at es v. I ngr al di , 793 F. 2d 408,
411- 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) . “As l ong as evi dence i s di scl osed
bef or e i t i s t oo l at e f or t he def endant t o make ef f ect i ve use of
i t , t her e i s no due pr ocess vi ol at i on. ” Uni t ed St at es v.
Russel l , 971 F. 2d 1098, 1112 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992) ( di scussi ng
al l egat i on of del ay i n pr oduci ng excul pat or y evi dence i n
vi ol at i on of Br ady) .
64

The di st r i ct cour t i s per mi t t ed, but not r equi r ed, t o
i mpose sanct i ons upon t he gover nment ’ s f ai l ur e t o t i mel y compl y
wi t h a di scover y or der . Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 16( d) ( 2) ; see Uni t ed
St at es v. Lopez, 271 F. 3d 472, 483 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) . I f t he cour t
deci des t o i mpose a sanct i on, i t may:
( A) or der t hat par t y t o per mi t t he di scover y or
i nspect i on; speci f y i t s t i me, pl ace, and manner ;
and pr escr i be ot her j ust t er ms and condi t i ons;
( B) gr ant a cont i nuance;
( C) pr ohi bi t t hat par t y f r om i nt r oduci ng t he
undi scl osed evi dence; or
( D) ent er any ot her or der t hat i s j ust under t he
ci r cumst ances.
Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 16( d) ( 2) . “A cont i nuance i s t he pr ef er r ed
sanct i on. ” Uni t ed St at es v. Hammoud, 381 F. 3d 316, 336 ( 4t h
Ci r . 2004) ( en banc) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal es, 164 F. 3d
1285, 1292 ( 10t h Ci r . 1999) ) , vacat ed on ot her gr ounds, 543 U. S.
1097 ( 2005) .
When t he gover nment f ai l s t o t i mel y pr ovi de Gi gl i o
mat er i al , t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s det er mi nat i on of whet her t o
i mpose a sanct i on, and what sanct i on t o i mpose, i s r evi ewed f or
abuse of di scr et i on. Hammoud, 381 F. 3d at 336. “A di st r i ct
cour t abuses i t s di scr et i on onl y wher e i t ‘ has act ed ar bi t r ar i l y
or i r r at i onal l y[ , ] has f ai l ed t o consi der j udi ci al l y r ecogni zed
f act or s const r ai ni ng i t s exer ci se of di scr et i on, or when i t has
r el i ed on er r oneous f act ual or l egal pr emi ses. ’ ” L. J . v.
65

Wi l bon, 633 F. 3d 297, 304 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es
v. Hedgepet h, 418 F. 3d 411, 419 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) ) ; see J ames v.
J acobson, 6 F. 3d 233, 239 ( 4t h Ci r . 1993) . Li kewi se, a di st r i ct
cour t abuses i t s di scr et i on when i t commi t s an er r or of l aw.
Uni t ed St at es v. Del f i no, 510 F. 3d 468, 470 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ; see
Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l son, 624 F. 3d 640, 661 n. 24 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010)
( “I t i s an abuse of di scr et i on f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o commi t
a l egal er r or —such as i mpr oper l y det er mi ni ng whet her t her e was a
Br ady vi ol at i on—and t hat under l yi ng l egal det er mi nat i on i s
r evi ewed de novo. ”) .
I n f ashi oni ng a r emedy f or a Gi gl i o vi ol at i on, t he di st r i ct
cour t must consi der sever al f act or s: t he r eason f or t he
gover nment ’ s del ay, and whet her t he gover nment act ed
i nt ent i onal l y or i n bad f ai t h; t he degr ee of pr ej udi ce, i f any,
suf f er ed by t he def endant ; and whet her any l ess sever e sanct i on
wi l l r emedy t he pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant and det er f ut ur e
wr ongdoi ng by t he gover nment . Hammoud, 381 F. 3d at 336 ( ci t i ng
Uni t ed St at es v. Hast i ngs, 126 F. 3d 310, 317 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ) ;
Gonzal es, 164 F. 3d at 1292. “When a cour t sanct i ons t he
gover nment i n a cr i mi nal case f or i t s f ai l ur e t o obey cour t
or der s, i t must use t he l east sever e sanct i on whi ch wi l l
adequat el y puni sh t he gover nment and secur e f ut ur e compl i ance. ”
Hast i ngs, 126 F. 3d at 317; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. I vy, 83
F. 3d 1266, 1280 ( 10t h Ci r . 1996) . I ndeed, i t “‘ woul d be a r ar e
66

case wher e, absent bad f ai t h, a di st r i ct cour t shoul d excl ude
evi dence. ’ ” Hammoud, 381 F. 3d at 336 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.
Gol yanzky, 291 F. 3d 1245, 1249 ( 10t h Ci r . 2002) ) .
Nei t her t he di st r i ct cour t nor St er l i ng suggest s t hat t he
Gover nment act ed i n bad f ai t h, and our r evi ew of t he r ecor d
di spel s any such not i on. I t i s cl ear t hat t he sheer vol ume of
mat er i al s, al ong wi t h t he i nher ent del ays i nvol ved i n
cl assi f i cat i on r evi ew, was t he genesi s of t he Gover nment ’ s
er r or . The ot her cont r i but i ng f act or , of cour se, was t he
Gover nment ’ s f ai l ur e t o r ecogni ze t he necessi t y of r evi ewi ng t he
per sonnel f i l es of l i kel y wi t nesses at an ear l i er st age of t he
di scover y pr ocess. We cannot , of cour se, condone t he
Gover nment ’ s over si ght ; as St er l i ng poi nt s out , t he Gover nment
had many mont hs t o exami ne t he r el evant r ecor ds, and t he
evi dence at i ssue her e woul d have been an obvi ous sour ce f or
pot ent i al Gi gl i o mat er i al . However , ot her f act or s gui de our
deci si on.
St er l i ng suggest s t hat because t he mat er i al was not
submi t t ed by t he di scover y deadl i ne, he “coul d not possi bl y have
f ul l y i nvest i gat ed and devel oped t he bel at edl y- di scl osed
evi dence pr i or t o t he st ar t of t r i al , t hr ee t o f our days
67

l at er . ”
14
( Appel l ee St er l i ng’ s br . at 6) . Al t hough we do not
t ake l i ght l y t he i mpact of t he Gover nment ’ s del ay on St er l i ng’ s
abi l i t y t o pr epar e, i t i s di f f i cul t t o i magi ne t hat St er l i ng
coul d have f ul l y pr epar ed wi t h r egar d t o t he Gi gl i o mat er i al i f
he r ecei ved i t on t he l ast day of t he di scover y per i od, but
“coul d not possi bl y” have pr epar ed havi ng r ecei ved t he mat er i al
t he next day, f our days pr i or t o t r i al . St er l i ng al l eges t hat ,
i f he had r ecei ved t he Gi gl i o mat er i al at an ear l i er t i me, he
coul d have t hor oughl y i nvest i gat ed t he i nf or mat i on and t he
wi t nesses t o whi ch t hat i nf or mat i on per t ai ned. As t o t he er r or ,
t he pr ej udi ce f r om t he br i ef del ay i n di scl osur e coul d pl ai nl y
have been al l evi at ed wi t h a cont i nuance.
Bot h St er l i ng and t he di st r i ct cour t suggest t he Gover nment
shoul d have pr oduced t he Gi gl i o mat er i al ear l i er i n t he
di scover y pr ocess. Al t hough ef f or t s at ear l i er r evi ew and
di scl osur e of t he r el evant per sonnel f i l es mi ght have
amel i or at ed t he er r or , and woul d cer t ai nl y have eased t he

14
I ndeed, t he possi bi l i t y of del ay coul d not have come as a
sur pr i se. The par t i es submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t a l et t er
accompanyi ng t he pr oposed pr et r i al or der ; t hi s l et t er
char act er i zed t he pr oposed di scover y schedul e as “ver y
aggr essi ve” gi ven t he pl et hor a of cl assi f i ed mat er i al s, and
acknowl edged t hat t he par t i es mi ght have di f f i cul t y meet i ng t he
deadl i nes t hey j oi nt l y pr oposed. The l et t er f ur t her pr ovi ded
t hat t he par t i es “have agr eed t o r emai n f l exi bl e wi t h r egar d t o
t he pr oposed f i l i ng deadl i nes wi t hout havi ng t o change any of
t he pr oposed hear i ng dat es i f at al l possi bl e. ” ( E. D. Va. PACER
docket ent r y 146, f i l ed Aug. 4, 2011) .
68

def ense’ s undoubt edl y hect i c pr et r i al pr epar at i ons, t he
Gover nment was not obl i gat ed t o accel er at e i t s pr oduct i on t o
compl et e di scover y i n advance of t he deadl i ne – a deadl i ne t o
whi ch t he par t i es and t he di st r i ct cour t agr eed. We can onl y
f i nd er r or i n t he Gover nment ’ s one- day del ay i n pr oduct i on—not
i n i t s per haps i l l - advi sed document r evi ew st r at egy, nor i n i t s
f ai l ur e t o pr oduce t he mat er i al s at an ear l i er st age of t he
di scover y pr ocess.
We ar e convi nced, mor eover , t hat t he Gover nment has been
adequat el y chast ened, and t hat i t wi l l pr oceed mor e j udi ci ousl y
i n t he f ut ur e. Fur t her , as t he Gover nment i s sur el y awar e, any
si mi l ar f ut ur e t r ansgr essi on wi l l not be f or gi ven as easi l y.
I n sum, al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s
di scr et i on by i mposi ng a sanct i on, t he sanct i on t hat i t chose t o
i mpose was si mpl y t oo sever e a r esponse t o conduct t hat was not
under t aken i n bad f ai t h, t hat can be r emedi ed wi t h a
cont i nuance, and t hat i s unl i kel y t o be r epeat ed. As we sai d i n
Hammoud, a cont i nuance i s t he pr ef er r ed sanct i on f or a del ay i n
pr oduct i on of Gi gl i o mat er i al . Not hi ng i n t he r ecor d suggest s
t hat St er l i ng woul d not have been abl e t o make use of t he
i mpeachment evi dence i f gi ven a cont i nuance. See Gol yansky, 291
F. 2d at 1249- 50. We di scer n no j ust i f i cat i on f or t he mor e
sever e sanct i on of st r i ki ng wi t nesses. Accor di ngl y, we r ever se
t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der st r i ki ng t he t wo wi t nesses.
69

VI I . CI PA Rul i ng
Pr i or t o t r i al t he Gover nment moved f or a pr ot ect i ve or der ,
pur suant t o t he Cl assi f i ed I nf or mat i on Pr ocedur es Act ( “CI PA”) ,
18 U. S. C. app. 3 § 6, pr ohi bi t i ng t he di scl osur e of cl assi f i ed
and sensi t i ve i nf or mat i on. The l i st of pr ot ect ed i nf or mat i on
i ncl uded:
[ ] The t r ue name of any cur r ent or f or mer cover t CI A
empl oyee, or ot her i nf or mat i on ( such as a physi cal
descr i pt i on) t hat r easonabl y coul d be expect ed t o
i dent i f y any cur r ent or f or mer cover t CI A empl oyee,
wi t h t he except i on of t hose cur r ent or f or mer cover t
CI A empl oyees who t est i f y usi ng t hei r f ul l , t r ue
names.

[ ] The t r ue name of any CI A empl oyee, cover t or
over t , who t est i f i es usi ng hi s or her l ast i ni t i al
onl y.
J . C. A. 400. The Gover nment sought t o pr ot ect t he i dent i t i es of
some of i t s wi t nesses — as r el evant her e, cur r ent or f or mer CI A
oper at i ves — t hr ough use of a scr een or l i ght di sgui ses ( wi gs,
f al se bear ds, hal f gl asses) , use of a non- publ i c ent r ance t o t he
cour t r oom, and, of cr i t i cal i mpor t ance t o t hi s appeal , by
al l owi ng t he wi t nesses t o use l ast i ni t i al s r at her t han t hei r
f ul l names ( f or exampl e, “Mr . D. ” i nst ead of J ohn Doe) .
The di st r i ct cour t i ni t i al l y gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n
par t t he Gover nment ’ s r equest f or secur i t y measur es when t he CI A
oper at i ves t est i f i ed. The cour t agr eed t hat t he CI A oper at i ves
woul d not have t o r eveal t hei r names, and al l owed t hat t hose
wi t nesses coul d use a non- publ i c ent r ance t o t he cour t r oom. The
70

cour t st at ed t hat no sket ch ar t i st s woul d be per mi t t ed i n t he
cour t r oom, but deni ed t he Gover nment ’ s r equest f or t he wi t nesses
t o t est i f y f r om behi nd a scr een.
15
The Gover nment moved f or
r econsi der at i on of t hi s r ul i ng, st at i ng t hat t he wi t nesses
needed mor e pr ot ect i on t han was per mi t t ed by t he di st r i ct
cour t ’ s pr i or r ul i ng. Speci f i cal l y, t he Gover nment ar gued f or
t he use of a por t abl e scr een bet ween t he wi t nesses and t he
publ i c,
16
or per mi t t i ng t he wi t nesses t o t est i f y wear i ng l i ght
di sgui ses. St er l i ng opposed t he Gover nment ’ s mot i on f or
r econsi der at i on, st at i ng t hat t he Gover nment had of f er ed no new
i nf or mat i on j ust i f yi ng r econsi der at i on of t he cour t ’ s pr i or
r ul i ng. St er l i ng al so cont ended t hat t he secur i t y measur es
pr oposed by t he Gover nment woul d i nf r i nge upon St er l i ng’ s r i ght
t o a publ i c t r i al and t o conf r ont t he wi t nesses agai nst hi m. He
cont ended t hat t he use of scr eens or di sgui ses was undul y
suggest i ve of t he exi st ence of nat i onal def ense i nf or mat i on,
pr obl emat i c because one of hi s pl anned def enses was t hat t he
i nf or mat i on i n Ri sen’ s book was not , i n f act , nat i onal def ense
i nf or mat i on. Al t hough St er l i ng expr essed f r ust r at i on wi t h t he
secur i t y measur es pr evi ousl y i mposed by t he cour t , he di d not

15
The cour t or der ed t hat anot her wi t ness, Human Asset No.
1, woul d be per mi t t ed t o t est i f y behi nd a scr een.
16
The scr een woul d shi el d t he wi t nesses f r om publ i c vi ew;
St er l i ng, hi s counsel , and t he j ur y woul d be abl e t o see t he
wi t nesses.
71

ask t he cour t t o al t er i t s r ul i ng per mi t t i ng t he CI A oper at i ves
t o use par t i al names or pseudonyms.
At t he Oct ober 14 hear i ng, t he cour t r ever sed cour se as t o
bot h t he scr een and t he wi t nesses’ names. The cour t agr eed t o
per mi t a scr een bet ween t he t r i al par t i ci pant s and t he publ i c
seat i ng sect i on of t he cour t r oom.
17
And al t hough t he wi t nesses
coul d use pseudonyms whi l e t est i f yi ng, t he Gover nment was
or der ed t o pr ovi de t o def ense counsel , St er l i ng, and t he j ur y a
key wi t h t he wi t nesses’ t r ue names.
18
The Gover nment appeal ed
t he por t i on of t he or der r equi r i ng i t t o pr ovi de a key wi t h t he
wi t nesses’ t r ue names t o St er l i ng and t he j ur y.
St er l i ng cont ends we do not have j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he
or der r equi r i ng di scl osur e of t he wi t nesses’ t r ue i dent i t i es t o
St er l i ng and t he j ur y. The Gover nment r ai ses t wo bases f or i t s
ar gument t hat t he di scl osur e or der i s i mmedi at el y appeal abl e:

17
St er l i ng has not cr oss- appeal ed as t o t he or der
per mi t t i ng t he scr een.
18
The r ecor d r ef l ect s no l egal l y si gni f i cant change i n
ci r cumst ances bet ween t he cour t ’ s i ni t i al or der per mi t t i ng t he
name subst i t ut i ons and i t s l at er or der denyi ng subst i t ut i ons.
I n t he hear i ng on t he Gover nment ’ s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on,
t he cour t st at ed t hat as l ong as t he Gover nment pl anned t o
appeal t he Gi gl i o r ul i ng, t he cour t mi ght as wel l r ul e on t he
name i ssue, t oo, t o gi ve t he Four t h Ci r cui t a cr ack at i t . The
Gover nment i mpl i es t hat t he cour t may have changed i t s r ul i ng t o
per suade t he Gover nment t o nar r ow i t s wi t ness l i st . Whi l e t he
di st r i ct cour t di d st at e t hat t he Gover nment mi ght not need al l
of t he wi t nesses on i t s l i st , and i nst r uct ed t he Gover nment t o
cal l t he absol ut e mi ni mum number of wi t nesses i t needed, we
decl i ne t o ascr i be t o t he di st r i ct j udge any i mpr oper mot i ve.
72

18 U. S. C. § 3731, and CI PA sect i on 7, 18 U. S. C. app. 3, § 7.
Sect i on 3731, as r ecount ed at Sect i on I I . A, does not conf er
j ur i sdi ct i on f or an i mmedi at e appeal as t o t hi s i ssue because
t he or der i s not one suppr essi ng or excl udi ng evi dence. Thus,
we t ur n t o CI PA.
A.
CI PA pr ovi des a f r amewor k f or det er mi ni ng how t o pr oceed
wi t h di scover y and admi ssi bi l i t y of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i n
cr i mi nal cases. See Uni t ed St at es v. Moussaoui , 591 F. 3d 253,
281- 82 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) . I t was desi gned t o bal ance t he
def endant ’ s i nt er est i n a f ai r t r i al and t he gover nment ’ s
i nt er est i n pr ot ect i ng nat i onal secur i t y i nf or mat i on. Uni t ed
St at es v. Passar o, 577 F. 3d 207, 219 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . When
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on may come i nt o pl ay at t r i al , t he
gover nment may move f or a hear i ng i n t he di st r i ct cour t “t o make
al l det er mi nat i ons concer ni ng t he use, r el evance, or
admi ssi bi l i t y of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t hat woul d ot her wi se be
made dur i ng t he t r i al or pr et r i al pr oceedi ngs. ” 18 U. S. C. app.
3, § 6( a) . The di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der was, we concl ude, an
or der concer ni ng t he use of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on encompassed
by CI PA sect i on 6.
I t i s t r ue, as St er l i ng cont ends, t hat t hi s i s not a r un-
of - t he- mi l l CI PA appeal . CI PA gener al l y comes i nt o pl ay when
t he def endant seeks t o obt ai n, or pl ans t o di scl ose, nat i onal
73

secur i t y i nf or mat i on, and t he gover nment opposes di scl osur e.
Uni t ed St at es v. Moussaoui , 333 F. 3d 509, 514 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) .
I n Moussaoui , we hel d t hat an or der per mi t t i ng a deposi t i on of
an enemy combat ant wi t ness was not i mmedi at el y appeal abl e under
CI PA. We r easoned t hat CI PA was concer ned wi t h di scl osur e of
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on at t r i al , r at her t han t he def endant ’ s
pr et r i al di scover y of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on. Thus, we
concl uded, CI PA was onl y appl i cabl e by anal ogy, and i n t hat
i nst ance CI PA § 7 di d not aut hor i ze an i nt er l ocut or y appeal .
Fol l owi ng Moussaoui , we consi der ed a case i n whi ch t he
gover nment i nt r oduced cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on at t r i al , and
r el i ed upon CI PA i n pr ot ect i ng t hat i nf or mat i on f r om di scl osur e.
Uni t ed St at es v. Abu Al i , 528 F. 3d 210, 255 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008) .
Ther e, t he gover nment used cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t o whi ch
nei t her Abu Al i nor hi s counsel was pr i vy. We hel d t hat :
I f cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on i s t o be r el i ed upon as
evi dence of gui l t , t he di st r i ct cour t may consi der
st eps t o pr ot ect some or al l of t he i nf or mat i on f r om
unnecessar y publ i c di scl osur e i n t he i nt er est of
nat i onal secur i t y and i n accor dance wi t h CI PA, whi ch
speci f i cal l y cont empl at es such met hods as r edact i ons
and subst i t ut i ons so l ong as t hese al t er nat i ves do not
depr i ve t he def endant of a f ai r t r i al .
I d. The pr ocedur al post ur e of t hi s case i s, of cour se,
di f f er ent f r om Abu Al i ; Abu Al i was an appeal f ol l owi ng
convi ct i on, not an i nt er l ocut or y appeal . Never t hel ess, i t i s
i l l ust r at i ve; evi dence sought t o be admi t t ed at t r i al by t he
74

gover nment , l i ke t hat pr of f er ed by t he def ense, i s subj ect t o
t he pr ot ect i ons af f or ded by CI PA.
The or der at i ssue aut hor i zes di scl osur e of cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on at t r i al , unl i ke t he or der i n Moussaoui , whi ch
i nvol ved t he def endant ’ s pr et r i al di scover y r equest . Cf . Uni t ed
St at es v. Moussaoui , 336 F. 3d 279, 280 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) ( Wi l ki ns,
C. J . , concur r i ng i n t he deni al of en banc r ehear i ng) ( not i ng
t hat CI PA § 6 appl i es t o t he use of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on at
t r i al or i n pr et r i al pr oceedi ngs, and not t o pr et r i al di scover y
of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on) . Gi ven our r ecogni t i on i n Abu Al i
t hat CI PA appl i es t o evi dence pr of f er ed by t he gover nment f or
use at t r i al , we have j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s i nt er l ocut or y
appeal pur suant t o Sect i on 7 of CI PA, whi ch pr ovi des:
An i nt er l ocut or y appeal by t he Uni t ed St at es t aken
bef or e or af t er t he def endant has been pl aced i n
j eopar dy shal l l i e t o a cour t of appeal s f r om a
deci si on or or der of a di st r i ct cour t i n a cr i mi nal
case aut hor i zi ng di scl osur e of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on,
i mposi ng sanct i ons f or nondi scl osur e of cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on, or r ef usi ng a pr ot ect i ve or der sought by
t he Uni t ed St at es t o pr event t he di scl osur e of
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on.
18 U. S. C. app. 3, § 7( a) . Havi ng det er mi ned t hat we have
j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der , we t ur n t o
t he mer i t s, r evi ewi ng f or abuse of di scr et i on. Abu Al i , 528
F. 3d at 253- 54 ( appl yi ng abuse of di scr et i on st andar d, but
st r i ki ng a bal ance bet ween t he def endant ’ s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause
75

r i ght s and t he gover nment ’ s need t o pr ot ect cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on) .
B.
Ther e can be no doubt t hat t he i dent i t y of CI A oper at i ves
i s sensi t i ve i nf or mat i on. The i dent i t y of CI A oper at i ves i s,
and al ways has been, subj ect t o r i gor ous pr ot ect i on. See, e. g. ,
I n r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141 ( D. C.
Ci r . 2006) . To di scl ose t he i dent i t i es of CI A oper at i ves, even
i f not t o ever y spect at or i n t he cour t r oom, subj ect s t he
oper at i ves t o t ar get i ng by host i l e f or ei gn i nt el l i gence ser vi ces
and t er r or i st or gani zat i ons, and cr eat es a gr ave danger t o t he
oper at i ves, t hei r f ami l i es, and t he oper at i ons i n whi ch t hey ar e
engaged. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Cr uz, 667 F. 3d 487, 500
( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat def endant ’ s r i ght s under t he
Conf r ont at i on Cl ause t o i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on about wi t nesses
i s not absol ut e; i f t he gover nment shows an act ual t hr eat , t he
di st r i ct cour t has di scr et i on t o det er mi ne whet her ef f ect i ve
cr oss- exami nat i on i s possi bl e i f t he wi t ness’ s i dent i t y i s
conceal ed) .
We f i nd no abuse of di scr et i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s
deci si on t o make avai l abl e t o St er l i ng and hi s counsel a key t o
t he wi t nesses’ t r ue names. St er l i ng knows, or may know, some of
t he wi t nesses at i ssue, and depr i vi ng hi m of t he abi l i t y t o
bui l d hi s def ense i n t hi s r egar d coul d i mpi nge on hi s
76

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause r i ght s. See gener al l y Mar yl and v. Cr ai g,
497 U. S. 836, 848- 49 ( 1990) . Mor eover , and unl i ke t he usual
cases wher e wi t nesses have been per mi t t ed t o use pseudonyms, t he
Gover nment i n t hi s case has made no showi ng t hat St er l i ng or hi s
counsel pose an act ual t hr eat t o t he saf et y of t hese wi t nesses.
See Ramos- Cr uz, 667 F. 3d at 506; Uni t ed St at es v. El - Mezai n, 664
F. 3d 467, 492 ( 5t h Ci r . 2011) . Thus, we di scer n no pot ent i al
f or har mf r omdi scl osur e of t hei r i dent i t i es t o St er l i ng and hi s
counsel . We cannot , however , t ake t he same appr oach when i t
comes t o t he j ur y.
St er l i ng cont ends t hat t he secur i t y measur es pr oposed by
t he Gover nment wi l l ser ve t o i mper mi ssi bl y hei ght en t he j ur y’ s
sensi t i vi t y t o t he cl assi f i ed nat ur e of t he i nf or mat i on St er l i ng
i s accused of di scl osi ng, i ncr easi ng t he odds of hi s convi ct i on.
The di st r i ct cour t under st andabl y sought t o l i mi t t o t he ext ent
possi bl e t he el ement s of secr ecy i n t hi s case, and we, t oo, ar e
mi ndf ul of t he r i sk of t ai nt i ng t he j ur y i f undul y suggest i ve
secur i t y measur es ar e used at t r i al . I f a secur i t y measur e i s
i nher ent l y pr ej udi ci al , i t may be empl oyed “onl y wher e j ust i f i ed
by an essent i al st at e i nt er est speci f i c t o each t r i al . ”
Hol br ook v. Fl ynn, 475 U. S. 560, 568- 69 ( 1986) . However , we can
di scer n no r eal benef i t t hat woul d i nur e f r ompr ovi di ng t he j ur y
wi t h t he f ul l , t r ue names of t he CI A oper at i ves at i ssue. The
cour t sought t o l i mi t t he r i sk of di scl osur e by pr oposi ng t o
77

i nst r uct t he j ur or s not t o wr i t e down t he wi t nesses’ t r ue names,
but not hi ng wi l l pr event a j ur or f r om r emember i ng t he names—and,
f or t hat mat t er , t he ot her cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on pr esent ed at
t r i al . Unl i ke t he i nf or mat i on St er l i ng i s char ged wi t h
di scl osi ng t o Ri sen, t hough, t he t r ue names of t he CI A
oper at i ves at i ssue wi l l do not hi ng t o enhance t he j ur y’ s
under st andi ng of t he f act s and l egal i ssues pr esent ed at t r i al .
And al t hough we ar e mi ndf ul t hat t he j ur or s ar e unl i kel y t o
di ssemi nat e t he names i n cont r avent i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s
i nst r uct i ons, i t si mpl y i s not wor t h t he r i sk t o t he l i ves of
t hese oper at i ves ( and t hei r f ami l i es and associ at es) t o di scl ose
t he oper at i ves’ t r ue names t o anyone who does not have a genui ne
need t o know t hei r i dent i t i es.
Al t hough St er l i ng may di sput e at t r i al t hat t he i nf or mat i on
at i ssue was cl assi f i ed, or t hat he was t he per son who passed t o
Ri sen t he i nf or mat i on i n Chapt er Ni ne, t her e i s no escapi ng t he
f act t hat St er l i ng has been char ged wi t h di scl osi ng cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on, and t he j ur y wi l l be wel l awar e of t hat f act f r om
t he ver y out set of t he pr oceedi ngs. The di st r i ct cour t has made
cl ear t hat i t wi l l i nst r uct t he j ur y t hat St er l i ng’ s gui l t
cannot be i nf er r ed f r om t he use of secur i t y measur es i n t he
cour t r oom. Bal anci ng St er l i ng’ s concer ns wi t h t he ver y r eal
danger t o t he CI A oper at i ves i f t hei r i dent i t i es ar e di scl osed,
we concl ude t hat a pr oper j ur y i nst r uct i on wi l l al l evi at e any
78

pot ent i al pr ej udi ce, and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s
di scr et i on i n t aki ng t he mor e per i l ous appr oach of or der i ng t hat
t he j ur y be gi ven a key wi t h t he oper at i ves’ t r ue names. Thus,
we r ever se t hi s por t i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der . We
af f i r m, however , t he por t i on of t he or der per mi t t i ng St er l i ng
and hi s counsel t o r ecei ve t he key wi t h t he oper at i ves’ t r ue
names.
C.
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we r ever se t he cour t ’ s excl usi on
of t wo Gover nment wi t nesses, and af f i r m i n par t and r ever se i n
par t t he cour t ’ s r ul i ng pur suant t o CI PA. We r emand f or f ur t her
pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

79

TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t
as t o I ssues I I and I I I :

I concur i n t he maj or i t y’ s deci si on as t o I ssue I I , whi ch
r ever ses t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der st r i ki ng t wo of t he
gover nment ’ s wi t nesses as a sanct i on f or vi ol at i ng t he di scover y
or der . Wi t h r egar d t o I ssue I I I , I concur i n t he r ever sal of
t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der r equi r i ng di scl osur e of t he
i dent i t i es of t he cover t CI A agent s and oper at i ves ( t he “CI A
wi t nesses”) t o t he j ur y. I r espect f ul l y di ssent , however , f r om
t he maj or i t y’ s deci si on t o af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der
r equi r i ng di scl osur e of t hi s i nf or mat i on t o St er l i ng.
Pr i or t o t r i al , t he gover nment f i l ed a mot i on under Sect i on
6 of t he Cl assi f i ed I nf or mat i on Pr ocedur es Act ( “CI PA”) , see 18
U. S. C. App. I I I , r equest i ng per mi ssi on t o subst i t ut e pseudonyms
f or t he t r ue names of t he CI A wi t nesses. The gover nment al so
asked t hat a scr een be used t o shi el d t he wi t nesses f r om t he
publ i c’ s vi ew, but not t he vi ew of St er l i ng or t he j ur y. The
mot i ons wer e accompani ed by CI A and FBI decl ar at i ons expl ai ni ng
i n det ai l t hat publ i c di scl osur e woul d j eopar di ze t he per sonal
saf et y of t he wi t nesses, t hei r f ami l i es, and associ at es, and
woul d j eopar di ze t he ef f ect i veness of t he CI A wi t nesses as
agent s and oper at i ves. Addi t i onal l y, f or ei gn i nt el l i gence and
t er r or i st or gani zat i ons have a si gni f i cant i nt er est i n
i dent i f yi ng CI A agent s and oper at i ves, and use i nf or mat i on
80

gl eaned f r om t r i al s t o expose t hei r act i vi t i es, sour ces, and
met hods.
The di st r i ct r ul ed t hat t he CI A wi t nesses woul d be al l owed
t o t est i f y usi ng pseudonyms and f r om behi nd a scr een, but t hat
t hei r t r ue i dent i t i es woul d have t o be di scl osed t o St er l i ng and
t he j ur y. The maj or i t y r ever ses t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s r ul i ng as
t o t he j ur y, but af f i r ms as t o St er l i ng. Because di scl osur e of
t he i dent i t i es of t he CI A wi t nesses endanger s t he per sonal
saf et y of t he wi t nesses and ot her s associ at ed wi t h t hem, and
j eopar di zes t he wi t nesses’ ef f ect i veness as agent s and
oper at i ves, and t her e has been no demonst r at i on t hat St er l i ng
cannot ef f ect i vel y cr oss- exami ne t he wi t nesses wi t hout t hi s
i nf or mat i on, I woul d r ever se t he di scl osur e r ul i ng as t o bot h
t he j ur y and St er l i ng.
A.
As a gener al r ul e, “t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause guar ant ees a
def endant t he r i ght t o quest i on an adver se wi t ness about
i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng hi s f ul l name and addr ess. ”
Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Cr uz, 667 F. 3d 487, 500 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012)
( ci t i ng Smi t h v. I l l i noi s, 390 U. S. 129, 131 ( 1968) ) . However ,
“t h[ e] r i ght i s not absol ut e, ” and “a t r i al cour t may l i mi t
cr oss- exami nat i on i f t he i nf or mat i on sought coul d endanger t he
wi t ness. ” I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . “When t he
gover nment seeks t o wi t hhol d a wi t ness’ s t r ue name, addr ess, or
81

pl ace of empl oyment , i t bear s t he bur den of demonst r at i ng t hat
t he t hr eat t o t he wi t ness i s act ual and not a r esul t of
conj ect ur e. ” I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on
omi t t ed) . Once t he gover nment meet s t hi s bur den, t he cour t must
“r evi ew r el evant i nf or mat i on and det er mi ne whet her di scl osur e of
t he wi t ness’ s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on i s necessar y t o al l ow
ef f ect i ve cr oss- exami nat i on. ” I d.
B.
Ther e i s “no gover nment al i nt er est . . . mor e compel l i ng
t han t he secur i t y of t he Nat i on, ” and “[ m] easur es t o pr ot ect t he
secr ecy of our Gover nment ’ s f or ei gn i nt el l i gence oper at i ons
pl ai nl y ser ve t hese i nt er est s. ” Hai g v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307
( 1981) ; see al so Snepp v. Uni t ed St at es, 444 U. S. 507, 509 n. 3
( 1980) . “[ T] he Gover nment must t ender as absol ut e an assur ance
of conf i dent i al i t y as i t possi bl y can” t o i nt el l i gence of f i cer s
and sour ces, C. I . A. v. Si ms, 471 U. S. 159, 175 ( 1985) , and
cour t s shoul d exer ci se par t i cul ar caut i on bef or e “or der [ i ng]
[ t hei r ] i dent i t [ i es] r eveal ed, ” i d. at 176. Pr ot ect i ng t he
cl assi f i ed i dent i t i es of cover t CI A agent s and oper at i ves i s of
par t i cul ar concer n because di scl osur e pl aces not onl y our
nat i onal secur i t y at r i sk, but al so t he per sonal saf et y of t hose
who have commi t t ed t hei r l i ves t o t he ser vi ce of our count r y.
I ndeed, Congr ess has cr i mi nal i zed such di scl osur e, see 50 U. S. C.
§ 421, gi ven t he “behavi or ’ s ‘ i nt ol er abl e’ consequences: ‘ [ t ] he
82

l oss of vi t al human i nt el l i gence whi ch our pol i cymaker s need,
t he gr eat cost t o t he Amer i can t axpayer of r epl aci ng
i nt el l i gence r esour ces l ost due t o such di scl osur es, and t he
gr eat l y i ncr eased r i sk of har m whi ch cont i nui ng di scl osur es
f or ce i nt el l i gence of f i cer s and sour ces t o endur e. ’ ” I n r e
Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1179 ( D. C.
Ci r . 2006) ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) ( quot i ng S. Rep. No. 97- 201,
at 10- 11 ( 1981) ; see al so 50 U. S. C. § 403g ( not i ng t hat “t he
i nt er est s of t he secur i t y of t he f or ei gn i nt el l i gence act i vi t i es
of t he Uni t ed St at es” r equi r e t hat t he names of CI A per sonnel be
pr ot ect ed) .
The act ual t hr eat t o CI A wi t nesses has been wel l document ed
i n t hi s case, and i t appear s t hat we al l agr ee on t hi s poi nt .
As t he maj or i t y not es: “To di scl ose t he i dent i t i es of CI A
oper at i ves, even i f not t o ever y spect at or i n t he cour t r oom,
subj ect s t he oper at i ves t o t ar get i ng by host i l e f or ei gn
i nt el l i gence ser vi ces and t er r or i st or gani zat i ons, and cr eat es a
gr ave danger t o t he oper at i ves, t hei r f ami l i es, and t he
oper at i ons i n whi ch t hey ar e engaged. ” Maj or i t y op. at 75.
Accor di ngl y, we unani mousl y concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t
abused i t s di scr et i on i n r equi r i ng di scl osur e of t he i dent i f yi ng
i nf or mat i on t o t he j ur y.
I depar t f r om t he maj or i t y’ s vi ew, however , t hat di scl osur e
t o St er l i ng i s never t hel ess r equi r ed because t her e has been no
83

showi ng t hat St er l i ng poses an act ual t hr eat t o t he saf et y of
t he wi t nesses. “[ T] he appr opr i at eness of usi ng pseudonyms t o
pr ot ect wi t nesses does not depend on whet her t he t hr eat t o t he
wi t ness comes di r ect l y f r om a def endant or f r omanot her sour ce. ”
Ramos- Cr uz, 667 F. 3d at 501 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
But , i n any event , t he gr and j ur y i n t hi s case has f ound
pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve t hat St er l i ng has al r eady r eveal ed
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on about a cover t oper at i on and a cover t CI A
asset f or publ i cat i on i n t he publ i c domai n. I n my opi ni on, no
mor e needs t o be shown t o demonst r at e t hat di scl osur e of t he
t r ue i dent i t i es of t he CI A wi t nesses t o St er l i ng poses an act ual
and speci f i c r i sk, suf f i ci ent t o r equi r e ser i ous i nqui r y i nt o
t he necessi t y of t he di scl osur e f or pur poses of conf r ont at i on.
Because t he gover nment seeks t o pr ot ect t he conf i dent i al i t y
of t he CI A wi t nesses’ i dent i t i es t o mi ni mi ze t he act ual t hr eat
di scl osur e poses t o t hem, St er l i ng was r equi r ed t o demonst r at e
t hat di scl osur e i s necessar y t o conduct an ef f ect i ve cr oss-
exami nat i on. See i d. at 500; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. El -
Mezai n, 664 F. 3d 467, 492, 493 ( 5t h Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat t he
def endant s’ Conf r ont at i on Cl ause r i ght s wer e not vi ol at ed by
al l owi ng I sr ael i secur i t y of f i cer s t o t est i f y usi ng pseudonyms,
due t o t he “ser i ous and cl ear need t o pr ot ect t he t r ue
i dent i t i es of [ t he wi t nesses] because of concer ns f or t hei r
saf et y” and t he def endant s’ adequat e oppor t uni t y “t o conduct
84

ef f ect i ve cr oss- exami nat i on”) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lonet r ee, 35
M. J . 396, 410 ( C. M. A. 1992) ( r ej ect i ng ar gument t hat
Conf r ont at i on Cl ause was vi ol at ed by al l owi ng a Uni t ed St at es
i nt el l i gence agent t o t est i f y wi t hout di scl osi ng hi s t r ue name
because i t endanger ed t he agent and “was not essent i al t o a f ai r
r esol ut i on of t he cause”) .
I have much r espect f or t he di st r i ct cour t , whi ch has deal t
wi t h di f f i cul t quest i ons ar i si ng f r om t he cl assi f i ed nat ur e of
t hi s case. On t hi s par t i cul ar poi nt , however , I am const r ai ned
t o f i nd an abuse of di scr et i on. Gi ven t he danger s i nvol ved, t he
di st r i ct cour t shoul d have gr ant ed t he gover nment ’ s mot i on t o
wi t hhol d di scl osur e of t he wi t nesses’ i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on
because t her e had been no showi ng t hat t he di scl osur e was
“necessar y t o al l ow ef f ect i ve cr oss- exami nat i on. ” Ramos- Cr uz,
667 F. 3d at 500. I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t mer el y r ul ed t hat
t he i dent i t i es of t he CI A wi t nesses shoul d be r eveal ed because
“t he def endant may know t hi ngs about [ a] wi t ness, ” and coul d
“t ur n t o counsel and say: Hey, ask hi m about such- and- such on
cr oss- exami nat i on. ” J . C. A. at 487. The maj or i t y si mi l ar l y
concl udes onl y t hat f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t he i dent i f yi ng
i nf or mat i on mi ght “depr i v[ e] [ St er l i ng] of t he abi l i t y t o bui l d
hi s def ense” and, “i n t hi s r egar d coul d i mpi nge on hi s
Conf r ont at i on Cl ause r i ght s. ” Maj or i t y op. at 75- 76. I n my
85

opi ni on, t hi s i s t oo specul at i ve a basi s upon whi ch t o r equi r e
di scl osur e of t he i dent i t i es of t he CI A wi t nesses t o St er l i ng.
St er l i ng has been pr ovi ded wi t h di scover y on al l of t he
wi t nesses by t hei r pseudonyms, i ncl udi ng pr i or st at ement s,
i nt er vi ew r epor t s, cabl es, and ot her document s. St er l i ng
t her ef or e appear s t o al r eady know t he f act ual connect i on t hat
each wi t ness has t o hi s case. See Ramos- Cr uz, 667 F. 3d at 501
( not i ng t hat “because t he gover nment di scl osed t o t he def ense
det ai l s of t he[ ] wi t nesses bef or e t he t r i al , t he def endant s wer e
abl e t o ef f ect i vel y cr oss- exami ne t he wi t nesses wi t hout
t hr eat eni ng t hei r saf et y” ( i nt er nal quot at i ons mar ks omi t t ed) ) .
Because di scl osur e of t he i dent i t i es of t he cover t CI A wi t nesses
endanger s t hei r saf et y, and St er l i ng has not made t he r equi r ed
demonst r at i on t hat he needs t hi s i nf or mat i on i n or der t o conduct
a meani ngf ul cr oss- exami nat i on of t he wi t nesses, I woul d r ever se
t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der r equi r i ng di scl osur e of t he
i dent i t i es of t he CI A wi t nesses t o St er l i ng as wel l .

86

GREGORY, Ci r cui t J udge, di ssent i ng as t o I ssue I :
Today we consi der t he i mpor t ance of a f r ee pr ess i n
ensur i ng t he i nf or med publ i c debat e cr i t i cal t o ci t i zens’
over si ght of t hei r democr at i cal l y el ect ed r epr esent at i ves.
Undoubt edl y, t he r evel at i on of some gover nment secr et s i s t oo
damagi ng t o our count r y’ s nat i onal secur i t y t o war r ant
pr ot ect i on by evi dent i ar y pr i vi l ege. Yet t he t r i al by pr ess of
secr et gover nment act i ons can expose mi sgui ded pol i ci es, poor
pl anni ng, and wor se. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, a f r ee and vi gor ous
pr ess i s an i ndi spensabl e par t of a syst em of democr at i c
gover nment . Our count r y’ s Founder s est abl i shed t he Fi r st
Amendment ’ s guar ant ee of a f r ee pr ess as a r ecogni t i on t hat a
gover nment unaccount abl e t o publ i c di scour se r ender s t hat
essent i al el ement of democr acy – t he vot e – meani ngl ess. The
maj or i t y r eads nar r owl y t he l aw gover ni ng t he pr ot ect i on of a
r epor t er f r om r eveal i ng hi s sour ces, a deci si on t hat i s, i n my
vi ew, cont r ar y t o t he wi l l and wi sdomof our Founder s.
The di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat under Br anzbur g v. Hayes, 408
U. S. 665 ( 1972) , and subsequent pr ecedent f r om t hi s Ci r cui t , t he
Gover nment coul d not compel Ri sen t o r eveal hi s sour ce f or
chapt er ni ne of hi s book, St at e of War . We r evi ew de novo t he
di st r i ct cour t ’ s l egal det er mi nat i on t hat t he r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege exi st s i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , and we exami ne t he
di st r i ct cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t hat pr i vi l ege t o t he i nst ant
87

f act s under a def er ent i al abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d.
1
Chur ch
of Sci ent ol ogy I nt ’ l v. Dani el s, 992 F. 2d 1329, 1334 ( 4t h Ci r .
1993) ; LaRouche v. Nat ’ l Br oad. Co. , 780 F. 2d 1134, 1139 ( 4t h
Ci r . 1986) .
A.
The f r eedom of t he pr ess i s one of our Const i t ut i on’ s most
i mpor t ant and sal ut ar y cont r i but i ons t o human hi st or y. See U. S.
Const . amend. I ( “Congr ess shal l make no l aw . . . abr i dgi ng t he
f r eedom of speech, or of t he pr ess[ . ] ”) . Repor t er s ar e “vi ewed
‘ as sur r ogat es f or t he publ i c, ’ ” Uni t ed St at es v. Cr i den, 633
F. 2d 346, 355 ( 3d Ci r . 1980) ( quot i ng Ri chmond Newspaper s, I nc.
v. Vi r gi ni a, 448 U. S. 555, 573 ( 1980) ) , who act i n t he publ i c
i nt er est by uncover i ng wr ongdoi ng by busi ness and gover nment
al i ke. Democr acy wi t hout i nf or mat i on about t he act i vi t i es of
t he gover nment i s har dl y a democr acy. The pr ess pr ovi des “a
const i t ut i onal l y chosen means f or keepi ng of f i ci al s el ect ed by
t he peopl e r esponsi bl e t o al l t he peopl e whomt hey wer e sel ect ed
t o ser ve. ” Mi l l s v. Al abama, 384 U. S. 214, 219 ( 1966) . A
ci t i zen’ s r i ght t o vot e, our most basi c democr at i c pr i nci pl e, i s
r ender ed meani ngl ess i f t he r ul i ng gover nment i s not subj ect ed
t o a f r ee pr ess’ s “or gani zed, exper t scr ut i ny of gover nment . ”

1
As t he maj or i t y not es, we have j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 18
U. S. C. § 3731.
88

J ust i ce Pot t er St ewar t , Or of t he Pr ess, 26 Hast i ngs L. J . 631,
634 ( 1975) .
The pr ot ect i on of conf i dent i al sour ces i s “necessar y t o
ensur e a f r ee and vi t al pr ess, wi t hout whi ch an open and
democr at i c soci et y woul d be i mpossi bl e t o mai nt ai n. ” Ashcr af t
v. Conoco, I nc. , 218 F. 3d 282, 287 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) . I f
r epor t er s ar e compel l ed t o di vul ge t hei r conf i dent i al sour ces,
“t he f r ee f l ow of newswor t hy i nf or mat i on woul d be r est r ai ned and
t he publ i c’ s under st andi ng of i mpor t ant i ssues and event s woul d
be hamper ed i n ways i nconsi st ent wi t h a heal t hy r epubl i c. ” I d. ;
see al so Zer i l l i v. Smi t h, 656 F. 2d 705, 711 ( D. C. Ci r . 1981)
( “Compel l i ng a r epor t er t o di scl ose t he i dent i t y of a sour ce may
si gni f i cant l y i nt er f er e wi t h t hi s news gat her i ng abi l i t y” and
t hr eat en “a vi t al sour ce of i nf or mat i on, ” l eavi ng ci t i zens “f ar
l ess abl e t o make i nf or med pol i t i cal , soci al , and economi c
choi ces. ”) .
Yet i f a f r ee pr ess i s a necessar y condi t i on of a vi br ant
democr acy, i t never t hel ess has i t s l i mi t s. “[ T] he r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege . . . i s not absol ut e and wi l l be over come whenever
soci et y’ s need f or t he conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on i n quest i on
out wei ghs t he i nt r usi on on t he r epor t er ’ s Fi r st Amendment
i nt er est s. ” Ashcr af t , 218 F. 3d at 287. And we must be mi ndf ul
of t he “f undament al maxi m t hat t he publ i c . . . has a r i ght t o
89

ever y man’ s evi dence. ” J af f ee v. Redmond, 518 U. S. 1, 9 ( 1996)
( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Br yan, 339 U. S. 323, 331 ( 1950) ) .
The publ i c, of cour se, does not have a r i ght t o see al l
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on hel d by our gover nment . But publ i c
debat e on Amer i can mi l i t ar y and i nt el l i gence met hods i s a
cr i t i cal el ement of publ i c over si ght of our gover nment .
Pr ot ect i ng t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege ensur es t he i nf or med publ i c
di scussi on of i mpor t ant mor al , l egal , and st r at egi c i ssues.
Publ i c debat e hel ps our gover nment act i n accor dance wi t h our
Const i t ut i on and our val ues. Gi ven t he unpr ecedent ed vol ume of
i nf or mat i on avai l abl e i n t he di gi t al age – i ncl udi ng i nf or mat i on
consi der ed cl assi f i ed – i t i s i mpor t ant f or j our nal i st s t o have
t he abi l i t y t o el i ci t and convey t o t he publ i c an i nf or med
nar r at i ve f i l l ed wi t h det ai l and cont ext . Such r epor t i ng i s
cr i t i cal t o t he way our ci t i zens obt ai n i nf or mat i on about what
i s bei ng done i n t hei r name by t he gover nment .
A r epor t er ’ s need f or keepi ng sour ces conf i dent i al i s not
hypot het i cal . The r ecor d on appeal cont ai ns af f i davi t s
pr of f er ed by Ri sen det ai l i ng t he i nt egr al r ol e of conf i dent i al
sour ces i n t he newsgat her i ng pr ocess. Scot t Ar mst r ong,
execut i ve di r ect or of t he I nf or mat i on Tr ust and f or mer
Washi ngt on Post r epor t er , poi nt s t o t hr ee ways i n whi ch
i nvest i gat i ve j our nal i sm uses conf i dent i al sour ces: “devel opi ng
f act ual account s and document at i on unknown t o t he publ i c, ”
90

“t ak[ i ng] a mi x of known f act s and new i nf or mat i on and
pr oduc[ i ng] an i nt er pr et at i on pr evi ousl y unavai l abl e t o t he
publ i c, ” and “publ i ci z[ i ng] i nf or mat i on devel oped i n gover nment
i nvest i gat i ons t hat has not been known t o t he publ i c and mi ght
wel l be suppr essed. ” J oi nt App’ x ( J . A. ) 531. “I t woul d be
r ar e, ” Ar mst r ong asser t s, “f or t her e not t o be mul t i pl e sour ces
– i ncl udi ng conf i dent i al sour ces – f or news st or i es on hi ghl y
sensi t i ve t opi cs. ” I d. I n t ur n, “[ m] any sour ces r equi r e such
guar ant ees of conf i dent i al i t y bef or e any ext ensi ve exchange of
i nf or mat i on i s per mi t t ed. ” J . A. 350. Such guar ant ees of
conf i dent i al i t y enabl e sour ces t o di scuss “sensi t i ve mat t er s
such as maj or pol i cy debat es, per sonnel mat t er s, i nvest i gat i ons
of i mpr opr i et i es, and f i nanci al and budget mat t er s. ” I d. Even
i n or di nar y dai l y r epor t i ng, conf i dent i al sour ces ar e cr i t i cal .
“[ O] f f i ci al gover nment pr onouncement s must be ver i f i ed bef or e
t hey ar e publ i shed, ” and t hi s i s f r equent l y done t hr ough
di scussi on wi t h of f i ci al s not aut hor i zed t o speak on t he subj ect
but who r el y on assur ances of conf i dent i al i t y. J . A. 352. These
di scussi ons can of t en l ead t o “uni que and r el evant , cont ext ual
comment s” made by t he conf i dent i al sour ce, comment s t hat deepen
t he st or y. I d.
The af f i davi t s al so r ecount numer ous i nst ances i n whi ch t he
conf i dent i al i t y pr omi sed t o sour ces was i nt egr al t o a r epor t er ’ s
devel opment of maj or st or i es cr i t i cal t o i nf or mi ng t he publ i c of
91

t he gover nment ’ s act i ons. See, e. g. , J . A. 378- 80 ( af f i davi t of
Dana Pr i est ) ( not i ng, among many st or i es, her r epor t i ng on t he
exi st ence and t r eat ment of mi l i t ar y pr i soner s at Guant anamo Bay,
Cuba; t he abuse of pr i soner s i n Abu Ghr ai b, I r aq; t he exi st ence
of secr et CI A pr i sons i n East er n Eur ope; and t he “syst emat i c
l ack of adequat e car e” f or vet er ans at Wal t er Reed Ar my Medi cal
Cent er r el i ed upon conf i dent i al sour ces) . Car l Ber nst ei n, who
has wor ked f or t he Washi ngt on Post and ABC News, wr i t es t hat
wi t hout hi s conf i dent i al sour ce known as “Deep Thr oat , ” t he
i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he Wat er gat e scandal – t he br eak- i n of t he
Democr at i c Nat i onal Commi t t ee’ s of f i ces i n t he Wat er gat e Hot el
and Of f i ce Bui l di ng t hat l ed t o t he r esi gnat i on of Pr esi dent
Ni xon – woul d never have been possi bl e. J . A. 361- 62. “Tot al
and absol ut e conf i dent i al i t y” was essent i al f or Ber nst ei n t o
cul t i vat e t he sour ce. J . A. 362.
For al l t hat t he r ecor d est abl i shes, common sense t el l s us
t he val ue of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t o j our nal i sm i s one of
t he hi ghest or der . See Ri l ey v. Ci t y of Chest er , 612 F. 2d 708,
714 ( 3d Ci r . 1979) ( “The i nt er r el at i onshi p bet ween
newsgat her i ng, news di ssemi nat i on and t he need f or a j our nal i st
t o pr ot ect hi s or her sour ce i s t oo appar ent t o r equi r e
bel abor i ng. ”) . I ndeed, r epor t er s “depend[ ] upon an at mospher e
of conf i dent i al i t y and t r ust ” t o car r y out t hei r mi ssi on, a
92

mi ssi on cr i t i cal t o an i nf or med and f unct i oni ng democr acy.
J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 10.
B.
Any consi der at i on of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege must st ar t
wi t h Br anzbur g, wher e t he Supr eme Cour t uphel d, by a vot e of
f i ve t o f our , t he compul si on of conf i dent i al sour ce i nf or mat i on
f r om r epor t er s. Br anzbur g v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 ( 1972) . The
maj or i t y opi ni on hi ghl i ght ed t he “l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e t hat
‘ t he publ i c . . . has a r i ght t o ever y man’ s evi dence, ’ except
f or t hose per sons pr ot ect ed by a const i t ut i onal , common l aw, or
st at ut or y pr i vi l ege. ” I d. at 688 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The
opi ni on al so st at ed t hat “news gat her i ng i s not wi t hout i t s
Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i ons, ” i d. at 707, but t he Cour t di d not
speci f y exact l y what t hose pr ot ect i ons mi ght encompass, al t hough
i t i ndi cat ed t hat “[ o] f f i ci al har assment of t he pr ess” and bad
f ai t h i nvest i gat i ons mi ght f al l wi t hi n t he par amet er s of t he
Fi r st Amendment ’ s pr ot ect i on of r epor t er s. I d. at 707- 08.
Fur t her compl i cat i ng mat t er s i s J ust i ce Powel l ’ s “eni gmat i c
concur r i ng opi ni on, ” i d. at 725 ( St ewar t , J . , di ssent i ng) , whi ch
i s i n par t at odds wi t h t he maj or i t y opi ni on he j oi ned. I n t he
concur r ence, J ust i ce Powel l emphasi zed “t he l i mi t ed nat ur e of
t he Cour t ’ s hol di ng, ” and endor sed a bal anci ng t est , accor di ng
t o whi ch “i f t he newsman i s cal l ed upon t o gi ve i nf or mat i on
bear i ng onl y a r emot e and t enuous r el at i onshi p t o t he subj ect of
93

t he i nvest i gat i on, ” t hen cour t s shoul d consi der t he
appl i cabi l i t y of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege on a “case- by- case
basi s” by “t he st r i ki ng of a pr oper bal ance bet ween f r eedom of
t he pr ess and t he obl i gat i on of al l ci t i zens t o gi ve r el evant
t est i mony wi t h r espect t o cr i mi nal conduct . ” I d. at 709- 10
( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) .
The f ul l i mpor t of J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence cont i nues
t o be debat ed. Some anal ogi ze t he Br anzbur g maj or i t y opi ni on t o
a pl ur al i t y opi ni on, and t her ef or e asser t J ust i ce Powel l ’ s
concur r ence as t he nar r owest opi ni on i s cont r ol l i ng. See I n r e
Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1148 ( D. C.
Ci r . 2006) ( descr i bi ng appel l ant s’ ar gument t hat i n a f i ve- t o-
f our deci si on, “t he opi ni on of t he l east encompassi ng j ust i ce [ ]
det er mi nes t he pr ecedent set by t he deci si on”) ; cf . McKoy v.
Nor t h Car ol i na, 494 U. S. 433, 462 n. 3 ( 1990) ( ar gui ng t hat a
separ at e opi ni on “cannot add t o what t he maj or i t y opi ni on hol ds,
bi ndi ng t he ot her f our J ust i ces t o what t hey have not sai d; but
i t can assur edl y nar r ow what t he maj or i t y opi ni on hol ds, by
expl ai ni ng t he mor e l i mi t ed i nt er pr et at i on adopt ed by a
necessar y member of t hat maj or i t y”) ( Scal i a, J . , di ssent i ng) .
Ot her s, l i ke my good f r i ends i n t he maj or i t y, t r eat J ust i ce
Powel l ’ s concur r ence as anci l l ar y, see ant e 22- 24, and si mpl y
r ej oi n t hat “t he meani ng of a maj or i t y opi ni on i s t o be f ound
94

wi t hi n t he opi ni on i t sel f . ” McKoy, 494 U. S. at 448 n. 3
( Bl ackmun, J . , concur r i ng) .
Gi ven t hi s conf usi on, appel l at e cour t s have subsequent l y
hewed cl oser t o J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence – and J ust i ce
St ewar t ’ s di ssent – t han t o t he maj or i t y opi ni on, and a number
of cour t s have si nce r ecogni zed a qual i f i ed r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege, of t en ut i l i zi ng a t hr ee- par t bal anci ng t est . See,
e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Capor al e, 806 F. 2d 1487, 1504 ( 11t h Ci r .
1986) ( appl yi ng t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n t he cr i mi nal
cont ext ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bur ke, 700 F. 2d 70, 76- 77 ( 2d Ci r .
1983) ( r ecogni zi ng t he qual i f i ed pr i vi l ege i n cr i mi nal cases) ;
Zer i l l i v. Smi t h, 656 F. 2d 705, 711- 13 ( D. C. Ci r . 1981)
( appl yi ng t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n a ci vi l case) . I ndeed, a
mer e f i ve year s af t er Br anzbur g, a f eder al cour t of appeal s
conf i dent l y asser t ed t hat t he exi st ence of a qual i f i ed
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege was “no l onger i n doubt . ” Si l kwood v.
Ker r - McGee Cor p. , 563 F. 2d 433, 437 ( 10t h Ci r . 1977) . I n shor t ,
J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence and t he subsequent appel l at e
hi st or y have made t he l essons of Br anzbur g about as cl ear as
mud.
The Four t h Ci r cui t , l i ke our si st er ci r cui t s, has appl i ed
J ust i ce Powel l ’ s bal anci ng t est i n anal yzi ng whet her t o appl y a
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege t o quash subpoenas seeki ng conf i dent i al
sour ce i nf or mat i on f r om r epor t er s. We f i r st expl i ci t l y adopt ed
95

J ust i ce Powel l ’ s bal anci ng t est i n an en banc opi ni on i n Uni t ed
St at es v. St eel hammer , 539 F. 2d 373, 376 ( 4t h Ci r . 1976)
( Wi nt er , J . , di ssent i ng) , adopt ed by t he cour t en banc, 561 F. 2d
539, 540 ( 4t h Ci r . 1977) . Then i n LaRouche, we appl i ed t he
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege doct r i ne t o a ci vi l case, agai n ci t i ng
J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence i n Br anzbur g f or aut hor i t y. 780
F. 2d at 1139. Fol l owi ng t he l ead of t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t , we
appl i ed a t hr ee- par t t est t o hel p us bal ance t he i nt er est s at
st ake i n det er mi ni ng whet her t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege shoul d be
appl i ed; t hat i s, we consi der ed “( 1) whet her t he i nf or mat i on i s
r el evant , ( 2) whet her t he i nf or mat i on can be obt ai ned by
al t er nat i ve means, and ( 3) whet her t her e i s a compel l i ng
i nt er est i n t he i nf or mat i on. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Mi l l er v.
Tr ansamer i can Pr ess, I nc. , 621 F. 2d 721, modi f i ed, 628 F. 2d 932
( 5t h Ci r . 1980) ) . We went on t o f i nd t hat t her e was no abuse of
di scr et i on when t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed LaRouche’ s mot i on t o
compel di scover y of a r epor t er ’ s sour ces because LaRouche “had
not exhaust ed r easonabl e al t er nat i ve means of obt ai ni ng [ t he]
same i nf or mat i on. ” LaRouche, 780 F. 2d at 1139.
I n a subsequent case i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , I n r e Shai n,
f our r epor t er s i n Sout h Car ol i na asser t ed t he r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege t o pr ot ect i nf or mat i on gl eaned f r om i nt er vi ews wi t h a
st at e l egi sl at or . 978 F. 2d 850, 851- 52 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992) . But
appl yi ng J ust i ce Powel l ’ s pr i nci pl es, we r ej ect ed t he r epor t er s’
96

cl ai mon t he gr ound t hat none of t he r epor t er s asser t ed t hat t he
i nt er vi ews wer e conf i dent i al , t hat t her e wer e agr eement s t o
r ef use r eveal i ng t he i dent i t y of t he i nt er vi ewee, or t hat t he
gover nment sought t o har ass t he r epor t er s. I d. at 853. Thus,
al t hough t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege was not r ecogni zed i n “t he
ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, ” see i d. at 854, i t i s cl ear t o me
t hat we have acknowl edged t hat a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege at t aches
i n cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs gi ven t he r i ght ci r cumst ances.
The most r ecent f eder al appel l at e cour t deci si on t o addr ess
t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege at l engt h i s I n r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena,
J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1145- 49 ( D. C. Ci r . 2006) . I n t hat
case, t he cour t r ej ect ed t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege cl ai m asser t ed
by J udi t h Mi l l er of The New Yor k Ti mes, st at i ng t hat t he
Br anzbur g deci si on was di sposi t i ve. The maj or i t y t her e – as i n
t hi s case – r easoned t hat t he Supr eme Cour t had not r evi si t ed
t he quest i on of a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege under t he Fi r st Amendment
af t er Br anzbur g, and t hat J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence di d not
det r act f r om t he pr ecedent i al wei ght of t he maj or i t y’ s
concl usi on t hat t her e was no Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege, at l east when t her e was no suggest i on t hat t he
r epor t er was bei ng pr essed f or i nf or mat i on as a means of
har assment or i nt i mi dat i on. I d. at 1145- 49. I n a t hought f ul
concur r ence, t hough, J udge Tat el poi nt ed t o t he ambi gui t i es of
t he Br anzbur g deci si on, and not ed t hat near l y ever y st at e and
97

t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a has r ecogni zed a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege.
Never t hel ess, J udge Tat el concl uded t hat “i f Br anzbur g i s t o be
l i mi t ed or di st i ngui shed i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, we
must l eave t hat t ask t o t he Supr eme Cour t . ” I d. at 1166 ( Tat el ,
J . , concur r i ng) . And al t hough he f el t const r ai ned t o deny
appl yi ng a Fi r st Amendment pr i vi l ege, J udge Tat el woul d have
hel d t hat Rul e 501 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence pr ovi des f or
a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege ( t hough on t he f act s of t hat case, t he
pr i vi l ege woul d have gi ven way due t o t he ext r aor di nar y nat i onal
secur i t y i ssue i nvol ved) . See i d. at 1177- 78 ( Tat el , J . ,
concur r i ng) .
C.
On t hi s backgr ound, I t ur n t o t he quest i on now bef or e t he
cour t : Ar e t her e ci r cumst ances i n whi ch a r epor t er may r ef use
t o t est i f y as t o t he i dent i t y of one of hi s conf i dent i al
sour ces, when t he gover nment seeks t hi s i nf or mat i on as par t of a
cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on, and t her e i s no evi dence of
pr osecut or i al bad f ai t h or har assment ? Some appel l at e cour t s
have used a t hr ee- par t t est , essent i al l y i dent i cal t o t he t est
we announced i n LaRouche i n t he ci vi l cont ext , t o hel p det er mi ne
whet her t o appl y t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n cr i mi nal cases.
See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Capor al e, 806 F. 2d 1487, 1504 ( 11t h
Ci r . 1986) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bur ke, 700 F. 2d 70, 76- 77 ( 2d Ci r .
1983) . They r equi r e t he movi ng par t y, i . e. t he gover nment , “t o
98

make a cl ear and speci f i c showi ng” t hat t he subpoenaed
i nf or mat i on i s “hi ghl y mat er i al and r el evant , necessar y or
cr i t i cal t o t he mai nt enance of t he cl ai m, and not obt ai nabl e
f r om ot her avai l abl e sour ces. ” Bur ke, 700 F. 2d at 77 ( i nt er nal
ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Cf . 28 C. F. R. § 50. 10
( pol i cy i n r egar ds t o t he i ssuance of subpoenas t o member s of
t he news medi a) .
I , t oo, woul d r ecogni ze a qual i f i ed r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n
t he cr i mi nal cont ext , and eval uat e t he pr i vi l ege usi ng t he
t hr ee- par t t est enunci at ed i n LaRouche as an “ai d” t o hel p
“bal ance t he i nt er est s i nvol ved. ” 780 F. 2d at 1139. I woul d
add a caveat t o t hi s gener al r ul e, however ; i n cases i nvol vi ng
quest i ons of nat i onal secur i t y, i f t he t hr ee- par t LaRouche t est
i s sat i sf i ed i n f avor of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, I woul d
r equi r e consi der at i on of t wo addi t i onal f act or s: t he har m
caused by t he publ i c di ssemi nat i on of t he i nf or mat i on, and t he
newswor t hi ness of t he i nf or mat i on conveyed.
2
Cf . i d. at 1139

2
By “newswor t hi ness, ” I mean t he val ue t o t he publ i c of t he
l eaked i nf or mat i on concer ni ng t he i ssues of t he day.
Necessar i l y i ncl uded i n t he concept of “newswor t hi ness” i s t he
r ecogni t i on t hat because t hi s pr i vi l ege i s qual i f i ed, i t wi l l
l i kel y det er some pot ent i al sour ces f r om di scl osi ng t hei r
i nf or mat i on. Because t he newswor t hi ness of t he i nf or mat i on
cannot be adj udged by a cour t at t he t i me of di scl osur e, a
sour ce t akes a chance t hat a cour t wi l l not pr ot ect t he sour ce.
Whi l e t hi s i s somewhat specul at i ve – not al l r epor t er s wi t h
conf i dent i al sour ces ar e r out i nel y subpoenaed – t o t he ext ent
t hi s i s a pr obl em, t he pot ent i al of t hi s chi l l i ng ef f ect

99

( est abl i shi ng a bal anci ng t est f or t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i n
t he ci vi l cont ext ) ; I n r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er ,
438 F. 3d at 1175 ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) ( st at i ng t hat cour t s
must “wei gh t he publ i c i nt er est i n compel l i ng di scl osur e,
measur ed by t he har m t he l eak caused, agai nst t he publ i c
i nt er est i n newsgat her i ng, measur ed by t he l eaked i nf or mat i on’ s
val ue”) . Thus, even when t he LaRouche t est f avor s r ecogni zi ng
t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, i n mat t er s of nat i onal secur i t y t hi s
pr i vi l ege can st i l l be over r i dden by pr essi ng gover nment
i nt er est s. I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e t hat such a t est does not
depar t f r om est abl i shed pr ecedent , t o t he cont r ar y, i t adher es
t o J ust i ce Powel l ’ s concur r ence i n Br anzbur g t hat “[ t ] he
asser t ed cl ai mt o pr i vi l ege shoul d be j udged on i t s f act s by t he
st r i ki ng of a pr oper bal ance bet ween f r eedom of t he pr ess and
t he obl i gat i on of al l ci t i zens t o gi ve r el evant t est i mony wi t h
r espect t o cr i mi nal conduct . ” 408 U. S. at 710 ( Powel l , J . ,
concur r i ng) .
D.
What ever t he l i mi t s of who may cl ai m r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege,
i t i s cl ear t hat Ri sen – a f ul l - t i me r epor t er f or a nat i onal


counsel s a br oad def i ni t i on of “newswor t hi ness. ” On t he ot her
hand, I woul d r ej ect an absol ut e pr i vi l ege because some
di scussi ons shoul d be chi l l ed – pr eci sel y t hose t hat ser i ousl y
endanger i ndi vi dual s or our nat i on’ s secur i t y wi t hout an
out wei ghi ng, compel l i ng ci vi c benef i t .
100

news publ i cat i on, The New Yor k Ti mes – f al l s i nt o t he cat egor y
of peopl e who shoul d be el i gi bl e t o i nvoke t he pr i vi l ege. I
al so not e t hat Ri sen has been of f er ed i mmuni t y by t he
Gover nment , so t her e i s no Fi f t h Amendment i ssue wi t h r egar d t o
compul si on of hi s t est i mony. The t hr eshol d i nqui r i es havi ng
been sat i sf i ed, I t ur n t o t he quest i on of whet her t he r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege shoul d appl y i n t hi s case, appl yi ng t he t est I
announced her ei n.
3

1.
The i nqui r y when appl yi ng t he f i r st LaRouche f act or i s t he
r el evance of Ri sen’ s t est i mony t o t he Gover nment ’ s case. Unl i ke
t he Br anzbur g case, wher e t he r epor t er s had knowl edge of
suspect ed cr i mes t hat coul d be ser i ousl y damagi ng t o i ndi vi dual s
and t he gover nment , t he Gover nment her e seeks a convi ct i on f or
t he ver y act of di scl osur e. The Gover nment cl ai ms t hat Ri sen’ s
t est i mony i s val uabl e t o i t s case agai nst St er l i ng f or r eveal i ng
nat i onal def ense secr et s f or t wo r easons: est abl i shi ng venue
and suppor t i ng t he Gover nment ’ s case on t he mer i t s. Wi t h
r espect t o t he f or mer , t he Gover nment bear s t he bur den of
pr ovi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat “t he essent i al
conduct el ement s” of t he char ged of f enses occur r ed wi t hi n t he

3
I emphasi ze t hat t hese f act ual asser t i ons have yet t o be
pr oven, and my anal ysi s woul d not , even i f i t wer e t he maj or i t y
opi ni on, const r ai n t he j ur y’ s r esol ut i on of di sput ed f act ual
i ssues at t r i al .
101

East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a. Uni t ed St at es v. Eber sol e, 411
F. 3d 517, 524 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) .
The r ecor d suggest s t he Gover nment can show t hat Ri sen made
phone cal l s f r om t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a t o St er l i ng’ s
Mi ssour i r esi dence. Fur t her mor e, emai l s exchanged wi t h St er l i ng
used a ser ver l ocat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a. Of
cour se, i n or der t o pr ove venue, t he Gover nment must show t hat
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on was di scl osed dur i ng t hese
communi cat i ons. I t appear s venue can be est abl i shed wi t hout
r equi r i ng Ri sen t o di scl ose hi s conf i dent i al sour ces, l i mi t i ng
t he r el evance of hi s t est i mony. And as addr essed bel ow wi t h
r egar d t o t he val ue of Ri sen’ s t est i mony t o t he Gover nment ’ s
case- i n- chi ef , t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on was di scussed appear s t o be st r ong,
4
i ndi cat i ng t hat
Ri sen’ s t est i mony r egar di ng hi s conf i dent i al sour ces i s by no
means per t i nent t o t he Gover nment pr ovi ng St er l i ng gui l t y.
2.
Tur ni ng t o t he second LaRouche f act or , whet her t he
i nf or mat i on sought —t he i dent i t y of t he sour ce of t he l eak —i s

4
I n det er mi ni ng t he r el evance of t he evi dence sought t o be
pr ot ect ed by t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege and whet her t he Gover nment
may pr ove i t s al l egat i ons by ot her means, we necessar i l y make a
pr el i mi nar y i nqui r y i nt o t he mer i t s of t he case, al t hough such
an i nqui r y i s not equi val ent t o a j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.
102

avai l abl e by ot her means, t he Gover nment cl ai ms Ri sen’ s
t est i mony i s a cr i t i cal par t of i t s case agai nst St er l i ng
l ar gel y because Ri sen i s t he onl y eyewi t ness t o t he cr i me; t he
ot her evi dence i s ci r cumst ant i al .
5
The Gover nment ’ s
demonst r at i on of i t s good- f ai t h ef f or t t o obt ai n si mi l ar
evi dence t hr ough ot her means i s a necessar y par t of i t s showi ng.
See Uni t ed St at es v. Cut hber t son, 651 F. 2d 189, 195- 96 ( 3d Ci r .
1981) ( r equi r i ng a demonst r at i on t hat t he par t y seeki ng t o
over come t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege “demonst r at e t hat he has made
an ef f or t t o obt ai n t he i nf or mat i on f r om ot her sour ces”)
( quot i ng Cr i den, 633 F. 2d at 358- 59) . But i t i s pr eci sel y
because of t he Gover nment ’ s di l i gence t hat i t dot h pr ot est t oo
much. An anal ysi s of t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence shows t he
Gover nment ’ s case i s not as weak as i t or t he maj or i t y cl ai ms,
l i mi t i ng t he need f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony.

5
As t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed, t he pr i vi l ege shoul d ext end
t o i nf or mat i on t hat woul d l ead t he gover nment t o t he i dent i t y of
t he conf i dent i al sour ce. See Uni t ed St at es v. St er l i ng, 818 F.
Supp. 2d 945, 955 ( E. D. Va. 2011) ( “Cour t s have l ong hel d t hat
t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege i s not nar r owl y l i mi t ed t o pr ot ect i ng
t he r epor t er f r om di scl osi ng t he names of conf i dent i al sour ces,
but al so ext ends t o i nf or mat i on t hat coul d l ead t o t he di scover y
of a sour ce’ s i dent i t y. ”) . That t he cover age of t he pr i vi l ege
shoul d ext end so f ar i s commonsensi cal ; ot her wi se, t he quest i ons
coul d be t ai l or ed t o swal l ow t he pr i vi l ege. Cf . New Yor k Ti mes
Co. v. Gonzal es, 459 F. 3d 160, 168 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( r ecogni zi ng
t hat t he subpoena of a r epor t er ’ s phone r ecor ds “i s a f i r st st ep
of an i nqui r y i nt o t he i dent i t y” of t he sour ce and t hat a
bal anci ng t est shoul d be appl i ed t o det er mi ne whet her t he
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege cover s t he r ecor ds) .
103

Fi r st , t he Gover nment can demonst r at e t hat St er l i ng showed
Ri sen’ s book t o St er l i ng’ s t hen- gi r l f r i end i n a bookst or e and,
wi t hout so much as openi ng i t , St er l i ng t ol d her t hat chapt er
ni ne di scussed hi s wor k at t he CI A.
6
The book i t sel f r eveal s
det ai l s about Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr am No. 1 t hat t end t o l i nk
St er l i ng t o chapt er ni ne. For exampl e, sect i ons of t he chapt er
ar e t ol d f r om t he poi nt of vi ew of t he case of f i cer r esponsi bl e
f or Human Asset No. 1 – whi ch was St er l i ng’ s r esponsi bi l i t y –
and t he Gover nment asser t s t hat t he chapt er descr i bes t wo
cl assi f i ed meet i ngs at whi ch St er l i ng was t he onl y common
at t endee.
Second, t he Gover nment has t he af or ement i oned phone r ecor ds
demonst r at i ng t hat St er l i ng and Ri sen cal l ed each ot her seven
t i mes bet ween Febr uar y 27 and Mar ch 31, 2003. The Gover nment
al so has evi dence t hat St er l i ng at t empt ed t o del et e emai l s
r ef er enci ng meet i ngs and shar ed i nf or mat i on bet ween St er l i ng and
Ri sen, and par t s of t he emai l s wer e i ndeed obl i t er at ed. I n one
emai l t hat was not f ul l y del et ed, Ri sen asks St er l i ng, “Can we

6
The Gover nment suggest s t hat t he bookst or e wi t ness i s now
( or was f or a t i me) St er l i ng’ s wi f e, and ar gues t hat her
t est i mony mi ght not be admi t t ed at t r i al because she mi ght
asser t a t est i moni al pr i vi l ege. See Tr ammel v. Uni t ed St at es,
445 U. S. 40, 53 ( 1980) ( onl y t he wi t ness- spouse can asser t t he
spousal pr i vi l ege) . Whet her t hi s t est i mony i s subj ect t o
pr i vi l ege i s a quest i on f or t he di st r i ct cour t i n t he f i r st
i nst ance, and I seek nei t her t o answer t hi s quest i on nor t o
r emove f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s pur vi ew t he abi l i t y t o deci de
whet her t he t est i mony coul d pr oper l y be admi t t ed.
104

get t oget her i n ear l y J anuar y?” J . A. 40. I n anot her , Ri sen
t el l s St er l i ng “I want t o cal l you t oday[ . ] I ’ mt r yi ng t o wr i t e
t he st or y . . . . I need your t el ephone number agai n. ” J . A.
40. Ri sen sent anot her emai l t o St er l i ng, t hi s t i me st at i ng
“I ’ m sor r y i f I f ai l ed you so f ar but I r eal l y enj oy t al ki ng t o
you and woul d l i ke t o cont i nue, ” J . A. 41, an appar ent r ef er ence
t o The New Yor k Ti mes’ s r ef usal t o publ i sh Ri sen’ s st or y on
Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr amNo. 1.
Thi r d, t he pr osecut i on expect s t o el i ci t at t r i al t he
t est i mony of a f or mer Uni t ed St at es i nt el l i gence of f i ci al .
Ri sen al l egedl y t ol d t hi s of f i ci al , who occasi onal l y di scussed
Ri sen’ s r epor t i ng wi t h hi m, t hat St er l i ng was i nvol ved i n
r ecr ui t i ng a sour ce f or “an i mpor t ant oper at i on” t hat “t ar get ed
[ ] t he I r ani an nucl ear pr ogr am, ” and t hat St er l i ng was
f r ust r at ed by t he per cei ved l ack of r ecogni t i on he r ecei ved
wi t hi n t he CI A f or hi s ef f or t s. J oi nt Cl assi f i ed App’ x ( J . C. A. )
622, 624- 25. Thi s of f i ci al , t he di st r i ct cour t wr ot e, “t ol d t he
gr and j ur y t hat Ri sen had t ol d hi m t hat St er l i ng was hi s sour ce
f or i nf or mat i on about t he I r ani an nucl ear weapons oper at i on. ”
Fi nal l y, t he Gover nment can al so l i nk Ri sen and St er l i ng i n
t he r epor t i ng of cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on on a pr i or occasi on:
Ri sen’ s Mar ch 2002 New Yor k Ti mes ar t i cl e ent i t l ed “Fi r ed by t he
C. I . A. , He Says Agency Pr act i ced Bi as” not ed t hat St er l i ng
pr ovi ded Ri sen wi t h one of St er l i ng’ s cl assi f i ed per f or mance
105

eval uat i ons. I n shor t , t he Gover nment has made “[ a] l l
r easonabl e at t empt s . . . t o obt ai n i nf or mat i on f r om al t er nat i ve
sour ces” as r ecommended by t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce’ s i nt er nal
gui del i nes on subpoenas f or t est i mony by news medi a, see 28
C. F. R. § 50. 10. The Gover nment ’ s ef f or t s have yi el ded mul t i pl e
evi dent i ar y avenues t hat , when pr esent ed t oget her , may be used
t o est abl i sh what t he Gover nment sought t o est abl i sh sol el y wi t h
t est i mony f r om Ri sen—t hat St er l i ng l eaked cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on, r ender i ng Ri sen’ s t est i mony r egar di ng hi s
conf i dent i al sour ces super f l uous.
3.
The t hi r d LaRouche f act or i s whet her t he Gover nment has a
compel l i ng i nt er est i n t he i nf or mat i on i t seeks f r om Ri sen.
Suf f i ce i t t o say, t he pr osecut i on’ s body of evi dence wi t hout
Ri sen’ s t est i mony i s st r ong.
7
The f r equency of t he phone cal l s
bet ween Ri sen and St er l i ng, t he f or ensi cal l y r et r i eved emai l s,
t he st or i es publ i shed i n The New Yor k Ti mes, t he t est i mony of a
f or mer Uni t ed St at es i nt el l i gence of f i ci al , and t he bookst or e
eyewi t ness pr ovi de ext ensi ve ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of t he
cr i me and t he cour t ’ s venue. Whi l e St er l i ng may ar gue t hat

7
Ther e may yet be f ur t her mot i ons i n l i mi ne chal l engi ng
some of t he evi dence t hat t he Gover nment may wi sh t o pr esent at
t r i al . I do not suggest a vi ew one way or t he ot her on t he
mer i t s of any pot ent i al chal l enges; my anal ysi s i s l i mi t ed t o
Ri sen’ s cl ai mof r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege.
106

ot her st af f member s who had access t o nat i onal secur i t y
i nf or mat i on coul d have been t he sour ce of t he l eak, t he
Gover nment , as i t acknowl edges, may si mpl y cal l t o t he st and
t hose st af f member s t o ask whet her t hey wer e Ri sen’ s sour ce.
Whi l e t he pr osecut i on woul d undoubt edl y be bet t er of f wi t h
Ri sen’ s t est i mony – none of t he r emai ni ng pi eces of evi dence i s
a smoki ng gun – t he bal anci ng t est cannot mean t hat t he
pr i vi l ege yi el ds si mpl y because “no ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, or
combi nat i on t her eof , i s as pr obat i ve as Ri sen’ s t est i mony or as
cer t ai n t o f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y of r easonabl e doubt . ”
8

Br i ef f or t he Uni t ed St at es at 14. The speci f i ci t y of t he
i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n chapt er ni ne of Ri sen’ s book, coupl ed
wi t h t he l i mi t ed uni ver se of i ndi vi dual s who had access t o t he
i nf or mat i on, t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, and pr oof by negat i ve
i mpl i cat i on, compose a r easonabl y st r ong case f or t he
Gover nment . As we have st at ed bef or e, “ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
i s no l ess pr obat i ve t han di r ect evi dence. ” St amper v. Munci e,
944 F. 2d 170, 174 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) . I woul d t her ef or e concl ude

8
My good col l eagues obser ve t hat ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s
not al ways as ef f ect i ve as di r ect evi dence. ( Opi ni on of
Tr axl er , C. J . , at 49) . I do not di sagr ee. Rat her , I obser ve
t hat i n t hi s case, t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence pr of f er ed by t he
Gover nment appear s st r ong enough f or t he j ur y t o dr aw a
concl usi on r egar di ng t he i dent i t y of Ri sen’ s sour ce. I do not
di sput e t hat di r ect evi dence woul d be mor e ef f ect i ve t han
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o est abl i sh t he i dent i t y of t he sour ce,
but ot her f act or s ar e at pl ay.
107

t hat t he Gover nment has f ai l ed t o demonst r at e a suf f i ci ent l y
compel l i ng need f or Ri sen’ s t est i mony.
4.
Sat i sf i ed t hat t he LaRouche f act or s wei gh i n f avor of
Ri sen’ s pr i vi l ege f r om t est i f yi ng as t o hi s conf i dent i al
sour ces, I t ur n next t o newswor t hi ness and har m, t he t wo
addi t i onal f act or s I suggest shoul d appl y i n a case i nvol vi ng
nat i onal secur i t y i nf or mat i on. On t he pr esent r ecor d, t he
newswor t hi ness of t he l eaked i nf or mat i on appear s t o be
subst ant i al . The i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n chapt er ni ne of St at e
of War cover s t he Uni t ed St at es i nt el l i gence communi t y’ s ef f or t s
concer ni ng t he devel opment of t he I r ani an nucl ear pr ogr am. The
chapt er quest i ons t he compet ence of t he CI A’ s management of
Cl assi f i ed Pr ogr amNo. 1. Chapt er ni ne di scusses a pl an t o have
a f or mer Russi an sci ent i st gi ve I r ani an of f i ci al s i ncor r ect
nucl ear weapon desi gn speci f i cat i ons i n an at t empt t o det er mi ne
t he st at us of t he I r ani an nucl ear weapons pr ogr am, and t o st al l
or t hwar t t he pr ogr ess of t hat pr ogr am, per haps f or year s. The
bl uepr i nt s wer e so def i ci ent , t he chapt er opi nes, t hat t he
Russi an sci ent i st spot t ed a f l aw al most i mmedi at el y. Al t hough
t he sci ent i st expl ai ned t hi s f l aw t o t he CI A, Ri sen wr i t es, t he
CI A pr oceeded wi t h t he pl ot . I n a l et t er accompanyi ng t he
bl uepr i nt s, t he Russi an sci ent i st di scl osed t o t he I r ani ans t he
f l aw he spot t ed i n t he pl ans. Because t he I r ani ans had r ecei ved
108

sci ent i f i c hel p f r om Russi an and Chi nese sci ent i st s, t he chapt er
cont i nues, and because I r an al r eady had bl ack mar ket nucl ear
bl uepr i nt s, I r ani an sci ent i st s coul d l i kel y di f f er ent i at e t he
good f r om t he f l awed i n t he Amer i can bl uepr i nt s. I n ot her
wor ds, Ri sen asser t s, Cl assi f i ed Oper at i on No. 1 may have hel ped
I r an advance i t s nucl ear pr ogr am. The chapt er al so descr i bes
t he i nadver t ent di scl osur e t o an I r ani an doubl e- agent of t he
i dent i t i es of ever y spy t he CI A had wi t hi n I r an – i nf or mat i on
t hat was t hen t ur ned over t o I r ani an secur i t y of f i ci al s, who i n
t ur n ar r est ed a number of t hose agent s. Fi nal l y, t he chapt er
r ecount s t he CI A’ s i nabi l i t y t o obt ai n mor e t han “f r agment ar y
i nf or mat i on about I r an’ s nucl ear pr ogr am. ” J . S. A. 208.
Thi s i nf or mat i on i s not ext r aneous. Qui t e t he opposi t e, i t
por t ends t o i nf or m t he r eader of a bl under ed Amer i can
i nt el l i gence mi ssi on i n I r an. Si nce t he Uni t ed St at es’ i nvasi on
of I r aq i n 2003, our nat i on’ s f ocus has shi f t ed t o t he nucl ear
capabi l i t i es of I r an, speci f i cal l y whet her I r an i s at t empt i ng t o
bui l d a nucl ear bomb and how soon i t can achi eve t he t echni cal
capabi l i t i es t o do so. St at e of War was r el eased i n 2006 –
t hr ee year s af t er t he I r aq i nvasi on. The I r aq i nvasi on was
under t aken i n par t based on concer ns t hat I r aq had devel oped
weapons of mass dest r uct i on, possi bl y i ncl udi ng nucl ear
weaponr y. See J . S. A. 182. The appar ent l ack of weapons of mass
dest r uct i on i n I r aq, i t has been ar gued, hi ghl i ght s a
109

si gni f i cant f ai l ur e of Uni t ed St at es i nt el l i gence. See J . A.
381. Ri sen hi msel f cont r i but ed t o our under st andi ng of t hi s
al l eged f ai l ur e. See J ames Ri sen, “C. I . A. Hel d Back I r aqi Ar ms
Dat a, U. S. Of f i ci al s Say, ” The New Yor k Ti mes, J ul y 6, 2001, at
A1; J . S. A. 218- 232 ( chapt er ni ne of St at e of War ) .
I n a si mi l ar vei n, Ri sen’ s i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he met hods
and capabi l i t i es of t he Uni t ed St at es f or ei gn i nt el l i gence
communi t y wi t h r espect t o t he I r ani an nucl ear pr ogr am i s sur el y
news of t he hi ghest i mpor t , par t i cul ar l y gi ven t he appar ent
cont r et emps made i n t he Nat i onal I nt el l i gence Est i mat e of 2007.
See Nat i onal I nt el l i gence Counci l , Nat i onal I nt el l i gence
Est i mat e, I r an: Nucl ear I nt ent i ons and Capabi l i t i es ( Nov.
2007) , ht t p: / / www. odni . gov/ pr ess_r el eases/ 20071203_r el ease. pdf
( asser t i ng wi t h “hi gh conf i dence” t hat I r an i n 2003 hal t ed i t s
nucl ear weapons pr ogr am, despi t e 2005 i nt el l i gence est i mat e
not i ng t hat I r an i s “det er mi ned t o devel op nucl ear weapons”) .
Si gni f i cant publ i c specul at i on about t he possi bi l i t y of a
conf l i ct wi t h I r an has r epeat edl y sur f aced i n r ecent year s. See
Seymour M. Her sh, “I r an and t he Bomb, ” The New Yor ker , J une 6,
2011, ht t p: / / www. newyor ker . com/ r epor t i ng/ 2011/ 06/ 06/ 110606f a. f ac
t s. her sh ( “Ther e i s a l ar ge body of evi dence . . . i ncl udi ng
some of Amer i ca’ s most hi ghl y cl assi f i ed i nt el l i gence
assessment s, suggest i ng t hat t he Uni t ed St at es coul d be i n
danger of r epeat i ng a mi st ake si mi l ar t o t he one made wi t h
110

Saddam Hussei n’ s I r aq ei ght year s ago – al l owi ng anxi et i es about
t he pol i ci es of a t yr anni cal r egi me t o di st or t our est i mat i ons
of t he st at e’ s mi l i t ar y capabi l i t i es and i nt ent i ons. ”) . Ri sen’ s
r epor t i ng on I r an’ s nucl ear capabi l i t i es i s al so par t i cul ar l y
r el evant gi ven t he cr i t i ci sm of t he nat i onal pr ess f or i t s
per cei ved f ai l ur e t o scr ut i ni ze Uni t ed St at es i nt el l i gence
r egar di ng I r aq’ s weapons capabi l i t i es. See J ames Ri sen, “C. I . A.
Hel d Back I r aqi Ar ms Dat a, U. S. Of f i ci al s Say, ” N. Y. Ti mes, J ul y
6, 2004, at A1. I ndeed, i t i s har d t o i magi ne many subj ect s
mor e deser vi ng of publ i c scr ut i ny and debat e.
9

As a f i nal st ep i n t he Fi r st Amendment i nqui r y, I woul d
r equi r e t he di st r i ct cour t t o bal ance t he newswor t hi ness of t he

9
The di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o consi der newswor t hi ness as
a f act or i n i t s r ul i ng on r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege because no cour t
had i dent i f i ed newswor t hi ness as a f act or i n t he bal anci ng t est .
The di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat consi der i ng newswor t hi ness woul d
cause t he cour t t o “ser ve as edi t or - i n- chi ef , uni l at er al l y
det er mi ni ng whet her r epor t i ng i s suf f i ci ent l y accur at e or
newswor t hy as t o be deser vi ng of Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on. ”
Uni t ed St at es v. St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d 945, 954 ( E. D. Va.
2011) . I n t he absence of pr ecedent i al case l aw i dent i f yi ng t hi s
f act or , i t i s under st andabl e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o
consi der newswor t hi ness. But I do not doubt t he di st r i ct
cour t ’ s abi l i t y t o det er mi ne t he val ue t o t he publ i c of
par t i cul ar news st or i es. Cour t s al r eady conduct t hi s anal ysi s
i n ot her Fi r st Amendment cont ext s; f or exampl e, when assessi ng
r est r i ct i ons on gover nment empl oyee speech. See, e. g. , Ci t y of
San Di ego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 84 ( 2004) ( per cur i am) ( r equi r i ng
cour t s t o eval uat e t he “l egi t i mat e news i nt er est , ” meani ng t he
“val ue and concer n t o t he publ i c at t he t i me of publ i cat i on”) .
111

i nf or mat i on agai nst t he har m caused by t he l eak.
10
The pr esent
r ecor d i s not wel l devel oped on t hi s poi nt . The di st r i ct cour t
under st andabl y decl i ned t o conduct f act - f i ndi ng on t hi s i ssue
because t hi s f act or had not been i dent i f i ed i n pr i or case l aw.
Mor eover , t he Gover nment has not cl ear l y ar t i cul at ed t he nat ur e,
ext ent , and sever i t y of t he har m r esul t i ng f r om t he l eak.
11

Wi t hout such evi dence, i t i s i mpossi bl e f or a r evi ewi ng cour t t o
det er mi ne whet her t he Fi r st Amendment i nt er est i n pr esent i ng
newswor t hy i nf or mat i on t o t he publ i c — i f i ndeed t he di st r i ct
cour t f i nds t he i nf or mat i on newswor t hy — i s out wei ghed by t he
consequences of t he l eak. Mor eover , al t hough I r ecogni ze t he

10
I woul d f i nd a r epor t er ’ s cl ai mof pr i vi l ege t o be at i t s
st r ongest when t he di scl osur e at i ssue cover s gover nment al
met hods and pol i ci es t hat chal l enge what i s mor al , l egal , and,
br oadl y speaki ng, st r at egi c f or our gover nment t o do. Cf . I n r e
Gr and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h Mi l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1174 ( D. C.
Ci r . 2006) ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( “I t seems
har d t o i magi ne how t he har m i n l eaki ng gener i c descr i pt i ons of
[ a t op- secr et sat el l i t e] pr ogr am coul d out wei gh t he benef i t of
i nf or mi ng t he publ i c about bi l l i ons of dol l ar s wast ed on
t echnol ogy consi der ed dupl i cat i ve and unnecessar y by l eadi ng
Senat or s f r om bot h par t i es. ”) . I n cont r ast , I woul d f i nd i t
unl i kel y t hat a r epor t er coul d avai l hi msel f of t he pr i vi l ege
when t he l eak concer ns “t he desi gn f or a t op secr et nucl ear
weapon, f or exampl e, or pl ans f or an i mmi nent mi l i t ar y
st r i ke. ”) . I d. at 1173 ( Tat el , J . , concur r i ng) . Such l eaks
convey l i t t l e i nf or mat i on usef ul t o t he publ i c i n i t s ci vi c r ol e
yet pr esent gr eat r i sks t o nat i onal secur i t y.
11
I am wel l awar e t hat t he r evel at i on of cl assi f i ed
gover nment i nf or mat i on can sur el y be among t he most har mf ul of
cr i mes. However , i t i s not t he f act t hat t he i nf or mat i on i s
cl assi f i ed t hat r ender s t he cr i me so har mf ul ; t he har m der i ves
f r om t he cont ent of t hat i nf or mat i on, and what i s, or may be,
done wi t h t he i nf or mat i on i f i t f al l s i nt o t he wr ong hands.
112

di f f i cul t l y of eval uat i ng t he gover nment ’ s i nt er est s i n a case
i nvol vi ng nat i onal secur i t y i nf or mat i on, I am al so mi ndf ul of
t he f act t hat “[ t ] he Fi r st Amendment i nt er est i n i nf or med
popul ar debat e does not si mpl y vani sh at t he i nvocat i on of t he
wor ds ‘ nat i onal secur i t y. ’ ” Uni t ed St at es v. Mor i son, 844 F. 2d
1057, 1081 ( 4t h Ci r . 1988) ( Wi l ki nson, J . , concur r i ng) . Wi t h
al l t hi ngs consi der ed, t he di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect i n hol di ng
t hat Ri sen was pr ot ect ed f r om di scl osi ng hi s conf i dent i al
sour ces by a Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege.
I f i nd i t sad t hat t he maj or i t y depar t s f r om J ust i ce
Powel l ’ s Br anzbur g concur r ence and our est abl i shed pr ecedent t o
announce f or t he f i r st t i me t hat t he Fi r st Amendment pr ovi des no
pr ot ect i on f or r epor t er s. Ant e 25. Under t he maj or i t y’ s
ar t i cul at i on of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, or l ack t her eof ,
absent a showi ng of bad f ai t h by t he gover nment , a r epor t er can
al ways be compel l ed agai nst her wi l l t o r eveal her conf i dent i al
sour ces i n a cr i mi nal t r i al . The maj or i t y exal t s t he i nt er est s
of t he gover nment whi l e undul y t r ampl i ng t hose of t he pr ess, and
i n doi ng so, sever el y i mpi nges on t he pr ess and t he f r ee f l ow of
i nf or mat i on i n our soci et y. The Fi r st Amendment was desi gned t o
count er act t he ver y r esul t t he maj or i t y r eaches t oday. I n sum,
I woul d af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s r ul i ng as t o Ri sen’ s
asser t i on of a Fi r st Amendment r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, al bei t
usi ng t he t hr ee- par t LaRouche t est and bal anci ng t he t wo
113

addi t i onal f act or s i dent i f i ed her ei n: newswor t hi ness of t he
l eaked i nf or mat i on and t he har mr esul t i ng f r omt he l eak.
E.
Even i f I wer e not i ncl i ned t o r ecogni ze a Fi r st Amendment
pr i vi l ege f or a r epor t er i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext gi ven
Br anzbur g, I woul d r ecogni ze a common l aw pr i vi l ege pr ot ect i ng a
r epor t er ’ s sour ces pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 501.
12

Rul e 501 was pr omul gat ed t hr ee year s af t er t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s
deci si on i n Br anzbur g. See Pub. L. No. 93- 595, 88 St at . 1926
( 1975) . The Rul e aut hor i zes f eder al cour t s t o cr eat e new
evi dent i ar y pr i vi l eges usi ng t he “common l aw . . . i n t he l i ght
of r eason and exper i ence. ” Fed. R. Evi d. 501. The Rul e “di d
not f r eeze t he l aw gover ni ng t he pr i vi l eges of wi t nesses i n
f eder al t r i al s at a par t i cul ar poi nt i n our hi st or y, but r at her
di r ect ed f eder al cour t s t o ‘ cont i nue t he evol ut i onar y
devel opment of t est i moni al pr i vi l eges. ’ ” J af f ee v. Redmond, 518
U. S. 1, 9 ( 1996) ( quot i ng Tr ammel v. Uni t ed St at es, 445 U. S. 40,
47 ( 1980) ) . By adopt i ng Rul e 501, Congr ess has gi ven aut hor i t y
t o t he cour t s t o use case- by- case adj udi cat i on t o f i nd new
evi dent i ar y pr i vi l eges. Uni t ed St at es v. Weber Ai r cr af t Cor p. ,

12
To be sur e, t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat t he r epor t er ’ s
pr i vi l ege i s a const i t ut i onal one guar ant eed by t he Fi r st
Amendment . Uni t ed St at es v. St er l i ng, 818 F. Supp. 2d 945, 954.
Thi s cour t may, however , af f i r m on any gr ounds suppor t ed by t he
r ecor d. MM v. Sch. Di st . of Gr eenvi l l e Cnt y. , 303 F. 3d 523, 536
( 4t h Ci r . 2002) .
114

465 U. S. 792, 803 n. 25 ( 1984) ( “Rul e 501 was adopt ed pr eci sel y
because Congr ess wi shed t o l eave pr i vi l ege quest i ons t o t he
cour t s r at her t han at t empt t o codi f y t hem. ”) . I n l i ght of
Br anzbur g’ s i nsi st ence t hat “Congr ess has f r eedom t o det er mi ne
whet her a st at ut or y newsman’ s pr i vi l ege i s necessar y and
desi r abl e and t o f ashi on st andar ds and r ul es as nar r ow or br oad
as deemed necessar y t o deal wi t h t he evi l di scer ned, ” 408 U. S.
at 706, a f ul l di scussi on of t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege must
r eckon wi t h Rul e 501.
Test i moni al pr i vi l eges “ar e not l i ght l y cr eat ed nor
expansi vel y const r ued, f or t hey ar e i n der ogat i on of t he sear ch
f or t r ut h. ” Uni t ed St at es v. Ni xon, 418 U. S. 683, 710 ( 1974) .
But t he Supr eme Cour t and t he ci r cui t cour t s, usi ng Rul e 501,
have r ecogni zed a number of t est i moni al pr i vi l eges. See, e. g. ,
J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 15 ( r ecogni zi ng psychot her api st - pat i ent
pr i vi l ege) ; Upj ohn Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 449 U. S. 383, 386- 90
( 1981) ( r ecogni zi ng at t or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege) ; Tr ammel v.
Uni t ed St at es, 445 U. S. 40, 51- 53 ( 1980) ( r ecogni zi ng mar i t al
communi cat i ons pr i vi l ege) ; Goodyear Ti r e & Rubber Co. v. Chi l es
Power Suppl y, I nc. , 331 F. 3d 976 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) ( r ecogni zi ng
set t l ement communi cat i ons pr i vi l ege) ; Ri l ey v. Ci t y of Chest er ,
612 F. 2d 708, 715 ( 3d Ci r . 1979) ( r ecogni zi ng a qual i f i ed
r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege) . Al l of t hese pr i vi l eges ar e “di st i nct l y
except i onal , ” and have onl y been r ecogni zed because t hey ser ve a
115

“publ i c good t r anscendi ng t he nor mal l y pr edomi nant pr i nci pl e of
ut i l i zi ng al l r at i onal means f or ascer t ai ni ng t r ut h. ” J af f ee,
518 U. S. at 9 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
I n my vi ew, t he r epor t er - sour ce pr i vi l ege meet s t hi s hi gh bar .
The Supr eme Cour t has st at ed t hat “t he pol i cy deci si ons of
t he St at es bear on t he quest i on [ of ] whet her f eder al cour t s
shoul d r ecogni ze a new pr i vi l ege or amend cover age of an
exi st i ng one, ” and “[ i ] t i s of no consequence t hat r ecogni t i on
of t he pr i vi l ege i n t he vast maj or i t y of St at es i s t he pr oduct
of l egi sl at i ve act i on r at her t han j udi ci al deci si on. ” I d. at
12- 13. When t he Br anzbur g deci si on i ssued, onl y sevent een
st at es had r ecogni zed some pr ot ect i on f or a r epor t er r egar di ng
hi s or her conf i dent i al sour ces. Br anzbur g, 408 U. S. at 689
n. 27. Today, onl y one st at e, Wyomi ng, has not enact ed or
adopt ed a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege. Thi r t y- ni ne st at es and t he
Di st r i ct of Col umbi a have shi el d l aws f or r epor t er s, whet her
t hose shi el ds ar e absol ut e or qual i f i ed. See Al a. Code
§ 12- 21- 142; Al aska St at . § 09. 25. 300; Ar i z. Rev. St at . Ann.
§ 12- 2237; Ar k. Code Ann. § 16- 85- 510; Cal . Const . Ar t . I ,
§ 2( b) ; Cal . Evi d. Code § 1070; Col o. Rev. St at . §§ 13- 90- 119,
24- 72. 5- 101; Conn. Gen. St at . Ann. § 52- 146t ; Del . Code Ann.
t i t . 10, § 4320; D. C. Code § 16- 4701; Fl a. St at . § 90. 5015; Ga.
Code Ann. § 24- 9- 30; Haw. Rev. St at . § 621, as amended by 2011
Haw. Sess. Laws ch. 113 ( J une 14, 2011) ; 735 I l l . Comp. St at .
116

5/ 8- 901; I nd. Code Ann. §§ 34- 46- 4- 1, - 2; Kan. St at . Ann.
§ 60- 480; Ky. Rev. St at . Ann. § 421. 100; La. Rev. St at . Ann.
§ 45: 1451; Md. Code Ann. Ct s. & J ud. Pr oc. § 9- 112; Mi ch. Comp.
Laws § 767. 5a; Mi nn. St at . § 595. 021; Mont . Code Ann.
§ 26- 1- 901; Neb. Rev. St at . § 20- 144; Nev. Rev. St at . Ann.
§ 49. 275; N. J . St at . Ann. § 2A: 84A- 21; N. M. St at . Ann. § 38- 6- 7;
N. Y. Ci v. Ri ght s Law § 79- h; N. C. Gen. St at . § 8- 53. 11; N. D.
Cent . Code § 31- 01- 06. 2; Ohi o Rev. Code Ann. § 2739. 12; Okl a.
St at . Ann. t i t . 12, § 2506; Or . Rev. St at . § 44. 510; 42 Pa.
Cons. St at . Ann. § 5942; R. I . Gen. Laws § 9- 19. 1- 1; S. C. Code
Ann. § 19- 11- 100; Tenn. Code Ann. § 24- 1- 208; Tex. Ci v. Pr ac. &
Rem. Code Ann. §§ 22. 021- 22. 027; Ut ah Or der 08- 04 [ Ut ah R. Evi d.
509] ; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 5. 68. 010; 2011 W. Va. Act s 78 ( t o
be codi f i ed at W. Va. Code § 57- 3- 10) ; Wi s. St at . Am. § 885. 14.
I n t en st at es wi t hout st at ut or y shi el d l aws, t he pr i vi l ege has
been r ecogni zed i n some f or m or anot her by t he cour t s. See
St at e v. Sal sbur y, 924 P. 2d 208 ( I daho 1996) ; Wi negar d v.
Oxber ger , 258 N. W. 2d 847 ( I owa 1977) , cer t . deni ed, 436 U. S. 905
( 1978) ; I n r e Let el l i er , 578 A. 2d 722 ( Me. 1990) ; I n r e J ohn Doe
Gr and J ur y I nvest i gat i on, 574 N. E. 2d 373 ( Mass. 1991) ; Si nnot t
v. Bost on Ret i r ement Bd. , 524 N. E. 2d 100 ( Mass. ) , cer t . deni ed,
488 U. S. 980 ( 1988) ; St at e ex r el . Cl assi c I I I v. El y, 954
S. W. 2d 650, 653 ( Mo. Ct . App. 1997) ; St at e v. Si el , 444 A. 2d 499
( N. H. 1982) ; Hopewel l v. Mi dcont i nent Br oad. Cor p. , 538 N. W. 2d
117

780, 782 ( S. D. 1995) , cer t . deni ed, 519 U. S. 817 ( 1996) ; St at e
v. St . Pet er , 315 A. 2d 254 ( Vt . 1974) ; Br own v. Commonweal t h,
204 S. E. 2d 429 ( Va. 1974) ; Hawki ns v. Wi l l i ams, No. 29, 054
( Hi nds Count y Ci r cui t Cour t , Mi ssi ssi ppi , Mar . 16, 1983)
( unpubl i shed) . A number of t hese j ur i sdi ct i ons – Al abama,
Ar i zona, Cal i f or ni a, Del awar e, t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a,
I ndi ana, Kent ucky, Mar yl and, Mont ana, Nebr aska, Nevada, New
Yor k, Ohi o, Okl ahoma, Or egon, and Pennsyl vani a – make t he
pr i vi l ege an absol ut e bar t o compel l i ng a r epor t er t o di vul ge
hi s sour ces. On t he basi s of “t he uni f or m j udgment of t he
St at es, ” t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed t he psychot her api st -
pat i ent pr i vi l ege. J af f ee, 518 U. S. at 14. The l andscape i n
r egar ds t o t he r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege has changed dr ast i cal l y
si nce Br anzbur g. The unani mi t y of t he St at es compel s my
concl usi on t hat Rul e 501 cal l s f or a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege.
F.
The par amount i mpor t ance of t he f r ee pr ess guar ant eed by
our Const i t ut i on compel s me t o concl ude t hat t he Fi r st Amendment
encompasses a qual i f i ed r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege. Usi ng t he f act or s
i dent i f i ed her ei n and gi ven t he f act s at hand, Ri sen must be
pr ot ect ed f r om di scl osi ng t he i dent i t y of hi s conf i dent i al
sour ces. Thi s i s consi st ent wi t h Br anzbur g and t he need f or
cour t s t o bal ance “f r eedom of t he pr ess” agai nst “t he obl i gat i on
of al l ci t i zens t o gi ve r el evant t est i mony wi t h r espect t o
118

cr i mi nal conduct . ” 408 U. S. at 724 ( Powel l , J . , concur r i ng) .
Mor eover , gi ven t he near unani mi t y of t he st at es wi t h r egar d t o
a r epor t er ’ s pr i vi l ege, I woul d r ecogni ze t he pr i vi l ege under
Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 501. Thus, I woul d af f i r mt he di st r i ct
cour t ’ s or der quashi ng t he t r i al subpoena and denyi ng t he
Gover nment ’ s mot i on t o admi t Ri sen’ s t est i mony as t o t he sour ce
r el i ed upon by Ri sen f or Chapt er Ni ne of St at e of War . As t o
I ssue I , t hen, I r espect f ul l y di ssent f r om t he maj or i t y’ s
hol di ng.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close