United States v. The Larouche Campaign, Appeal of National Broadcasting Company, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that it was proper to disclose impeachment evidence before trial pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena because the “putative key witness, whose general testimony is already known, is scheduled to testify”
• observing that the disclosure of confidential sources or information “would clearly jeopardize the ability of journalists and the media to gather information and, therefore, have a chilling effect on speech”
• recognizing the reporter’s privilege for non-confidential outtakes in a criminal trial, while acknowledging that “when there is no confidential source or information at stake, the identification of First Amendment interests is a more elusive task”
• sustaining the trial judge’s decision to order production of outtakes of a news media interview with a key trial witness
• allowing television “outtakes” to be subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding after balancing the First Amendment concerns with defendants’ need for and any constitutional right to the information sought
• noting “a lurking and subtle threat to journalists and their employers if disclosure of outtakes, notes, and other unused information, even if nonconfidential, becomes routine and casually, if not cavalierly, compelled”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).