Grand Jury Subpoena MEDIA VIDEOS

[yllek]

Yes, the media are VERY reluctant to ever turn over any of their raw video, notes etc. It is a freedom of the press thing, and it is very rare that they would turn over the video without this kind of measure. Having a GJ demand that they turn over the items also releases them from various kinds of liability issues.

jmo

Thanks raeann!

So, you're saying the the Grand Jury is being called specifically so LE has a means by which to subpoena those raw videos and check them out for potential clues/evidence. Interesting. I assumed the Grand Jury was being called to hear a case, with the videos containing potential circumstantial evidence to support/refute that case. Sounds more like fishing, if I understand correctly...

 

[yllek]

It is possible that one grand jury issued the subpoenas to collect the videos, while another grand jury will decide on an indictment when the DA is ready to present the evidence they have against the intended target. It is also possible that the grand jury being asked to indict may or may not actually view the video even if it's used as evidence. The grand jury can rely on testimony from a LE agent regarding what was found on the video without actually seeing the video themselves. That probably doesn't answer your question above, but maybe helps explain a small part of what might go on inside the grand jury room.

Thanks CoCo! This is what I originally thought. Some posters are thinking the GJ is being used more as a vehicle to subpoena the raw videos simply to see what they contain, rather than to support/refute a specific case against someone. I'm learning a lot! I can see either being the case now, and I hadn't thought about separate GJs. Much appreciated.

 

[momtective]

I've had that happen before and it will make you crazy. Do you see it on TV or on one of the online media outlets? I'll try to help you find it.

It was online and it may have even been one of the live feeds...maybe that's why I can't find it.

 

[Abby Normal]

Something interesting the reporter asks in this video...would Lisa cry if woken up? JI answers, "yes...", but DB completely talks over him, saying she probably wouldn't cry. DB keeps looking at JI while she's talking over him.

But they talk concurrently for a minute, if you focus and listen to his words, he's agreeing with her. He's saying you can move her around in her sleep.

 

[uvamerica]

Kansas City Stations Refuse to Share Raw Footage with Investigators in Lisa Irwin Case :maddening:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/ka...-with-investigators-in-lisa-irwin-case_b25160

 

[bessie]

Bumping my post from the beginning of the thread.

We need some of our legal minds to weigh in on this.

After receiving grand jury subpoenas requesting that they share video footage connected to the disappearance of 10-month-old Lisa Irwin, Kansas City stations plan to cooperate with investigators but are making an important distinction: they will submit footage that has aired but will not hand over raw footage, as the Clay County prosecutor’s office has requested.

Jim Roberts, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, told the Associated Press this week that the subpoenas were intended to prevent KMBC, KCTV, KSHB, and WDAF from discarding footage of the girl’s family and neighbors.

KCTV and KSHB were both ordered to bring their raw footage to the Clay County courthouse next Tuesday. Both stations are now being represented by attorney Bernard J. Rhodes, who told the Kansas City Star that he referred authorities to a video clipping service that the stations use and a list of stories that have been aired.

While KCTV and KSHB, as well as KMBC, have so far declined to comment publicly on the matter, WDAF news director Bryan McGruder has been pointed in his response to the subpoenas.

“We comply with all subpoenas,” McGruder said, “but we do not release raw material.”

Adding information regarding West Virginia's laws protecting journalistic privilege to shed some light on the purpose of a grand jury subpoena to obtain the raw video.

A new shield law went into effect on June 10, 2011.

West Virginia acting governor signs reporter shield law
The measure provides journalists with a nearly absolute reporter’s privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of confidential sources, and documents or other information that could identify confidential sources, in civil, criminal, administrative and grand jury proceedings. A court may compel disclosure of such information only if “necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury or unjust incarceration.”

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11810

The shield law protects a journalist's right to withhold confidential information. An earlier state supreme court ruling in Hudok v. Henry extends that protection to a reporter's newsgathering material.

To protect the important public interest of reporters in their news-gathering functions under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, disclosure of a reporter's confidential sources or news-gathering materials may not be compelled except upon a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim, and not obtainable from other available sources.

Hudok, 182 W. Va. 500, 389 S.E.2d 188. We further adopted "the general rule . . . that a qualified First Amendment privilege is available to the news-gathering material whether confidential, published, or not published." 182 W. Va. at 505, 389 S.E.2d at 193.

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs\spring97\23873.htm

 

[TobyWong*]

Kansas City Stations Refuse to Share Raw Footage with Investigators in Lisa Irwin Case :maddening:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/ka...-with-investigators-in-lisa-irwin-case_b25160

Thanks for the link:

I don't understand how they can refuse the exact thing the suboena is asking for? So they will be held in contempt?? Why are they holding on to the raw footage so tightly? It's not a "rights" issue as far as I can tell.

I can't even understand the stations not wanting to give everything they have. It's not like they taped confidential informants to put on record. So why the fight to NOT turn them over?

Now I'm really interested to see who is saying what on that footage. I don't think for a second that the news agencies are protecting anyone. But by not giving this footage freely they are making LE's job harder,which should not be anyone's intention. IMO

eta: I should've read bessie's link ^ 1st but I still say "give LE what they need to find this baby"

from link ^

"The measure provides journalists with a nearly absolute reporter’s privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of confidential sources, and documents or other information that could identify confidential sources, in civil, criminal, administrative and grand jury proceedings"

imho none of the stations has a secret mole in the parents camp.
And what informant would go on tape? Does the reporter say "no we won't show this to anyone"??

 

[Quiche]

I wonder if raw footage contains a lot of embarrassing situations for the station-- ineptitude, bad manners, wrong attitude for the story being covered-- that sort of thing? Image protection?

Petty, no matter what the reason. imo

 

[bessie]

I think the news station's refusal to turn over the raw video is a matter of principle and has nothing to do with the content of the video. Looking at the situation from a journalist's point of view, backing down on a First Amendment issue sets a dangerous precedent. JMO, of course, but it's interesting to note that the First Amendment Center posted the AP article on their website.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/mo-grand-jury-subpoenas-4-tv-stations-in-missing-girl-case

 

[uvamerica]

I wonder if raw footage contains a lot of embarrassing situations for the station-- ineptitude, bad manners, wrong attitude for the story being covered-- that sort of thing? Image protection?

Petty, no matter what the reason. imo

QUICHY !!! :rocker:

I'm wondering if its because the family basically shunned the local media and went right to national media. And its a case of "you didn't want us" so....the heck with you ! whatever the reason, they are not thinking of finding Lisa. IMO

 

[marge_rita]

I don't know if this is mainstream, but they refer to AP and the local stations.

Several local stations are refusing to provide raw video? WTH? There is a baby missing! I hope this isn't valid.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/ka...-with-investigators-in-lisa-irwin-case_b25160

Why would the stations refuse to provide footage in a missing baby case? That makes no sense to me.

With a subpeona served, don't the stations have to provide the tapes?

imo

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Here is a link to an article about a case involving the subpoenaing of raw footage.

The gist would seem to be that if people understood that raw footage could be subpoenaed, they might be less free to agree to an interview? Which in turn would compromise the freedom of the press to investigate newsworthy occurrences?

IDK, but here's the link:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ge_from_crude_documentary_about_chevron_suit/

 

[yllek]

I'm glad Grand Jury proceedings are secret. I blew off all my work today following the parents' interviews - twice as much to do tomorrow!

I am hoping that whatever LE is running by a Grand Jury tomorrow in some way helps in find little Lisa.

May Lisa be found tomorrow...

 

[Flutterby80]

I think it's time for me to climb out of my fantasy world in the sky because in my mind, it's incomprehensible that ANYONE...news stations, reporters, neighbors and especially parents would have to think for a split second about whether to hold back any tiny bit of info that might have the slightest chance of saving a baby's life!!!! The fact that a grand jury has to subpeona or even ask twice makes me sick.

 

[TGIRecovered]

I'm glad Grand Jury proceedings are secret. I blew off all my work today following the parents' interviews - twice as much to do tomorrow!

I am hoping that whatever LE is running by a Grand Jury tomorrow in some way helps in find little Lisa.

May Lisa be found tomorrow...

When should we know the Grand Jury's ruling on evidence presented today? Does anyone have a good idea how long it will take?

I wish we knew how much evidence they will have to review. I am sure that LE will only present the relevant clips of video so the GJ won't have to waste time reviewing all of the tapes. I hope that LE's latest search of the neighbor's home has yielded some clues!

 

[belimom]

I think it's time for me to climb out of my fantasy world in the sky because in my mind, it's incomprehensible that ANYONE...news stations, reporters, neighbors and especially parents would have to think for a split second about whether to hold back any tiny bit of info that might have the slightest chance of saving a baby's life!!!! The fact that a grand jury has to subpeona or even ask twice makes me sick.

I *think* I read somewhere on a thread eons ago on this case that legally there has to be a subpoena for the tapes? One reason that someone pointed out was that it keeps the tapes from being filmed over/used again.

 

[belimom]

Okay, I went back a bit and found posts that may be relevant here:

Adding information regarding West Virginia's laws protecting journalistic privilege to shed some light on the purpose of a grand jury subpoena to obtain the raw video.

A new shield law went into effect on June 10, 2011.

West Virginia acting governor signs reporter shield law
The measure provides journalists with a nearly absolute reporter’s privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of confidential sources, and documents or other information that could identify confidential sources, in civil, criminal, administrative and grand jury proceedings. A court may compel disclosure of such information only if “necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury or unjust incarceration.”

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11810

The shield law protects a journalist's right to withhold confidential information. An earlier state supreme court ruling in Hudok v. Henry extends that protection to a reporter's newsgathering material.

To protect the important public interest of reporters in their news-gathering functions under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, disclosure of a reporter's confidential sources or news-gathering materials may not be compelled except upon a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim, and not obtainable from other available sources.

Hudok, 182 W. Va. 500, 389 S.E.2d 188. We further adopted "the general rule . . . that a qualified First Amendment privilege is available to the news-gathering material whether confidential, published, or not published." 182 W. Va. at 505, 389 S.E.2d at 193.

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs\spring97\23873.htm

And this by [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7213753&postcount=392"]SarahW[/ame]:

Let me clarify "fishing" - they can't get access to the news footage without subpoena power which the grand jury gives them.

 

[Marah]

Is the GJ meeting yet?

 

[Lera213]

I bet ten to one that DB demeanor was totally different off camera after the first few interviews she gave.

 

[Lera213]

Remember she stated that she asked LE "How did I do" after her LDT...I'm betting after the camera stopped rolling her tears were gone and in came the smiles and laughing then asked "How did I do"