Branzburg V. Hayes Case Analysis

The aftermath of the Branzburg v. Hayes trial brought a colorful range of opinions from the mass. One example is from a First Amendment attorney, James Goodale who defended Earl Caldwell at the time of his trial. When asked to describe the outcome of case he stated, “There was no reporter’s privilege in the federal courts… I just wasn’t going to buy that argument. […] I will argue that those five votes create a reporter’s privilege […] Our theory was, and is still to go back and fight this thing out state by state by state by state until we end up with enough body of law so that there’s protection for reporters.” More importantly, he was not alone. “Editors and publishers, and their lawyers, spoke of ‘the First Amendment privilege’ against

The association of James Risen in the United States of America v. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was exempted after his seven years battle. In June 2015, the Supreme Court declined to consider Risen’s testimony as an essential component of the trial. There are two different reasons why the case ended this way. One reason is because times have changed. Unlike the past, the courts did not support the case of the Burtzburg v. Hayes during the 1970s when they first recognize the power of the media impacting the nation especially surrounding the Watergate Scandal. Now, they can no longer control it because of the modern-day technology allowing for leaking to occur. Also, the cyberspace accepts more and more people to voice their opinions. (can you rephrase this and back it up?) In turn, the Justice Department is receiving an “overwhelming consensus” in favor of a reporter’s privilege. They continued by saying that “Congress is currently considering such legislation to address the unique concerns raised in cases like [United States of America v. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling].” The Internet is too vast, and with a single click of a mouse, the government has access to the free flow of information. The second reason why the Sterling case might have continued without Risen’s testimony is because subpoenas are becoming less and less important. According to Lucy Dalglish, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Instead of issuing subpoenas, prosecutors are increasingly executing search warrants or other court orders for reporters’ material or for information held by others. It is easy to retrieve- sometimes with no one’s knowledge.” (“in an age” could start a new paragraph and you can reword the quote)In an age of information, the Internet can severely impinge on the freedom of the press. As I have