Matter of Winter, 22 N.Y.3d 234 (2013)

A New York court should not issue a subpoena compelling a New York journalist to appear as a witness in another state when there is a substantial likelihood that she will be compelled to identify sources promised confidentiality, which would offend New York’s strong public policy protecting journalists’ confidential sources under the Shield Law.

Summary

Jana Winter, a New York-based journalist, published an article about a notebook belonging to James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting. Holmes sought to compel Winter to testify in Colorado to reveal her confidential sources, claiming they violated a gag order. The New York Court of Appeals held that it would violate New York public policy to force Winter to disclose her sources in Colorado, where journalist protections are weaker than New York’s absolute Shield Law, which protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources, deeming such protection essential for a free press.

Facts

James Holmes, charged with murder for a mass shooting in Colorado, mailed a notebook to a psychiatrist before the event. The court issued a pretrial publicity order. Jana Winter, a New York-based Fox News reporter, published an article about the notebook, citing unnamed law enforcement sources. Holmes alleged law enforcement leaked the information, violating the court order, and sought sanctions. He then sought to compel Winter to testify in Colorado to reveal her sources.

Procedural History

Holmes obtained a certificate from the Colorado court to compel Winter’s attendance. He then commenced a proceeding in New York Supreme Court to issue a subpoena. The Supreme Court granted Holmes’s application. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that privilege issues should be resolved by the Colorado court. A dissenting opinion argued that the subpoena violated New York’s strong public policy. Winter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals based on the two-Justice dissent.

Issue(s)

Whether it violates New York public policy for a New York court to issue a subpoena directing a New York reporter to appear at a judicial proceeding in another state where there is a substantial likelihood that she will be directed to disclose the names of confidential sources or face being held in contempt of court.

Holding

Yes, because compelling a New York journalist to reveal confidential sources in a state with weaker protections would offend New York’s strong public policy, as embodied in its Constitution and Shield Law, which prioritizes the anonymity of confidential sources to ensure a free and informed press.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized New York’s long-standing tradition of protecting freedom of the press, tracing it back to the colonial era and the Zenger case. Article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution and the New York Shield Law provide strong protections for journalists and their confidential sources. The Court distinguished this case from Matter of Codey, where the privilege claim was based on another state’s law. Here, Winter relied on New York’s Shield Law, and Colorado offers significantly less protection to journalists. The Court emphasized that the sole purpose of requiring Winter’s testimony was to compel her to reveal the identities of her confidential sources. Quoting Matter of Beach v. Shanley, the Court stated, “[t]he inescapable conclusion is that the Shield Law provides a broad protection to journalists without any qualifying language… Even if one were to be in disagreement with the wisdom of the policy underlying section 79-h and no matter how heinous the crime under investigation, the courts are not free to ignore the mandate of the Legislature and substitute a policy of their own”. This would undermine the core principle of New York’s journalistic privilege, which is the protection of confidential sources. The Court found that Winter reasonably relied on New York’s Shield Law when she made promises of confidentiality. While reaffirming the general rule from Codey, the Court recognized a narrow exception when a strong public policy of New York is threatened. Applying Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139 was deemed unsuitable. The Court clarified that this decision does not expand New York law beyond its borders but protects the integrity of its own processes and policies. This exception will only apply in unusual circumstances where a strong public policy is implicated, and there is a substantial likelihood that compelling the witness’s appearance would directly offend that policy. The Court concluded that the subpoena application should have been denied.