Public Defense

Press shield law to get its first test

By Gideon

The “dinnertime bandit” (by the way, how quaint. Is anyone called a bandit anymore? All I hear is “criminal” and “thug” and this “bandit” was anything but) prosecution has already seen some interesting lawyering: the eyewitness ID was ruled inadmissible, because of a faulty array; something about the kidnapping charge in light of State v. Salamon (can’t find a story about it, but I swear I read it) and now this.

Back in February, Alan Golder (the alleged “bandit”) gave this interview to John Christofferson, of the Associated Press. The interview details his life on the run and in it, he talks about his past life as a burglar. There is no mention of any of the CT burglaries with which he is charged.

The prosecution now wants to put Christofferson on the stand to testify about his interview. To what end, I don’t know. Do they think there is more to the interview than was printed? Does the State really believe that the press would suppress a juicy confession in a notorious case with a catchy nickname?

?Mr. Christofferson was doing his job,? [Assistant State's Attorney] Valdez argued Friday to Stamford Superior Court Judge John F. Kavanewsky, Jr. ?If he was a bartender and Mr. Golder said the same things, I?d call the bartender.?

David A. Schulz, representing the Associated Press, said the prosecutor?s office ?can?t go on a fishing expedition, otherwise they?re using the reporter as an investigator.?

Valdez contended the statements to Christofferson were relevant to prosecution for new burglary charges Golder is facing. The shield law should not apply, Valdez said, because Golder was not a confidential source, and was telling his side of his story ?to create pre-trial publicity.?

Kavanewsky was skeptical. He said that no members of the jury pool said they had read or heard about the interview. The judge also pointed out that the shield law expressly protected statements to reporters ?whether in confidence or not.?

On the other hand, the detriment to the defendant is pretty significant. As Golder’s lawyer points out, this seems like an effort to get his decades old convictions into evidence, where they normally would not be admissible.

I don’t see this testimony even getting over the relevance hurdle, before we even get to the 403(b) analysis.

Public defender Howard Ehring said the prosecution was ?essentially requesting an investigative subpoena,? because it ?wants to bootstrap probably inadmissible evidence of crimes he did two decades ago and has done his time for.?

One thing’s for sure. There’s nothing boring about this case.

Full post as published by A Public Defender on August 06, 2008 (boomark / email).