Holmes v. Winter
22 N.Y.3d 300, 3 N.E.3d 694 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New York public policy, as embodied in its Constitution and Shield Law, prohibits a New York court from issuing a subpoena compelling a New York journalist to appear in another state and identify confidential sources when there is a substantial likelihood that doing so would violate New York's absolute protection of journalistic sources and the demanding state offers significantly less protection.
Facts:
- James Holmes committed a mass shooting at a midnight movie screening in Aurora, Colorado, resulting in 12 deaths and 70 injuries.
- The Colorado state court presiding over Holmes's criminal charges issued an order limiting pretrial publicity by any party, including law enforcement.
- Police took possession of a notebook Holmes had mailed to a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado before the shootings, which Holmes asserted contained privileged, incriminating content.
- The Colorado District Court issued a second order specifically precluding any party, including the police, from revealing information about the discovery or contents of Holmes's notebook.
- New York-based investigative reporter Jana Winter published an online article for Fox News titled 'Exclusive: Movie Massacre Suspect Sent Chilling Notebook to Psychiatrist Before Attack,' describing the notebook's contents and citing two unidentified law enforcement sources.
- Holmes filed a motion for sanctions in the Colorado District Court, alleging that law enforcement had violated the pretrial publicity orders by speaking to Winter and undermining his right to a fair trial.
Procedural Posture:
- James Holmes filed a motion for sanctions in the Colorado District Court against law enforcement for violating pretrial publicity orders.
- The Colorado District Court conducted a hearing, where 14 police officers testified they had not leaked information to Jana Winter.
- The Colorado District Court issued a certificate under Colorado's Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, finding Jana Winter a material and necessary witness to identify the sources of the leak and requesting her attendance.
- Holmes commenced a proceeding in New York Supreme Court (trial court/court of first instance) pursuant to CPL 640.10 (2) to compel Winter to testify in Colorado.
- The New York Supreme Court granted Holmes’s application and issued a subpoena, holding that Winter was a material and necessary witness and that compliance was not an undue hardship, while deferring privilege issues to the Colorado court.
- The Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in a divided ruling, with a two-Justice dissent arguing the subpoena should have been denied based on New York public policy and undue hardship.
- Jana Winter appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York based on the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York's strong public policy protecting the anonymity of confidential journalistic sources, as established by its Constitution and Shield Law, preclude a New York court from issuing a subpoena under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, where there is a substantial likelihood that the journalist will be compelled to disclose such sources in the demanding state which offers less protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes, New York's strong public policy protecting the anonymity of confidential journalistic sources does preclude a New York court from issuing a subpoena under the Uniform Act when there is a substantial likelihood that the journalist will be compelled to disclose such sources in a demanding state that offers less protection. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, holding that CPL 640.10(2) permits a 'sending state' court to consider a strong public policy of New York, even one embodied in an evidentiary privilege, when deciding whether to issue a subpoena. The Court distinguished the present case from its prior decision in Matter of Codey (Capital Cities, Am. Broadcasting Corp.), which generally held that 'sending state' courts should not resolve privilege issues, by invoking an exception for cases involving a 'strong public policy of this State.' Unlike Codey, where the reporter relied on another state's law and no disparity in protection was claimed, here, Winter relies on New York's absolute Shield Law, which offers significantly greater protection to confidential sources than Colorado's qualified privilege. The Court emphasized that protecting confidential sources is a core principle of New York's journalistic privilege, rooted in the state’s constitutional tradition (Article I, § 8) and the legislative history of the Shield Law, which provides 'the strongest' protection in the nation. Compelling Winter to testify solely to identify sources, knowing Colorado would likely compel disclosure, would directly offend this strong public policy. The Court clarified that this limited exception does not expand New York law extraterritorially but rather governs the issuance of a New York court's own process, particularly when the witness reasonably relied on New York's protections.
Dissenting - Smith, J.
No, New York's Shield Law should not apply in this instance because the allegedly privileged communications between Jana Winter and her sources took place wholly in Colorado. Justice Smith dissented, arguing that while New York’s Shield Law reflects a strong public policy, it should not be applied to communications that occurred entirely outside of New York. The dissent contended that the majority's decision excessively expands New York’s jurisdiction, suggesting that a New York reporter takes the protection of New York law 'everywhere in the world,' a stance unlikely to be honored by other jurisdictions or to achieve predictability. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139, the dissent argued that Colorado, as both the forum state (where the evidence is sought) and the state with the most significant relationship (where the communication took place), should govern the privilege question. The dissent found no justification for ignoring conflict of laws rules and noted that journalists cannot assume universal application of New York law, as they would still face Colorado law if subpoenaed while physically present in that state.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and carves out an important public policy exception to the general rule established in Matter of Codey, allowing a New York 'sending state' court to consider New York's strong public policy (specifically, the journalist's privilege) before compelling a witness to appear in another state. It reinforces New York's commitment to protecting journalists' confidential sources as 'the strongest in the nation,' demonstrating a willingness to prioritize state public policy over strict comity in exceptional circumstances. This ruling provides greater assurance to New York-based journalists and their sources, particularly when facing subpoenas from jurisdictions with weaker shield laws, and may influence other states with robust press protections to adopt similar exceptions.
