People v. Pawlaczyk
189 Ill.2d 177, 724 N.E.2d 901, 244 Ill. Dec. 13 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act, a reporter's qualified privilege to conceal a source must yield when the source's identity is relevant to a good-faith grand jury investigation into a felony. The public interest in investigating crime is a compelling interest that is sufficient to divest the reporter of the privilege.
Facts:
- Lori Nolen reported to the Belleville police department that she had been the victim of a sexual assault.
- A local television station, KMOV-TV, reported that Nolen had identified Robert Hurst, a former Belleville police chief, as her attacker.
- The Belleville News-Democrat, employing reporters George Pawlaczyk and Marilyn Vise, then published articles repeating the allegation that Hurst was a suspect.
- Hurst was ultimately cleared as a suspect by the Madison County State’s Attorney, and no criminal charges were ever filed against him.
- Hurst filed a civil lawsuit against media outlets, the reporters, and city officials, including Belleville Mayor Roger Cook and police commissioner James Brede.
- During depositions in Hurst's civil lawsuit, both Cook and Brede testified under oath that they did not provide information about Hurst to the reporters before the story was published.
- In her own deposition, Vise stated she confirmed the information about Hurst with a confidential source.
- A special prosecutor was appointed to convene a grand jury to investigate whether Cook and Brede committed perjury by falsely denying they were the reporters' sources.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Hurst filed a civil suit in the circuit court of Madison County against media outlets, reporters Pawlaczyk and Vise, and city officials Cook and Brede.
- In the Hurst civil suit, the circuit court ordered Vise to reveal her source; she complied via affidavit and did not appeal.
- The circuit court also ordered Pawlaczyk to reveal his source, but he appealed. Hurst later withdrew the request, and the appeal was dismissed.
- The St. Clair County State’s Attorney successfully moved the circuit court for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Cook and Brede committed perjury.
- A special grand jury was convened, and it subpoenaed Pawlaczyk and Vise, who asserted their reporter's privilege and refused to identify their sources.
- The special prosecutor filed separate complaints in the circuit court of St. Clair County to divest the reporters of their privilege.
- The circuit court granted the prosecutor's request, ordering the reporters to testify, and found Vise was collaterally estopped from re-asserting the privilege.
- Pawlaczyk and Vise, as appellants, appealed to the intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the circuit court's orders.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted the reporters' petition for leave to appeal.
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 the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act shield reporters from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources to a special grand jury investigating whether those sources committed the felony of perjury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McMorrow
No. The Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act does not shield the reporters in this case because a good-faith grand jury investigation into a felony is a compelling public interest that outweighs the privilege. First, the court rejected the lower court's finding that Vise was collaterally estopped from asserting the privilege, reasoning that the legal standard for divestiture in the prior civil libel suit was not identical to the standard in the current grand jury proceeding. Turning to the merits, the court applied the statutory test for divestiture and found the special prosecutor had met his burden. The sources' identities were directly relevant to the grand jury proceeding because they would prove or disprove a central element of the potential perjury charge—whether Cook's and Brede's sworn denials were false. Furthermore, the court held that disclosure was 'essential to the protection of the public interest involved.' Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, the court concluded that a grand jury's investigation into potential criminal conduct is a compelling interest that satisfies the statutory requirement, meaning the reporters had the same duty as any other citizen to provide evidence of a crime.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of the statutory reporter's privilege in Illinois, particularly when it conflicts with the state's interest in criminal investigation. By adopting the reasoning of Branzburg v. Hayes, the court establishes that a good-faith grand jury investigation into a felony constitutes a sufficiently compelling public interest to overcome the privilege. This sets a significant precedent that strengthens the power of grand juries and prosecutors when seeking information from journalists who may have witnessed or have direct knowledge of criminal activity. The ruling effectively subordinates the statutory privilege to the fundamental governmental role of investigating crime, thereby narrowing the protection reporters can expect when their sources' actions become the subject of a criminal inquiry.
