http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2597854

Reporters who refused to reveal BALCO leak get prison

Associated Press

 

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were ordered jailed Thursday for a maximum of 18 months, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

 

SportsNation

Thank you for voting. Check back later for the results!

 

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada wrote a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked transcripts of the testimony of Bonds, Jason Giambi and others before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, a Burlingame-based nutritional supplement company exposed as a steroid ring two years ago.

 

Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to send the reporters to prison for the full term of the grand jury investigating the leak, or until they agree to testify.

 

"The court is hopeful that perhaps they'll reconsider their position when faced with the reality of incarceration," White said Thursday.

 

Williams and Fainaru-Wada have said repeatedly they would go to jail rather than comply with the grand jury's subpoena and reveal their source or sources.

 

"I'm supposed to keep my promises when people help me and take me at their word," Williams said in court. "I do despair for our country if we go very far down this road, because no one will talk to reporters."

 

Both sides agreed to stay the ruling by White sending the reporters to jail pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

The reporters agreed with the government that they are in contempt of court but sought a "nominal monetary fine" and other punishment "short of full blown incarceration," including house arrest and weekend jailing, according to court documents.

 

In arguing for the stiff penalty, federal prosecutors cited the reporters' statements that they would go to jail before testifying.

 

"Only imprisonment would be the type of sanction that's going to get their attention," Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Miller said.

 

Authorities want to charge whoever unlawfully leaked the transcripts, and told White that the reporters are the only ones who know who did. White ordered the two to testify on Aug. 15. The criminal conduct being investigated in the Bonds leak case includes possible perjury and obstruction of justice by government officials, defendants in the BALCO probe and their attorneys. All had access to the leaked documents but have sworn they weren't the source of the reporting by Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

 

In August, White ruled his hands were tied by a 1972 Supreme Court precedent that said no one -- journalists included -- was above the law and may refuse to testify before a federal grand jury.

 

Chronicle executive vice president and editor Phil Bronstein said the case highlighted the need for a federal law to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources.

 

"It's a tragedy that the government seeks to put reporters in jail for doing their job," said Bronstein, standing with the two reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing.

 

A bipartisan bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee would give reporters protection from revealing their confidential sources in cases that involve federal authorities. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have media shield laws already in place.

 

The Chronicle reported that Bonds told the grand jury that he believed he was using flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids, supplied by trainer Greg Anderson, one of five defendants convicted in the BALCO scandal.

 

Anderson served his three months and is behind bars again for refusing to testify before another federal grand jury investigating whether Bonds committed perjury when he gave that testimony in the BALCO case.

 

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

of course, they should also be charged for illegally releasing the (alledged) grand jury leaks

All of this is illegal. I love the judges comment that "no one is above the law". So true, and now they will learn that.

I'm not going to get into this because I realize that people are just so blinded by hatred and bias in this whole thing, but doesn't anyone find it the least bit suspicious that the identity of these "sources" are hidden, even when revealing them would nail the coffin on the man's legacy that they've fought so hard to tarnish. Really makes you question the credibility of them, doesn't it?

 

And, please, don't bring Watergate into this, it's insulting to Woodward and Bernstein to be mentioned with Wada and Williams.

I'm not going to get into this because I realize that people are just so blinded by hatred and bias in this whole thing, but doesn't anyone find it the least bit suspicious that the identity of these "sources" are hidden, even when revealing them would nail the coffin on the man's legacy that they've fought so hard to tarnish. Really makes you question the credibility of them, doesn't it?

 

bingo

Journalists don't reveal sources or they are out of a job.

Good for the reporters for sticking to their guns and not revealing their source(s)

Karma's a bitch

 

Yep, soon it will catch up to Bonds like it did McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro.

of course, they should also be charged for illegally releasing the (alledged) grand jury leaks

Um, no they shouldn't. The source should, but the journalist would never be charged with that.

 

The reporters did nothing illegal.

This is a sad day for journalism. The fact that people will now go to jail for doing what every journalist does is a scary thought, apparently we want to become a police state.

This is a sad day for journalism. The fact that people will now go to jail for doing what every journalist does is a scary thought, apparently we want to become a police state.

 

 

No, it's not a sad day. It is actually a great day. It shows that the American justice system is working like it should in this instance, and that nobody is above the law. If someone leaks Grand Jury Testimony, they should go to jail. The fact that this crime was committed and the reporters have first hand knowledged that led to their financial gain, yet will not reveal who helped them accomplish this, means they 100% should go to jail. This will make people think twice before doing something like this again. If the legal system did not put its foot down, who is to say that more people wouldn't leak information knowing they have nothing to be fearful of. Oh and by the way, the journalist knew full well what they could be in for when they released this book with their "sources" in it, I wouldn't shed too many tears for them getting in trouble for "doing what journalist do".

 

Believe it or not, the legal system has been in place before Barry Bonds & Balco, and will continue to be around after as well. This is bigger than just them. :thumbup

If someone leaks Grand Jury Testimony, they should go to jail.

Except, they didn't leak the testimony.

led to their financial gain

They haven't recieved royalties from the book and had to get an advance on the book just to be able to live without working for the chronicle. These guys are hardly raking much in and that wasn't the goal of this.

This will make people think twice before doing something like this again.

Investigative journalism? You wouldn't allow that? You don't believe in whistle blowers?

 

In matters as big of these I don't want journalists to turn down stories, whistleblowers, or sources in fear of jail time.

 

Your logic is extremely flawed and if this didn't involve a favorite athelete of yours I doubt you would feel the same way.

 

"To jail a journalist because he protected his source is an assault not only on the press, but on Californians as well."

- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer

If someone leaks Grand Jury Testimony, they should go to jail.

Except, they didn't leak the testimony.

led to their financial gain

They haven't recieved royalties from the book and had to get an advance on the book just to be able to live without working for the chronicle. These guys are hardly raking much in and that wasn't the goal of this.

This will make people think twice before doing something like this again.

Investigative journalism? You wouldn't allow that? You don't believe in whistle blowers?

 

In matters as big of these I don't want journalists to turn down stories, whistleblowers, or sources in fear of jail time.

 

Your logic is extremely flawed and if this didn't involve a favorite athelete of yours I doubt you would feel the same way.

 

"To jail a journalist because he protected his source is an assault not only on the press, but on Californians as well."

- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer

 

No, your reading comprehension is flawed. In items one and three that you highlighted of mine, I was alluding to the person who leaked the information, not the actual journalist. (pt #1)

 

Leaking of grand jury testimony IS illegal. (pt #1) There needs to be accountability for the illegal actions committed in this instance to protect the very fabrics of our country's legal system. By sending these reporters to jail, it will send a message to the next person who attempts to leak testimony such as this. A) If the source is given up, future sources will be extra cautious and leery before leaking something illegal such as this. B) If the reporters go to jail, future reporters might think twice before they attempt to participate in researching sources to publish illegal leaking of testimony such as this. (pt #3).

 

Additionally, if you think that the purpose of this book was not to make money, you are kidding yourself. You can yap all you want how the authors had a different motive, etc...but the main purpose was financial gain off something they thought would sell big.

 

As for your quote - that's all well and good, but the posting of the token quote where a guy agrees with your view is lame. You know damn well anyone can find and post a quote for any argument. For instance:

"Nobody is above the law."

-U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, in referring to a 1972 Supreme Court precedent that said no one -- journalists included -- was above the law and may refuse to testify before a federal grand jury.

 

Once again, you make this an issue of me liking Bonds and that is why my opinion is this way. That is incorrect, as usual. I can easily come back and counter with your opinion is based off of you not liking Bonds, falls under the same category, doesn't it? However, I will reiterate what I said before: Believe it or not, the legal system has been in place before Barry Bonds & Balco, and will continue to be around after as well. This is bigger than just them.

Journalists don't reveal sources or they are out of a job.

 

Yep.

of course, they should also be charged for illegally releasing the (alledged) grand jury leaks

The reporters did nothing illegal.

Except for the whole contempt of court thing :whistle

Journalists don't reveal sources or they are out of a job.

 

Yep.

 

 

That's the price they pay. It's part of the terriroty, but there still has to be accountability.

No, your reading comprehension is flawed. In items one and three that you highlighted of mine, I was alluding to the person who leaked the information, not the actual journalist. (pt #1)

 

Leaking of grand jury testimony IS illegal. (pt #1) There needs to be accountability for the illegal actions committed in this instance to protect the very fabrics of our country's legal system.

No doubt, I will never argue that when/if the person who leaked the testimony (I'd be seriously stunned if it wasn't Conte) is found shouldn't be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Leaking GJ testimony is low and could seriously de-rail an investigation. I don't know what that has to do with Williams or Fainaru-Wada though.

By sending these reporters to jail, it will send a message to the next person who attempts to leak testimony such as this. A) If the source is given up, future sources will be extra cautious and leery before leaking something illegal such as this. B) If the reporters go to jail, future reporters might think twice before they attempt to participate in researching sources to publish illegal leaking of testimony such as this. (pt #3).

A. How does this deter someone from leaking things now that they know the journalist will and will be forced to take the fall for them? If somone is going to do this, they will do it and this does nothing to change that.

 

B. Publishing or writing about what they recieved - legal or not - is in no way why they are going to jail. They are going to jail for not going revealing the source. Don't try to change what the reasoning for the potential jail time is. It has nothing to do with the publishment of Game of Shadows.

Additionally, if you think that the purpose of this book was not to make money, you are kidding yourself. You can yap all you want how the authors had a different motive, etc...but the main purpose was financial gain off something they thought would sell big.

Do you have any proof of that, or are you just going on your opinion like I am? That's fine if you are just don't state it as fact.

As for your quote - that's all well and good, but the posting of the token quote where a guy agrees with your view is lame. You know damn well anyone can find and post a quote for any argument. For instance:

"Nobody is above the law."

-U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, in referring to a 1972 Supreme Court precedent that said no one -- journalists included -- was above the law and may refuse to testify before a federal grand jury.

Sorry if it was 'lame' it had to do with backing my stance and it was not some token quote, but one that related directly to the two accused men. Sorry I couldn't find something more suitable or 'cool' for your tastes.

 

The bottom line is my stance is that I wish their were federal shield laws so this kindof crap wouldn't happen. To imprison these men for this is a joke and not what I believe the prison system should be about. Hopefully organizations like the RCFP will come to their aid and help them win their appeal. I believe in the total freedom of the press...for a journalist to be able to gather and be able to process the information they have gathered (in a legal way as in this case) and distribute it freely without having to deal with this. I don't think the journalists should have to do the govt's job in investigating the leaks.

 

As for 'justice being served' the one who posted this article believes that this is some sort of punishment for publishing their information when it's not. It has nothing to do with that and let's not get away from that point.

Passion,

 

I don't feel like writing a whole long response to your re-post, as I feel we are more on the same page now. I was not trying to "change the reasoning for the potential jail time". I was summing up the same thing you said, you just misinterpreted what I was trying to relate.

 

I feel like this is becoming more an issue of the book in the argument, and that is not what I am trying to accomplish. My main issue is the legality issue of leaking grand jury testimony. As we both said, it is illegal and low and should not be tolerated. IMO, if these 2 do not reveal their sources, I feel they should be sent to jail to send a message about how serious the government is going to handle cases involving leaked grand jury testimony and clarify that they will not tolerate it.

 

While these 2 men did not leak the testimony themselves, they obviously know who did and that person(s) should be severly punished. I feel that if they are not held responsible as pawns, then what is to say that there will not be even more leaks in the future to journalists, only to have the person leaking the information and the journalist covering for them hiding behind some kind of shield? I applaud the precedent the Supreme Court has set and I hope the current judge follows it. This is a matter not to be taken lightly, and I hope this helps the government take a step in the right direction for future legal matters.

Good for the Journalist. Not gonna give it up. :notworthy