Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Judge Orders J.W. to give up video
Many of us following the court proceedings relating to the July 2005 G8 protest fiasco had last heard that J. Wolfe had successfully resisted orders to turn his journalistic tapes and notes taken at the event over to a grand jury proceeding. This has been covered in several articles on Indybay. The FBI had been assigned to research whether a G8 protester had battered and injured a police officer on 23rd and Mission Street during the event. The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that another Judge has ordered the tapes turned over. If someone involved in the case writes an original article about this, this reposted article should be appended as a comment or removed from the newswire. This case brings up many questions. Quite a few demonstration participants video and photograph the proceedings, and many might consider their video to be positive evidence which protects protesters from false accusations - and in this case would show a police car dangerously careening into a crowd crossing the street, and then should show people currently facing felony charges doing nothing more than shouting and lying on the ground while being arrested. Wolf's video was not taken anywhere near where officer Wolf was injured.
SAN FRANCISCO
Contempt case over rally video
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
* Printable Version
* Email This Article
A federal judge has ordered a freelance journalist to surrender video footage of a July 2005 clash between San Francisco police and anarchist demonstrators or face jail for contempt of court.
The journalist, Josh Wolf, said Monday he would refuse to turn over the tapes, even if U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejects his legal defense at a hearing Thursday.
"I am prepared to go to jail,'' said Wolf, 24. He said that his tapes don't show the event federal prosecutors say they are investigating -- the alleged vandalism of a police car -- and that yielding the videos would turn him into "a surveillance camera for the government.''
Wolf's lawyer, Jose Luis Fuentes, said Wolf could be jailed for as long as a year, the possible duration of the federal grand jury investigating the incident.
The case arises against a backdrop of the federal government increasingly seeking to require journalists to disclose confidential sources and unpublished material.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, one of several reporters targeted by a special prosecutor, was jailed for 85 days last year for refusing to identify the source of her information that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA agent.
A federal judge has scheduled a hearing Aug. 4 to determine whether Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams should be ordered to reveal their sources of testimony by Barry Bonds and other athletes before a grand jury investigating a laboratory's illicit distribution of steroids. The reporters could be held in contempt and jailed if they refuse to testify.
Fuentes said he would ask Alsup to transfer Wolf's case to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who is hearing the case of the Chronicle reporters. The lawyer said the two cases should be considered together because they raise the same issue: whether federal law provides any implicit protection for journalists who withhold confidential information from grand juries.
Wolf's case arises from a protest July 8, 2005, in the Mission District against an international economic summit in Scotland. As officers pursued a band of anarchists, a San Francisco police car was allegedly set on fire.
Federal prosecutors have said in court filings that the vandalism could be a federal crime because the Police Department receives federal funds. Federal law, unlike California law, contains no explicit protections for reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources or unpublished material.
Part of Wolf's video of the demonstration was shown on local television. Prosecutors have been seeking the rest of the footage since February.
Alsup first ordered Wolf to produce the material June 15, after a closed-door hearing. According to a transcript that Alsup later made public, the judge told Wolf he had no basis for withholding the tapes, and cited Miller's case.
Wolf appeared before the grand jury later that day, declared that he had a constitutional right to remain silent and to discuss the jury's questions with his lawyers, and was abruptly excused from the hearing by a prosecutor without explanation, according to Wolf's attorneys.
But prosecutors returned to Alsup three weeks later with a request to hold Wolf in contempt of court. The judge signed an order July 10 telling Wolf that, unless he justified his refusal to comply with the demand for the tapes, he would be held in civil contempt for the rest of the grand jury's term.
Fuentes said the grand jury investigating the demonstration convened in January and could remain in operation through next July.
The lawyer said he would assert a variety of defenses for Wolf, including a claim that he had the right to remain silent to avoid possible self-incrimination. Fuentes declined to explain how Wolf could incriminate himself, but said he would provide a written explanation to Alsup under seal.
If Alsup upholds Wolf's self-incrimination claim, a claim he rejected in the earlier hearing, the government could grant Wolf immunity from prosecution and ask the judge to order him to testify.
Contempt case over rally video
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
* Printable Version
* Email This Article
A federal judge has ordered a freelance journalist to surrender video footage of a July 2005 clash between San Francisco police and anarchist demonstrators or face jail for contempt of court.
The journalist, Josh Wolf, said Monday he would refuse to turn over the tapes, even if U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejects his legal defense at a hearing Thursday.
"I am prepared to go to jail,'' said Wolf, 24. He said that his tapes don't show the event federal prosecutors say they are investigating -- the alleged vandalism of a police car -- and that yielding the videos would turn him into "a surveillance camera for the government.''
Wolf's lawyer, Jose Luis Fuentes, said Wolf could be jailed for as long as a year, the possible duration of the federal grand jury investigating the incident.
The case arises against a backdrop of the federal government increasingly seeking to require journalists to disclose confidential sources and unpublished material.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, one of several reporters targeted by a special prosecutor, was jailed for 85 days last year for refusing to identify the source of her information that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA agent.
A federal judge has scheduled a hearing Aug. 4 to determine whether Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams should be ordered to reveal their sources of testimony by Barry Bonds and other athletes before a grand jury investigating a laboratory's illicit distribution of steroids. The reporters could be held in contempt and jailed if they refuse to testify.
Fuentes said he would ask Alsup to transfer Wolf's case to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who is hearing the case of the Chronicle reporters. The lawyer said the two cases should be considered together because they raise the same issue: whether federal law provides any implicit protection for journalists who withhold confidential information from grand juries.
Wolf's case arises from a protest July 8, 2005, in the Mission District against an international economic summit in Scotland. As officers pursued a band of anarchists, a San Francisco police car was allegedly set on fire.
Federal prosecutors have said in court filings that the vandalism could be a federal crime because the Police Department receives federal funds. Federal law, unlike California law, contains no explicit protections for reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources or unpublished material.
Part of Wolf's video of the demonstration was shown on local television. Prosecutors have been seeking the rest of the footage since February.
Alsup first ordered Wolf to produce the material June 15, after a closed-door hearing. According to a transcript that Alsup later made public, the judge told Wolf he had no basis for withholding the tapes, and cited Miller's case.
Wolf appeared before the grand jury later that day, declared that he had a constitutional right to remain silent and to discuss the jury's questions with his lawyers, and was abruptly excused from the hearing by a prosecutor without explanation, according to Wolf's attorneys.
But prosecutors returned to Alsup three weeks later with a request to hold Wolf in contempt of court. The judge signed an order July 10 telling Wolf that, unless he justified his refusal to comply with the demand for the tapes, he would be held in civil contempt for the rest of the grand jury's term.
Fuentes said the grand jury investigating the demonstration convened in January and could remain in operation through next July.
The lawyer said he would assert a variety of defenses for Wolf, including a claim that he had the right to remain silent to avoid possible self-incrimination. Fuentes declined to explain how Wolf could incriminate himself, but said he would provide a written explanation to Alsup under seal.
If Alsup upholds Wolf's self-incrimination claim, a claim he rejected in the earlier hearing, the government could grant Wolf immunity from prosecution and ask the judge to order him to testify.
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network