Freedom of Press Issues to be Argued by NAACP Legal Defense Fund Attorney - United States v. Earl Caldwell

    ressRelease ft ae ae a 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

FEBRUARY 17, 1972 

FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES TO BE ARGUED BY 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEY 

UNITED STATES v. EARL CALDWELL 

On Tuesday, February 22, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund 

h affiliate attorney, Stanford law professor,Anthony Amsterdam, will 

argue freedom of the press issues in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 

United States v. Earl Caldwell Case. The argument will challenge 

the absolute right of federal grand juries to subpoena newsmen to 

testify during their investigations. 

LDF attorneys contend that such unbridled grand jury subpoena 

‘e power can and does directly impinge upon freedom of the press. They 

are asking the high court to uphold the decision of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that freedom of the 

press is in jeopardy if reporters have no recourse but to testify in 

secret grand jury hearings about their sources of news. 

a
t
a
i
g
e
 er
 

A favorable ruling for Earl Caldwell, a black New York Times 

F reporter, hinges upon whether the high court agrees that freedom 

of the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, prohibits the 

government from interfering with collection -- as well as dis- 

semination -- of news. Since the Supreme Court has never before 

addressed itself to this question, the decision will likely set an 

important precedent. 

Earl Caldwell's involvement with the government began when 

two consecutive federal grand juries subpoenaed him (on February 2 

(More) 

= AACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586: 

iam T. Coleman, Jr. - President _ Jack Greenberg - Director-C 



FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE TWO 

and May 22, 1970) to testify about the activities of the Black 

Panther Party. Their interest in Caldwell centered on knowledge 

he acquired as a reporter specializing in coverage of dissident and 

militant groups, including the Panthers. 

Believing that an appearance before the grand jury would ruin 

his credibility and relationship with members of the Panther Party, 

and ultimately destroy his ability to gather news, Caldwell brought 

these claims to district court and asserted his refusal to obey the 

subpoenas. 

The decision of that court required Caldwell to appear before 

the jury, but protected him from divulging information he received 

in confidence, i.e., information not for publication, as well as 

information concerning his sources of news. 

Caldwell, unhappy with this decision, appealed, and the Ninth 

Circuit upheld the protective order of the lower court. However, 

it further concluded that the nominal benefits of any non-confidential 

disclosures Caldwell might make to the grand jury could not be 

reconciled against the probable harm to Caldwell personally or to the 

American public if such dissident and militant news sources became 

alienated from the press through fear of government investigation and 

reprisal. Thus, it freed Caldwell from any responsibility to testify 

before the grand jury. 

Now in the Supreme Court, the government claims that federal 

grand juries have always had an absolute right to subpoena any person 

in order to conduct their investigations; that reporters subpoenaed 

in the past have never claimed immunity from such investigations. It 

also alleges that the First Amendment simply restrains government from 

interfering with dissemination -- as opposed to collection -- of news 

(more) 



FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE THREE 

and has no bearing on this case. 

To counter these claims the LDF brief notes that there have 

been numerous Supreme Court rulings which have tempered the power of 

government to insure constitutional rights; that the primary reason 

immunity has not been sought before is because the trend to subpoena 

newsinen has only recently come into wide use; that "freedom of the 

press to gather the news is the factual precondition of freedom of 

the press to disseminate the news, and freedom of the public to 

receive it." 

LDF attorneys take the position that grand juries unbridled 

power to subpoena the press does, in fact, jeopardize freedom of 

the press when it threatens to extinguish sensitive and important 

sources of news; that only when government can demonstrate an 

overriding national interest should its concerns outweigh the rights 

of citizens to a free and informed press. 

To stress the importance of confidential relationships 

between newsmen and their sources, some 19 well-known newsmen have 

filed affidavits, now part of the record in this case. Correspondents 

like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid of CBS, Gil Noble and Timothy 

Knight of ABC, staff reporters for The New York Times and Newsweek 

have attested to their fears that without some reasonable assurances 

of immunity, many of the most important sources of news -- from 

militant political groups like the Panthers to whistle-blowers in 

government -- will soon dry up. The LDF brief, as well as amicus 

briefs filed by several news organizations, point out specific 

examples where the ability of the press to gather news has already 

been seriously impaired by the use or fear of government's power of 

subpoena upon the press. 

(more) 



FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE FOUR 

NOTE: Please bear in mind that the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund, Inc. is a completely separate and distinct organization, 

even though we were established by the NAACP and retain those 

initials in our name. Our correct designation is NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., frequently shortened to LDF. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Abeke Foster (212) 586-8397 

or Attorney Steve Ralston