United States v. Caldwell Reply Memorandum for Petitioner

    No. 1114

Ibf d|mtrt «f t o  'S ito i  plates

OcTOBEB Teem, 1970

UNITED States op America, petitiO]Sbr

V,  ■

; ' ' -EARL Caldwele

ON PETITION FOB A WRIT OF GEBTIOBARI TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEAU8 FOR THE 'NINTH CIRCUIT

REPLY MEteANDIIM POE THE tJHITED STATES

ERWIN N. ISRISWOLD,
Solicitor Oeneral, \  

Department of Jmtioe, 
WasMngton, D.C. ZOSSO.



J i t  i\\t ^ 0 i ir t  0 f  t o  MmUi
October Term, 1970

No. 1114
U nited S tates of A merica, petitioner

V.

E arl Caldweix

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE VNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES

The brief in opposition confuses the narrowness of 
the issue presented in this case with unimportance. 
Here, on the contrary, the narrowness of the issue 
demonstrates its importance; it is the threshold ques­
tion which must be decided before any consideration can 
be given to the “broader” issues that might be litigated 
with respect to the proper scope of a reporter’s claim of 
privilege. The court below has prohibited the grand jury 
from even calling respondent before it to testify about 
non-confidential information unless the grand jury first 
discloses the nature and scope of its investigation and 
shows that it has a “compelling” need for the non-confi- 
dential information. Thus, a reporter is given an un-

( 1 )414-669—71



precedented kind of privilege. There is nothing about 
that principle that is unique to the particular circum­
stances of this case; the court below properly stated 
that ‘The case presents vital questions of public 
policy” (Pet. App. 13).

Respondent errs in suggesting that the issuance of 
the Attorney General’s guidelines on subpoenas to the 
news media insures that the question in this case will 
never recur. Rather, the principle of the decision be­
low would make those guidelines irrelevant, since it 
would require the government to litigate the cpiestion 
of compelling need before enforcement of a grand 
jury subpoena to any reporter working in a “sensi­
tive” area—and most areas are “ sensitive” and “ con­
fidential” to an active newsman.’ In contrast, the 
evaluation of need contemplated by the guidelines 
would be conducted internally; the guidelines are not 
intended to create any litigable rights in and of 
themselves.^

Respectfully submitted.
E ewin- R. Gkisavold,

Solicitor General.
J anuary 1971.

 ̂I t  is our understanding that respondent takes the position 
that anything not published in liis articles is confidential, even 
statements given to him for publication that were not actually 
published. Indeed, he claims that he does not have to authen­
ticate his published articles by testimony before the grand jury.

 ̂While this litigation was under way before the guidelines 
wei-e issued, a specific decision to pursue it was made thereafter. 
Obviously, the guidelines ŵ ere not intended to require retro­
active withdrawal of all previous subpoenas.

U.S.  GOVERNMENT PRINTINJ5 OFFICE; 1971



' ' •--̂ V  ~A-t .-t '-’ vik< ' ' 4 -,  ̂ if >
[",'<. -:<̂ ' ■ ':^- -T tv  ; 4  : 4 .  ’  , , >

'A' f ' h -  '4'  ̂ ^''^^'4 4  .Cit-.

4 * 1 4 , 4 - 4 ^ ' Z v ' o ' I - /

. :

'  -'1 J  -- t* < : ' ‘ '■ 4 V  " ' 9 - K ( \ 4  n ' i " ' -   ̂ A '‘>1 * - . 4 / - 4 ^ , ' ^  4 - 4  V :-.A> -A '^ ' --y  i ;4 4 - , - l a '-  ., > - /  , - , .  ' 4 / ^
I . " 4   ̂ .^-4^4^;% 4^vJ;'<4A4r1H i ;i' ’4 , 4  ly ;

4^44t■t*-A;v^•y ly-X-;--,. -̂CrX,-L;; -j /^ 'y y 4  .^;„ .4  ‘.; 

■'1»iy C‘> :vx^\V-' „ V'l.V i-^ji V ' 4 y  . y -'v ,' 4,.:-. :̂;

■ V x - y ” ' '" iij  ;j 1  4 .' r.= 4 ' y ; ^ ' " ; ; y  ' 4 ; : ; - y i < . f  4 h '. <s

; s ,  V iV ..V  X'‘ 4X tV ^ ir5y ;i . - y > - X
" v \ “' ' '  ' 4 > <f X C''" X i' ' '̂ t îl'/ '' '""I -I V '̂''" ^/ *, . .>■ s.**-"‘A  4 0 ^ 1   ̂ 4 4 1 1 4 4  y  , , . \ V * .  f'T ‘ J, ' " - / y

4 u . : -  : ; > / ; ' > : . : , : ’'‘-^ ^ ." '-a  ' '  4 / *