Brian Tyson shot and killed a drug dealer during a feud with local dealers in his neighborhood. Tyson claimed that he acted in self-defense. Prior to his trial, Tyson was interviewed by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Linn Washington of the Philadelphia Tribune. The Commonwealth prosecutors alleged portions of the resulting newspaper articles were inconsistent with statements Tyson made to authorities and subpoenaed Bowden and Washington for their notes on their conversations with Tyson. The reports refused to produce the documents, arguing that their notes were protected by Pennsylvania’s Shield Law, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5942, and by a reporters’ privilege arising out of the First Amendment. The trial court held that statements Tyson made to the reporters are not protected either by the Shield Law or the reporters’ privilege. After their continued refusal to produce the documents, the court held the reporters in contempt and imposed sanctions at $100 per minute until compliance. The reporters appealed first to the Superior Court and then to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court affirmed the contempt charge but remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the appropriate sanction, holding that the sanction imposed by the trial court was an abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court held that statements made by Tyson to the reporters are not protected by the Pennsylvania Shield Law. The statute states that no reporter shall be required to disclose the identity of a confidential human source. This court held that documents may be considered sources for Shield Law purposes, but only where production of such documents, even if redacted, could breach the confidentiality of the identity of a human source and thereby threaten the free flow of information from confidential informants to the media. In this case, Tyson’s identity was not confidential, and there are no allegations or indications that the disclosure of his statements might reveal the identities of any other confidential persons. The Shield Law, therefore, does not protect the reporters from compelled disclosure in this case.
The court acknowledged that reporters enjoy a qualified privilege arising out of the First Amendment based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), but held that the Commonwealth met its burden to overcome the privilege. To overcome the qualified reporters’ privilege, a party must demonstrate that (1) it made an effort to obtain the information from other sources; (2) the information is only accessible through the reporter and his or her sources; and (3) the information is critical to the party’s claim. In this case, Tyson and the reporters were the only sources for Tyson’s statements. Tyson was not a viable source because he could not be forced to produce the statements without violating the Fifth Amendment. Any effort, therefore, to obtain the information from other sources would be futile. The court held that these circumstances satisfied the first two requirements of the Commonwealth’s burden. With respect to the third criterion, Tyson’s statements were crucial because his self defense claim turned on his mental state, and his statements directly reflected this mental state. The Commonwealth, therefore, satisfied all three requirements for overcoming the reporters’ privilege.
The court also evaluated the sanctions imposed by the trial court. In determining the appropriate sanctions, the court should consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened, the probable effectiveness of the sanction, the defendant’s financial resources, and the burden on the defendant that the sanction would impose. The Supreme Court held that because the trial court did not consider all these factors, it abused its discretion and should reconsider sanctions using the proper standards.