Pennington v. Chaffee, 49660
| Decision Date | 01 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49660,49660 |
| Citation | 573 P.2d 1099,1 Kan.App.2d 682 |
| Parties | Application of Joe Pennington for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Joe PENNINGTON, Plaintiff, v. F. T. Jim CHAFFEE, Sheriff of Shawnee County, Kansas, Respondent. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Neither the federal or the state constitutions nor the common law provide a testimonial privilege for a news reporter to withhold testimony in a criminal proceeding.
2. No due process right is violated by summary procedure in a contempt matter when the contempt occurs in open court in the presence of the judge and it interferes with the orderly conduct of the proceedings.
Robert Hall of Adams, Jones, Robinson & Malone, Wichita, Ronald F. Loewen, Wichita, and Jack C. Landau, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Gene M. Olander, Dist. Atty., for respondent.
The petition filed herein alleges that the plaintiff, a news reporter, was, in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution, found guilty of direct criminal contempt of court for his refusal to give answers to questions propounded to him as a witness in a criminal proceeding in the district court of Shawnee County, Kansas, which answers would have revealed privileged information and further that he was illegally confined and restrained of his liberty as punishment for such contempt.
Upon consideration of the petition with attached memorandum and the answer by respondent, this court, pursuant to Rule 9.01(e ), denies the requested relief for the reason the first amendment to the federal constitution provides no testimonial privilege for a news reporter to withhold testimony in a criminal proceeding nor is there any such common law privilege (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972)). We do not interpret Bill of Rights § 11 to our own constitution to supply this privilege. If any such privilege is to exist, it must come from the legislature of the state of Kansas.
No due process right is violated by summary procedure in a contempt matter when the contempt occurs in open court in the presence of the judge and it interferes with the orderly conduct of the proceedings (Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925)).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial Dist.
...Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92, 416 P.2d 416 (1966); In re Hallinan, 71 Cal.2d 1179, 81 Cal.Rptr. 1, 459 P.2d 255 (1969); Pennington v. Chaffee, 1 Kan.App.2d 682, 573 P.2d 1099 (1977).7 As to the right to trial by jury in a criminal contempt proceeding it is the rule that as long as the penalty imp......
-
Decker, Matter of
...privilege, on its face. See Matter of Farber, supra; Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tx.Cr.App.1994); Pennington v. Chaffee, 1 Kan.App.2d 682, 573 P.2d 1099 (1977); People v. Zagarino, 97 Misc.2d 181, 411 N.Y.S.2d 494 (1978); United States v. Liddy, 354 F.Supp. 208 We decline to adopt th......
-
State v. Sandstrom, s. 49268
...filed a direct appeal and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals. The writ was denied. (In re Pennington, 1 Kan.App.2d 682, 573 P.2d 1099 (1977).) Petition for review was granted by this court and upon motion the petition and direct appeal were consolidated for The iss......
-
State v. Williams
...court's ruling as to the relevance of the information ordered to be produced. 224 Kan. at 577, 581 P.2d 812; see In re Pennington, 1 Kan.App.2d 682, 573 P.2d 1099 (1977) (summarily affirming the trial court's order). Our Supreme Court indicated the contempt citation was valid because Pennin......