State v. Sheridan

Decision Date13 December 1967
Docket NumberNo. 654,654
Citation248 Md. 320,236 A.2d 18
PartiesSTATE of Maryland v. Walter J. SHERIDAN.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

S. Leonard Rottman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and William A. Linthicum, Jr., State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellant.

Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D. C. (James T. Wharton, Rockville, and Howard Monderer, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.

HAMMOND, Chief Judge.

Walter J. Sheridan, a special correspondent and investigative reporter for a national broadcasting network, was subpoenaed to testify before the Montgomery County Grand July on November 28, 1966, in connection with suspected irregularities or unlawfulness in administrative zoning decisions which he had investigated. He refused to tell the Grand Jury the details of a conversation betwen him and one Patrick, although at least the substance of the information he had gleaned in the conversation seemingly had been disseminated to the world and although he freely told the jury that Patrick had been the source of his information. Obligingly, the Grand Jury recessed in order to afford Sheridan time and opportunity to consult a lawyer. When the jury reconvened, Sheridan again refused to divulge the contents of his conversation with Patrick. Thereupon, the jury authorized the State's Attorney to seek to require the recalcitrant to testify before them as requested. Hearing was had before Judge Moorman on the State's Attorney's petition and Sheridan's answer (which invoked Code (1965 Repl.Vol.), Art. 35, § 2, providing as follows:

'No person engaged in, connected with or employed on a newspaper or journal or for any radio or television station shall be compelled to disclose, in any legal proceeding or trial or before any committee of the legislature or elsewhere, the cource of any news or information procured or obtained by him for and published in the newspaper or disseminated by the radio or television station on and in which he is engaged, connected with or employed.'

as well as the transcript of Sheridan's testimony before the Grand Jury.

Although Judge Moorman found as a fact, entirely justifiably we think, that Sheridan 'obtained certain information in the form of a conversation with Mr. Patrick * * * (and) that he divulged the source of the conversation to the Grand Jury,' he sustained Sheridan's claim that his 'newspaperman's privilege' of never violating a confidence allowed him to remain silent as to the details of the information Patrick had given him, and dismissed the petition, somewhat inexplicably to us since the statute makes inviolate only 'the source of any news or information' and not the 'news or information' itself. 1

The State appealed in December 1966 and, after an extension of time, the record was filed in this Court in late January 1967. On July 7 next a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot was filed, because the term of the Grand Jury before whom Sheridan was sought to be required to testify had ended. We dismissed the motion under Maryland Rule 836 c because it had not been filed within ten days after the case had become moot (Rule 835 b 7).

Sheridan renewed the motion to dismiss in his brief as Rule 836 c and the decision in Agnoli v. Powers, 235 Md. 289, 293-294, 201 A.2d 487, allow him to do.

We think the appeal must be dismissed as moot. The State's petition sought to have Sheridan compelled to give further testimony to the Grand Jury to which he had already given the source of his information. That Grand Jury's term has ended and it had been discharged. We could do nothing to undo or correct what has taken place and if we approved the lower court's action it would be an appeal in vacuo. In Ex parte Maulsby, 13 Md. 625, a prisoner who had been jailed for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury was ordered released by this Court because the jury had been discharged. The Maulsby holding was applied by the Supreme Court in Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622, 627, which said: 'Where the grand jury has been finally discharged, a contumacious witness can no longer be confined since he then has no further opportunity to purge himself of contempt.'

In the leading case of Loubriel v. United States (2nd Cir.), 9 F.2d 807, 809, Judge Learned Hand said for the Court:

'Nor does it make any difference that the order of committal gave him leave to purge himself before another grand jury. Each investigation is separate and independent; it terminates with the grand jury which undertakes it, and the next does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Tofani v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1983
    ...such laws, case law interpreting the statute has been sparse, especially considering its eighty-seven year history. In State v. Sheridan, 248 Md. 320, 236 A.2d 18 (1967), an investigative reporter for a national broadcast network was subpoenaed to testify before a Montgomery County grand ju......
  • State v. Siegel
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 29, 1971
    ...255 Md. 78, 257 A.2d 142, the hearing sought to be enjoined had been actually held before the appeal was determined. In State v. Sheridan, 248 Md. 320, 236 A.2d 18, the State sought to have Sheridan compelled to give further testimony to a Grand Jury and the term of that Jury had ended and ......
  • State v. Roll
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 1973
    ...that the language of sections a and b is largely derived from Federal Rule 42(a).18 While a cursory reading of State v. Sheridan, 248 Md. 320, 236 A.2d 18 (1967), might indicate that this Court had previously treated a refusal to fully answer questions propounded by the grand jury as a civi......
  • IN RE GRAND JURY, JANUARY, 1969
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • July 17, 1970
    ...Federal Rules of Evidence, 46 F.R.D. 161, 243, 244 et seq.; In Matter of Taylor, 412 Pa. 32, 193 A.2d 181 (1963); State v. Sheridan, 248 Md. 320, 236 A.2d 18 (1967); Attorney General v. Clough, Q.B.D. (1963), 1 All E.R. 420; Attorney General v. Mulholland, C.A. (1963), 1 All E.R. 767, 77 Ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT