Appeal Court Upholds ‘Shield Law’s’ Protections

A state Court of Appeal ruled Thursday that, under the journalist’s “shield law,” a reporter cannot be forced to testify about unpublished portions of an interview with the defendant in a capital murder case.

The case has drawn attention as a potentially pivotal test of a provision of the state Constitution adopted in 1980 that protects reporters from contempt for refusing to disclose confidential sources or unpublished information they obtain while gathering news.

The three-judge panel unanimously overturned a contempt-of-court order imposed on Erin Hallissy of the Contra Costa Times, who had refused to answer questions about her jail house conversations with John Sapp of Concord, accused in the killings of three.

In a story headlined “I Killed Many for Pay,” Hallissy had quoted Sapp as admitting several murders--including some that police investigators reportedly have said he could not have committed.

Sapp’s attorney, in an unusual move to discredit his client’s admissions, sought to question the reporter further in court, saying he hoped to elicit other statements Sapp had made that would have contradicted or cast doubt on the published statements.

Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Norman Spellberg rejected Hallissy’s claims that the “shield law” protected her from being forced to testify. The judge noted that the case did not involve confidential sources and said that it would be a “travesty” to allow the reporter’s concern over revealing unpublished information to take precedence over the defendant’s right to a fair trial where his life was at stake.

After Hallissy was sentenced to jail by another judge in the case, the state Supreme Court intervened at her request, setting aside the contempt order and directing the appeal court to review the case.

The appellate panel, in an opinion by Justice Marc Poche, held first that the order was invalid on technical procedural grounds. But the court went on to rule that, while there may be instances where reporters must testify despite the shield law, Sapp had failed to show that Hallissy’s testimony was necessary to his case.

In fact, the panel said, the defendant had conceded there were other unnamed individuals to whom he similarly had “confessed” and through whom he could prove the falsity of such statements.

Sapp’s attorney, Contra Costa County Deputy Public Defender Jack A. Rauch, said he was “not overly shocked or surprised” by the ruling. He noted that if he did not appeal now, the issue could come back to the high court later if Sapp is convicted and sentenced to death without a chance to question Hallissy.

“This is an issue that will not go away,” Rauch said. “We consider her to be a major, major witness.”