August 2006 Vol. 104 No. 8 THE REVIEW

Essay: Concurring in Part & Concurring in the Confusion

Sonja R. West

When a federal appellate court decided last year that two reporters must either reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury or face jail time, the court did not hesitate in relying on the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s sole comment on the reporter’s privilege—Branzburg v. Hayes. “The Highest Court has spoken and never revisited the question. Without doubt, that is the end of the matter,” Judge Sentelle wrote for the three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

   //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

Rethinking Reporter's Privilege

Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...

Standing's Expected Value

This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...

Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...

Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach

Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...

Doing Affirmative Action

Sometime this year the Supreme Court will announce its holding in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List