Asst. City Editor

The constitutional right of a journalist to ensure a source’s anonymity currently is being threatend.

Vanessa Leggett, 33, a journalist and aspiring author, was found in contempt of court and was placed in jail without bond for refusing to disclose information from her notes on an investigation she was conducting in the 1997 murder of 46-year-old Doris Angleton, wife of millionaire Robert Angleton, according to her attorney, Mike DeGeurin.

Prosecutors claim that she is not a journalist and is not covered under the First Amendment because she is an author. However, she is writing a book and she has been published, so how is she not considered a journalist?

The thing about this is, this is not a new issue. Journalists have been imprisoned before, however the lack of national media attention along with the secret closed hearings are cause for concern.

The grand jury proceedings were secret, Leggett’s court appearances were closed to the press and public. The judge’s order sending her to jail and the transcript of the proceedings was sealed. What is it about this case that the federal officials and the courts don’t want the public to hear?

As reported by the Freedom Forum, at www.freedomforum.com, Federal officials are hoping to discover the identities of her confidential sources in order to conduct their own investigation. However, the most troubling fact is that the entire ordeal has been going on since July 20 with little or no coverage.

The overwhelmingly unusual aspect of this case is the lack of coverage given to this matter by journalists, whose own rights may very well be on the line. Without the ability to guarantee a

source that the information they give them will be confidential, those sources that wish to remain anonymous simply will not talk.

If a journalist in Leggett’s position willingly gives the name of a confidential source to anyone, he or she has broken a trust. If this kind of a trust is lost, it follows that the source will not trust that person or even a person in the same profession again. That cannot happen, and that is why Leggett did not disclose the information the prosecution wants and why she is currently in jail. She is standing up for what is right and is willing to suffer because of it. Often times in many professions there are agreements of confidentiality in which the only time (and it can be

argued never) that the name of a confidential person be disclosed is when it is believed to be in that person’s best interest. I highly doubt that that is the case in this matter.

How can the media serve its purpose as a watchdog of the government when it is forced to turn over all of the information it has attained to the government?

Another concern is DeGuerin’s accusation that the FBI approached Leggett before her subpoena, requesting that she continue her research and work for the government by giving research information directly to the FBI. DeGuerin said that it was shortly after she denied the FBI’s offer that his client was subpoenaed.

The information gained from anonymous sources often allows a journalist to approach a source willing to give information on the record, making the statements official. Although

confidential information is seldom published because it is not attributed to anyone, that information is often beneficial to an investigation and leads to further findings.

The public must defend Leggett’s rights, for to ignore this case and allow the FBI and the court system to continue acting in this manner will dramatically reduce the way the press can keep a watchful eye over them.