Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's true that I was subpoened in the Carl Johnson case (along with John Gilmore and perhaps some other list-members) and ended up testifying very briefly. My lawyer at the time indicated that because Johnson was not a source -- just some random guy who sent me a few messages -- I had no journalistic privilege that I could raise.
But I do now, and I have raised it.
My question does not involve journalistic privilege _per se_. It is addressed to the reputational implications of testifying as a witness for the prosecution in criminal trials (past, present, and future). By the way, again note you have raised privilege as a matter against the DEFENSE. You are not being asked by the prosecution to do anything but validate your articles under oath, in court, so they can use those articles as incriminating evidence.
As for the motion, I didn't write it, and those aren't the *moral* or *principled* objections I would raise (and I have raised). ...
I'm absolutely sure they aren't. And those "*moral* or *principled* objections" and a plane ticket get you to Tacoma. It's an excellent legal motion, in terms of serving the interests of the client. But the interests of the client and the interests of the person facing years in jail aren't the same at all. And that is manifest in the portion where the Court is asked to give the prosecution its evidence, but severely limit the defense's ability to attack the evidence via cross-examination. Which brings me back to my I-don't-get-it of why all of this somehow seems to *increases* the reputation-capital of the person being a prosecution witness in a criminal trial, to a group where many seem to think a police state is always around the corner (if not here already). Greg Newby wrote:
The advantage of talking to Declan is that maybe, possibly, some "freedom of the press" issues will let him avoid spilling everything. In that case, you'd need to trust him to keep your best interests.
But this is a worked-example of where his press interests are contrary to the defendant's interests. It's spelled out in great legal detail in his motion, and I summarized it colloquially. Can I summarize your argument to me as the classic If-[he]-didn't-do-it-somebody-else-would ? Generally, this doesn't work very well for the person who did do it. That is, is the situation that he doesn't "develops a reputation as a turncoat", no matter how many criminal trials he appears as a prosecution witness, if he just complains mightily about doing it? It's what he *says*, not what he *does*, which is determinative? I should disclaim that I'm not stating what Declan should or should not do, according to my views. Nor again is this an issue which has formed my own opinion of him. But it is a great mystery to me how he seems to always come out ahead for being a government prosecution witness, in the regard of many people who are supposedly under government prosecution risk, when all is said and done (especially done). __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com