mister good afternoon you're honest in light of some of the arguments raise and the cases cited in the brief since i want to be clear about what this appeal is not about it's not about effective law enforcement because this is not a case where a reporter is withholding evidence that goes to whether or not a crime has occurred right and it's not about victims rights it's not about what tools should be used or technique and it's from juries biased have requested extensions on this appeal and then immediately turned around and asked for it and requested a prompt trial that has long since concluded this appeal is a bonus primarily about the emanates from first minute protections to the media in the only poet and supreme courts have recognized that it is it was drafted and inactive to preserve the autonomy of the press to allow reporters to seek the truth without fear that sources will be cut off unnecessary disclosures and to permit the public to receive complete unfettered information as result in order to divest in the privilege in forcing disclosure confidential source is to be a last resort now the s course it starts off by declaring that a court may not compel anyone to disclose the source of any information obtained by reporter except as provided by the act and i want to just i laid on three parts of the statute relevance public interest and alternative sources of information first going to relevance the statute itself doesn't define the scope of relevance but it certainly ties the term relevance to the nature of the proceedings and to the merest the claim of offense and the only supreme court  jackies picked up on this theory in in deciding a case on the act it's a term in that a fact is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable determination the outcome of the action that's what makes it wrong and that's why the illinois supreme court held that an active case the identity of the source was directly relevant to an element of the person or a charge that was  circumstance erroneous disclosure is all relevant to the determination of the criminal charges against her in fact even the circuit court on the issue off topic when it came to the murder charge so as a result if you try to broaden the concept of relevance to some theoretical aunt who may or may not be or have been a witness file a false one or maybe a grand jury secrecy rules are violent of course no one ever suggested that it was but who knows anything's possible the theory seems to be   whether you knew him can have the same venue whether or not you know some of these other matters than aren't directly related to evidence in a murder charge but they're related to the trial itself rather i think the course i think the case law comes up with a very clear dividing line that frankly sounds like a lot in terms of what what what the relevancy dividing line is it looks a lot like the statutory connection between relevance so it ended and the merits of the claim or couple parts to answer your question with respect to picking a jury this has nothing to do with that jurors there are mechanisms in place to decide if jurors to protect the finest from potential juror bias and we have very clear dividing line of cases across the country and we've identified illinois supreme court or some more circuit court cases courts across the country a very consistent dividing line on the one song which are cases where reporters have direct rele purpose of murder trial i guess what's the difference well your honor that was with the question yes this record and we saw the the answer which is why we're here on appeal to us we just end that in fact the cases that are on the other side and something other than something clavicle to the merits of the claim the murder trial and in fact in mickey's case is even weaker than that here because she's not actually claiming that the source is relevant to anything she's saying only that it might be relevant to one of these collateral matters instead of showing relevance making that determination and showing record in the statute she's saying you know to me first and then i'll figure out what it might be relevant to that does not sound like a bird set and nor could she because it c is that it's right here and we'll talk about public interest and you know nick is that's one of the well we just don't believe that that's relevant to the determination of this case clearly it's not and this is in fact the circuit courts recognize that it was off topic and then return to public interest which is the next standard which is related and there is a relationship between relevance and public interest and this is a difficult burden for the applicant because disclosure must be essential to protect a specific interest and here are the key  really struggle to identify public interest that had anything to do with the relief you request as you said that there is certainly an interest in protecting defendants against an bias against bias jersey but how would this unring the bell that what so it has nothing to do with what's interesting though about the public interest argument is that nikki mentions another public interest the circuit court that she didn't mention to this court she argued below and we cited her brief that yes reporter's privilege is the best the source could be fired or punished and then maybe future sources maybe scared off from talking the process maybe there'll be less first amendment speech and that's why and now that's a policy that is contrary to the purposes of the statute which might be why of course in fact some some of the cases that are cited their work right there there were investigations or a grand jury investigations in some of them the the reporters that the source identity were the information that was relevant to whatever was being investigated you that was one of the that was one of the cases i think it was the work will spring court cases prisoner abuse that's right that's right just a couple of points on the exhaustion of sources and again we only get to this point if the information is relevant that's if the determination the case it's not and if it improves if the force disclosure is necessary to protect a significant public interest say it's not but if she sounds high that she still has to show that other alternative sources of the same information and exhausted this is not an easy burden it's not meant to be an easy and parties or circuit court same stand that and it shouldn't be because it's supposed to be divestiture supposed to be a last resort the statute in the illinois supreme court in special grand jury case have said all that matters is the possibility surrounding the disclosure on this stock route was initially established to protect judges and attorneys and then it was extended to protect reporters in sort of standing in the court called it said that it was protecting against the purpose of the stated purpose to try to make of that mickey present in the circuit court essentially to try to intimidate dissuade future sources from talking to us is a real threat to mr hosea and to others now granted in some cases are real competing interests that courts must balance and sometimes as competing interests present a tough case we think this is not that hits because an applicant who says let me go to trial first see what happens give me this stuff then and i'll see what it may or may not only in the context of an underlying proceeding the only proceeding existing here is the murder trial the people are are prosecuting the word file therefore with an interest in this case were hardly to the case we should be part of this case we did issue that we take that we are the only exception we take to the argument that you just heard we have won is that we believe exhaustion has occurred so it's not relevant but what difference does it make the source was this was an unfortunate but it was a breach of protocol it was not a crime there's no grand jury investigation to be had here there's no remedy to hand the belt has been wrong so it's not relevant our only dispute with the line is if we believe that exhaustion has taken in at the end of the day the court still has no remedy because there's no place to go is our position that  accurately of possession of a controlled substance there could be a discovery violation there so it's relevant to investigate to see if there was a discovery violation because there are supreme court rules that are placed which in this case supreme court rules for discovery were yet if they did it anyways then my client should be prosecuted by that it was meant that make any element in a murder charge more or less problem by getting a special prosecutor my clients to process rights are preserved because at the end of the  allows him to make these reports and there are ways to protect against the pretrial publicity that can flow from that but this case isn't just about this issue isn't just about what happens after these reports really this is about what happened before the leaked what caused the reports to leak whether or not somebody violated rules of discovery whether or not somebody violated ethical rules my client is facing a criminal charge and i would submit based on it being a double murder is probably the most significant charge they can be facing the state of illinois right now regardless of the scope of the grabbing the charge the rights to a fair trial which i think the case saw are pretty much well sells when going up against first amendment rights right if we can identify the source in a case around if for example if it is a prosecutor it impacts my client's ability to receive a fair trial because the next step is to see if there's a shamir to see if a special prosecutor should be pointed to make sure that the person who's dealing with this case the person has authority over its prosecution is doing so in a fair manner because i will submit to the courts that if it was the state actor for example remedies they don't fix the underlying problem if it was a state actor that did that state actor stays with the case that state actors still follows that state if you're still in a position to do things to undermine the integrity of the trial to undermine the integrity of the process to undermine the defendant own right to a fair trial if you go simply beyond the twelve people who could potentially sit in the box and it is released to a jury trial yes house is correct we had a bench trial in this case and i would disagree with his interpretation of we asked for extension after extension and then demanded a fair trial as if there was some sort of odd devious trial strategy there's nothing really in the record to support it but what i would suggest to the court is when you sit down with a client decide well now you can have a bench trial a jury trial one of these is going to take shed any further light on the source files so now we have all these affidavits which so that everybody claims that they weren't a source it seemed very obvious that somebody was not telling the truth an affidavit we have the supreme court rules which say that this stuff needs to be kept confidential and if it's disclosed there's a same tional let's hear and so between these things between judge he's only need to control his own home room and to make sure his own rules are complied with to make sure that everybody is on a level playing field if he comes rolling to see well who is this person because more than just whether or not a witness can be impeached for their credibility i believe if we consider what happened if we just assume that it was a state actor then i think it considered a great question whether or not there should be sanction for their actions there are rules in place i sanction in a case can take on many forms it could be evidentiary in nature it could be the dismissal of the indictment it could be a jury instruction where an inference can be made can lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor which would allow for a more fair process between the defendant and the person that's prosecuting her and so i disagree that i would suggest that the sanctions in this case could be broad enough or could be could be powerful enough that they could be material impact on on the defendant's case  things on all was in the best position to say let's roll then what's necessary for the case and what to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence everything you're talking about primarily is about other discovery whirls the sanctity of the you know supreme court case and i'm not going to disagree with the court's resuscitation of the whole thing but what i would say is that it's relevant to the proceedings the proceedings in this case is a murder case where supreme court rules are covering discovery where ethical rules are covering rejoinders i would argue that it is otherwise there wouldn't be any attempts to enforce discovery rules in criminal cases there would be a request to make sanctions and discovery violations in criminal  fair trial issues are dealt however when we consider what happened as a result of a leak i have to revise my client more than i she can receive a fair trial anywhere because if we're doing a jury trial and well golly we're doing a trial and so then illinois could be a same possibilities these police reports properly pass it on coming out before and during the trial itself and that's something that is an attorney i have to be able to to address and so i would suggest that the leak impacted my client's  point i would discuss with the special prosecutor whether or not there was a potential resolution or not and then i would make my decision based on what they had to say in this particular case i would argue that so no ok so if the police believe the police department the yes and  jury again it's the same thing i would i refer see if there's essential event that can be crafted from the court to see whether or not i should get a special prosecutor appointed a jury instruction appointed perhaps a suppression of the testimony that witness or the suppression of evidence that witness was associate with and then i have to gauge what kind of case i have at their point and i would suggest the court that they don't have standing to be here as it relates to the issue of exhaustion i believe the issue of exhaustion is well satisfied at least the issue of the public interest as well satisfied i think the court has its own authority to enforce its own rules to make sure that justice is effectively administrative and i think the case law says that yes long course mit police officers the investigation of crimes they do have rights and those rights can all of them to pierce the privilege but there have been cases which you probably think defendants have the exact same rights and then these first amendment situations there's to be no less no less of an application so i don't think that the question we can distinguish between whether or not this is a grand jury proceeding or not i don't endanger our as a defense attorney i would have liked the prosecutors to look into it but there you have it they chose not to i wanted people to interview i mean they have investigators they have officers they could have chosen it done that they didn't do that it shouldn't be held against me that i was unable to take advantage of that so i have exhausted all those reasonable means that are available to me those are likely to have been found and that's what the standard requires