Opinion ID: 820615
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Quashed Subpoena

Text: The government’s investigation into the Coconut Grove drug ring involved the cooperation of CIs. In September 2008, one of the CIs was killed. Miami police took the lead in investigating the homicide, and at one point interviewed Mr. Little in connection with the case. Based on information obtained from the government through pre-trial discovery, Mr. Little anticipated that the homicide would factor into this case. Thus, in October 2008, Mr. Little sought production of information related to the Miami Police Department’s investigation. Specifically, Mr. Little wanted a copy of the recording of his police interview. Mr. Little believed that The First 48, a 24 Case: 10-14332 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 25 of 41 reality TV show, possessed a copy and requested a subpoena be served on its producers—A & E Television Networks, LLC (AETN) and ITV Studios, Inc. (ITV)—pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17. The subpoena requested production of “[a]ll photographs, video and/or audio recordings of interviews of [thirty named individuals including Larry Little], made in connection with the filming of The First 48, in relation to the homicide investigation concerning [the CI].” The District Court granted Mr. Little’s request in part, ordering that the subpoena be issued, but that all documents and materials be “receive[d] [by the court] and review[ed] . . . in camera to make a determination that production of the materials to [Little] is appropriate under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c).” Upon receipt of the subpoena, AETN and ITV filed a motion to quash, acknowledging that they had a tape of Mr. Little’s interview, but asserting that they were shielded from having to produce the tape by the qualified journalists’ privilege. The District Court granted this motion, holding that Mr. Little had failed to make the required showing to overcome the qualified journalists’ privilege. On appeal, Mr. Little argues that this was an abuse of discretion because he “met the test articulated by the Eleventh Circuit to overcome [the] . . . privilege.” In the alternative, he suggests that application of the qualified journalists’ privilege in this instance violated his right to compulsory due process. 25 Case: 10-14332 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 26 of 41 We review a District Court’s decision to quash a Rule 17 subpoena for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1397 (11th Cir. 1984). Our Circuit recognizes a qualified privilege for journalists, allowing them to resist compelled disclosure of their professional news gathering efforts. This privilege shields reporters in both criminal and civil proceedings. United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487, 1504 (11th Cir. 1986) (applying privilege in criminal racketeering trial); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S. Ct. 1759 (1981) (applying privilege in civil libel suit).9 In granting AETN’s and ITV’s motion to quash Mr. Little’s Rule 17 subpoena, the District Court applied the test articulated in Caporale, where we said “that information may only be compelled from a reporter claiming privilege if the party requesting the information can show that it is highly relevant, necessary to the proper presentation of the case, and unavailable from other sources.” 806 F.2d at 1504. The District Court determined that Mr. Little did not make the evidentiary showing necessary to overcome the privilege because (1) the recorded interrogation sought was not “highly relevant” to Mr. Little’s case to the extent that he was charged with “offenses relating to a drug conspiracy, not a homicide” and “the drug transactions occurred nearly a year after the homicide”; and (2) Mr. 9 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. 26 Case: 10-14332 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 27 of 41 Little “failed to establish that he [could] not obtain the information from other sources, such as the police who conducted the interviews.” The court did not address whether the recordings were “necessary to the proper presentation of [Mr. Little’s] case.” Caporale, 806 F.2d at 1504. On appeal, Mr. Little contests each of the District Court’s findings. Even if we credit Mr. Little’s argument that the District Court erred in determining that the interrogation video was not highly relevant to his defense, his claim still fails because he has not established that the materials were unavailable from another source. For reasons unknown to us, Mr. Little never attempted to get the interview from the agency that conducted it—the Miami Police Department— until August 18, 2010, almost two months after his trial was over. Miami police maintained a copy of the interview, and the record indicates that the District Court stood willing to enforce a subpoena against the Police Department. Thus, because Mr. Little failed to demonstrate that the interview was otherwise “unavailable from other sources,” the District Court did not abuse its discretion in quashing his motion to compel from AETN and ITV. Mr. Little’s alternative argument—that his convictions should be overturned because the test articulated in Caporale is not consistent with the Sixth Amendment’s “right to compulsory process”—is equally unpersuasive. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that a criminal defendant shall “have compulsory process 27 Case: 10-14332 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 28 of 41 for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. But before there can be a violation of the right to compulsory process, a criminal defendant must “establish some colorable need” for the evidence to be compelled. Cf. Hoskins v. Wainwright, 440 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1971) (“The right to compulsory process is not absolute, and a state may require that a defendant requesting such process at state expense establish some colorable need for the person to be summoned, lest the right be abused by those who would make frivolous requests.”). Mr. Little never requested that the District Court subpoena the interview from the Miami Police Department. That being the case, Mr. Little cannot “establish some colorable need” for why he required that the interview be obtained from AETN and ITV, rather than the Miami Police Department. See id.