Court Opinion

ID: 9628158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:09:47.984696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:58.667810
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE ROVIRA
specially concurring:
I agree with the result reached by the majority, because the findings of the respondent trial court reflect that the prosecution has met the test which I believe is applicable; that is, that there is probable cause to believe that the reporter has information that is clearly relevant, that such information cannot be obtained by alternative means, and there is a compelling need for the information. See dissent of Mr. Justice Stewart in Branzburg v. Hayes, supra.
The facts and circumstances of this case dictate the result. The trial court found that the testimony of the petitioner “goes to the very heart” of the charge against Mr. Ozer, thereby determining that the information was relevant. Further, the court found that petitioner was the only person who was present during a meeting with Mr. Ozer “from the beginning of the meeting [with Ozer] to its conclusion” and logically concluded that the information could not be obtained by alternative means.
Although the trial court rejected the compelling need test, it assumed arguendo that such must be shown and concluded that it had been established in this case because of the need to enforce the rules relating to the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
It is my view that Article II, Section 10, of the Colorado Constitution need not and should not be limited in the manner in which the majority in Branzburg v. Hayes has limited the freedom of press guaranteed by the First Amendment. The ad hoc balancing test which I believe appropriate takes into consideration the needs of a free press to investigate and the needs of the state to have the testimony of every person available in judicial proceedings.