During one of Michael Schmidt’s trials, a Toronto Sun journalist was called to the stand to give testimony about an interview he had done with Michael just the day before. In this case, the Sun clearly didn’t want to make an issue about it. A quick call to the office to clear it with superiors seemed to be all that was needed. The request was made in that morning, and the reporter was testifying the very same afternoon. Not that it’s a practice we’d want to encourage, for all the many reason David cites in his story.
“A lawyer for one of the journalists, working for a Wisconsin NBC television station, argued that the subpoena shouldn’t be issued since the reporter’s “testimony is not relevant, let alone ‘highly relevant,’ because he did not observe the purported crime.” The lawyer, Drew Shenkman, with a Washington, DC, firm, added, “Moreover, the State has failed to show that the information sought ‘is not obtainable from any alternative source,’…as the continued sale of raw milk products can be shown through countless other sources.” Continue reading