A Detroit Free Press reporter has invoked the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination in his latest attempt to avoid being forced to testify and reveal his sources to a federal court in a lawsuit filed by a former U.S. Attorney against the Department of Justice.
The reporter, David Ashenfelter, has been subpoenaed by former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino in his lawsuit against his former employer, the DOJ. Convertino alleges that he was fired for being a whistleblower, for complaining to Congress that federal prosecutors lacked the resources to fight terrorism. As part of that lawsuit, he is alleging that the DOJ deliberately leaked information to Ashenfelter to discredit him and he wants the reporter to be forced to reveal his source at the DOJ.
Ashenfelter has refused to do so, claiming that to do so would undermine the ability of reporters to do their constitutionally protected duty of acting as a watchdog on the government, but the judge in the case has rejected that assertion. Now Ashenfelter’s attorney has offered a new privilege claim based on the 5th amendment, arguing that what he reveals could result in prosecution for the reporter and that he has a guaranteed right not to incriminate himself.
This is really a classic case of the clash of two important rights. Convertino has a right to know who may have leaked information about him, particularly if that information was false and malicious. But if that leak was criminal, Ashenfelter may indeed face possible prosecution for conspiracy or for aiding and abetting and that triggers a near-absolute 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
The courts have refused to endorse a full-fledged reporter’s privilege to prevent them from being forced to reveal their sources. Instead they apply a balancing test that allows a reporter to be forced to reveal their sources if that information is crucial to a litigant’s case and cannot be obtained from any other source.
The 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, on the other hand, is far more broadly applied and far more difficult to overcome. Ashenfelter need not prove that the risk of prosecution is likely. Unless the court finds that the claimed risk of prosecution is entirely frivolous, there’s a good chance it will succeed. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Feb. 11.