Rosato

I concur in the majority’s holding that the respondent court had the right to make inquiry of petitioners as to whether a defendant or court officer had violated its order but that Evidence Code section 1070 gives to petitioners a privilege not to disclose the confidential source of their news stories except as the source was one of those persons. I also concur in the majority’s recognition that the privilege should be given a broad rather than a narrow construction to the end that it immunizes petitioners from contempt for refusing to answer any question which possibly would tend to disclose a protected source. However, in spite of such declaration, in my view the majority unduly has restricted the privilege in its application to the questions put to petitioners. Further, the majority has wrongly *232 upheld petitioners’ contempt for refusing to answer questions which, while perhaps outside the privilege, clearly were beyond the subject matter of the inquiry. Finally, I believe that petitioners have a qualified First Amendment and California constitutional privilege of nondisclosure which gives added weight to section 1070 and required respondent to engage in a delicate balancing…

BROWN, (G.A), P.J. —

Petitioners, Joe Rosato and William K. Patterson, reporters, George F. Gruner, managing editor, and Jim Bort, city editor, all employed by Fresno's largest daily newspaper, The Fresno Bee, [1] seek a writ of review to annul orders of respondent court adjudging them in contempt for refusing to answer questions put to them and committing them to jail [2] until such time as the questions are answered.

The witnesses' refusal to answer is grounded upon the provisions of Evidence Code section 1070, [3] commonly referred to as the "shield law," and upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the analogous provision contained in article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. [4]

This cause has received widespread publicity and comment and the proper resolution of the issues is of more than routine importance to the public, to criminal defendants, to the press [5] and to the courts.

In October of 1974 the Fresno County Grand Jury jointly indicted Fresno City Councilman Marc Stefano, land developer Julius Aluisi and former City of Fresno Planning Commissioner Norman Bains on counts of bribery and conspiracy. Because of the…

Introduction

Petitioners, Joe Rosato and William K. Patterson, reporters, George F. Gruner, managing editor, and Jim Bort, city editor, all employed by Fresno’s largest daily newspaper, The Fresno Bee, 1 seek a writ of review *199 to annul orders of respondent court adjudging them in contempt for refusing to answer questions put to them and committing them to jail 2 until such time as the questions are answered.

The witnesses’ refusal to answer is grounded upon the provisions of Evidence Code section 1070, 3 commonly referred to as the “shield law,” and upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the analogous provision contained in article I, section 2 of the California Constitution.

-This cause has received widespread publicity and comment and the proper resolution of the issues is of more than routine importance to the public, to criminal defendants, to the press 5 and to the courts.

Synopsis of Facts

In October of 1974 the Fresno County Grand Jury jointly indicted Fresno City Councilman Marc Stefano, land developer Julius Aluisi and former City of Fresno Planning Commissioner Norman Bains on counts of bribery and conspiracy. Because of the…