Synopsis of Cases involving Georgia's Shield Law
O.C.G.A. §§ 24-9-30, et seq

Special thanks to Georgia First Amendment Foundation Board Member Peter Canfield of Dow, Lohnes and Albertson, who prepapred the following synopsis and generously allowed the foundation to post it on its Internet site.

1990
Izbicki v. Ridgeview Institute, Case No. 1:89-CV-306-RCF (N.D.Ga., March 27, 1990) (Freeman, J.):
Subpoena to non-party reporter appropriately limited to verifying that published statements were actually made by the parties to whom they were attributed.
Georgia shield law is not limited to protection of confidential sources.

Vance v. Krause, Civil Action No 90-1687-5 (DeKalb County Superior Court, Nov. 21, 1990) (Fuller, J.):
Where subpoena sought to compel testimony from non-party television station photographer who was also a long-time personal friend of defendant, trial court held that shield law protected from disclosure only information obtained by photographer as a news gatherer for purposes of dissemination to the public.

1991
Stripling v. State, 261 Ga. 1 (1991) (Bell, J.):
Held that trial court did not err in allowing non-party reporter to invoke "shield law" privilege against disclosure of the identity of certain confidential sources - "three former employees of the Douglas County Sheriff's Department" - who had informed her of "precise details on a systematic policy of eavesdropping" of attorney-client communications at the Douglas County jail. A death row inmate sought to compel the testimony for purposes of a motion for new trial.

Nobles v. State, 210 Ga. App. 483 (1991) (McMurray, J.):
In a highly publicized criminal action, a television station reported while the jury was out that it had learned the jury was eleven to one for conviction and one juror was holding out and would not budge. After the jury returned its verdict, trial court polled the jury, which stated that the facts as to their deliberations had been otherwise and, in addition, that no juror had seen the telecast. Defendant subpoenaed the station's reporter for purposes of supporting a mistrial motion on grounds of jury tampering or misconduct.
The trial court quashed the subpoena on the grounds that since the report was inaccurate and the jury had not seen it, no impropriety had taken place and piercing the reporter's shield of confidentiality would bring forth no relevant information.
Affirmed. The shield law was not "meant to be used to uncover the source of mere courtroom gossip or speculation that appears to have been involved here. Nor has it been shown that the disclosure of the source of this erroneous information was in any way material or relevant, or necessary to the presentation of appellant's case. Moreover, the trial court had instructed the jury on several occasions that they were not to read, listen or watch any news reports, nor to discuss the case among themselves or with anyone else."

1992
Miller v. Greer, No. 91-5492-7 (DeKalb County Superior Court, March 20, 1992) [20 Med. L. Rep. 1061] (Peeler, J.):
Action to compel reporter to answer questions about the source of information about an article. Requested relief denied as plaintiff had failed to exhaust alternative, non-media sources from which information might be obtained. Of the thirty-one possible alternative sources, plaintiff had only deposed a handful.

1993
State v. Rower, No. 93-1157-18 (Cobb County Superior Court, March 10, 1993) (Staley, J.):
Trial court initially quashed the State's grand jury subpoena demanding a newspaper reporter's audiotapes of a "jailhouse" interview with a defendant who had confessed to being the triggerman in a highly-publicized murder, holding that the State had neither carried its burden under the shield law nor demonstrated a waiver of the privilege. After allowing the State to reopen the evidence as to "necessity" and "alternative sources", the trial court granted the State's motion for reconsideration and enforced the grand jury subpoena holding the State had carried its burden under each of the showings required by the privilege.
Georgia Supreme Court, No. S93A1072, affirmed without opinion.

1994
Royals v. Spearman, No. CV693-121 (S.D. Ga., September 9, 1994) (Bowen, J.):
Augusta Chronicle reporter wrote a series of articles about allegations of sexual abuse made by female prisoners, who later sued prison and certain prison personnel for violation of their constitutional rights. Defendants sought to compel reporter to disclose names of confidential informants and computer transcripts of interviews with informants.
Trial court denied motion to compel on ground that "[d]efendants have not convinced the Court that this information is highly relevant and necessary to the proper presentation of their case."

1997
CSX Transportation v. Cox Broadcasting, Inc., No. E-59240 (Fulton County Superior Court, May 29, 1997) (Bonner, J.):
Action in equity by CSX Transportation seeking discovery from WSB TV and WXIA-TV of their news coverage of an accident at a railroad crossing involving a CSXT train and a motor vehicle.
Requested relief denied as the information and knowledge sought by CSXT was privileged pursuant to the shield law, O.C.G.A. § 24-9-30, and CSXT could not make the showing required by the statute to justify compelling the discovery sought.