Undergraduate journalism students at Northwestern University investigate cases where it appears the wrong person may have been sentenced for a crime they did not commit. To date, the course taught by professor David Protess has exonerated of 11 men–including 5 on death row–and been featured widely on television and print media.
Students working on a case now known as the ‘Medill Innocence Project‘ uncovered evidence suggesting a man named Anthony McKinney has been wrongfully incarcerated for 31 years over the slaying of a security guard (details here). After their investigation ended in 2006, the findings were published on the project’s website and informed a 2008 front-page piece in The Chicago Sun-Times. As a result, Northwestern Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions filed a petition for a new hearing on behalf of McKinney. Although students have already turned over videotaped interviews and affidavits for the case, state prosecutors want more. They issued a subpoena for e-mails, grades, expense reports, and other course materials to explore whether there was “bias, motive and interest” in the project. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez claims students are ineligible for the privilege to protect their sources because they did not write the articles.
But wait a second… it sure doesn’t seem right to be interrogating investigators. In the Huffington Post, Judge H. Lee Sarokin goes so far as to compare the subpoena to tactics employed by the Gestapo, pointing out:
If the prosecutor here were seeking incriminating (rather than exonerating) evidence derived from the student interviews..their purpose, but not necessarily their legal position, would be justified and acceptable. But the effort to investigate the students themselves warrants that [Gestapo] label.
The New York Times has more on why The Innocence Project is fighting the subpoena:
Professor Protess..is incensed by the prosecutor’s tactical aggression toward his students.
“If you can’t attack the message, you attack the messenger,” Professor Protess said.
“I think that prosecutors and other public officials see that much of the investigative reporting is coming out of nonprofits and are beginning to take aim at them,” he added.
He may be right. The record of Protess’ students makes it clear that they are engaged in significant journalism that has been recognized and applauded around the country. Therefore, in my opinion there is no question they should be entitled to protect sources and materials related to the investigation. What do readers think?
