Pennington v. Chaffee

In the Matter of the Application of Joe Pennington for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Joe Pennington, Plaintiff, v. F. T. Jim Chaffee, Sheriff of Shawnee County, Kansas, Respondent

Pennington v. Chaffee, 573 P.2d 1099 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978)

Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 20, 1978
Docket: No. 49,660
Judges: Per Curiam
Citations: 573 P.2d 10991 Kan. App. 2d 682

Cited by 5 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

The petition filed herein alleges that the plaintiff, a news reporter, was, in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution, found guilty of direct criminal contempt of court for his refusal to give answers to questions propounded to him as a witness in a criminal proceeding in the district court of Shawnee county, Kansas, which answers would have revealed privileged information and further that he was illegally confined and restrained of his liberty as punishment for such contempt.

Upon consideration of the petition with attached memorandum and the answer by respondent, this court, pursuant to Rule 9.01(c), denies the requested relief for the reason the first amendment to the federal constitution provides no testimonial privilege for a news reporter to withhold testimony in a criminal proceeding nor is there any such common law privilege (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 [1972]). We do not interpret Bill of Rights § 11 to our own constitution to supply this privilege. If any such privilege is to exist, it must come from the legislature of the state of Kansas.

No due process right is violated by summary procedure in a contempt matter when the contempt occurs in open court in the presence of the judge and it interferes with the orderly conduct of the proceedings (Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 , 69 L.Ed. 767 , 45 S.Ct. 390 [1925]).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(summarily affirming the trial court’s order)

State v. Williams, 884 P.2d 755 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial District647 P.2d 1368 (Wyo. 1982)
State v. Sandstrom581 P.2d 812 (Kan. 1978)
In re Decker471 S.E.2d 462 (S.C. 1995)
State v. Williams884 P.2d 755 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994)
State v. Smith471 S.E.2d 462 (S.C. 1995)

Most recent

In re Decker471 S.E.2d 462 (S.C. 1995)
State v. Smith471 S.E.2d 462 (S.C. 1995)
State v. Williams884 P.2d 755 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994)
Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial District647 P.2d 1368 (Wyo. 1982)
State v. Sandstrom581 P.2d 812 (Kan. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)	1,804
	Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925)	704

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list