Joliet reporter found in contempt for...

Joliet reporter found in contempt for not divulging...

There are 54 comments on the The Herald-News story from Sep 20, 2013, titled Joliet reporter found in contempt for not divulging.... In it, The Herald-News reports that:

A Will County judge on Friday found a Joliet crime reporter in contempt of court for not divulging how he obtained confidential police reports about a notorious double murder earlier this year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Herald-News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Sly

Chicago, IL

#64 Oct 2, 2013
Judge's don't always make wise rulings. This judge, for example, made a ridiculous ruling concerning porno Judge Polito. What? The "public has no right to see...."???

"When the Sun Times requested Freedom of Information Act documents pertaining to Polito’s computer log, Will County Chief Judge, Gerald R. Kinney insisted that those documents were judicial records that the public had no right to see.

He finally released them after the Illinois Attorney General wrote a legal opinion that listed the porn sites as unrelated to any judicial function, then Polito voluntarily sought treatment for his behavior."

Judge Kinney ruled against Joe Hosey/Patch because he can. Doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean his ruling will stand. Mr. Hosey is represented by his employer's lawyers, and his employer is standing behind him. That's in addition to other media professionals that have weighed in so far. He is a local reporter that wrote a story based on factual information. He was working for a news outlet, he was doing his job, his story was acceptable to Patch, and they published it.

Judge Kinney, on the other hand, used his judicial power to tell the Sun Times to take a hike because he didn't want Judge Polito's porno surfing to be made public, and he was reversed. He will be reversed in this case too, because there's no logic to his ruling.
inquiring mind

Bolingbrook, IL

#65 Oct 2, 2013
I am trying to look at this from an angle that isn't protecting the reporter's priviledge but rather did someone do something wrong in giving the reporter the information.
I think that is what the judge is trying to get at. On one hand the reporters priviledge needs to be supported but on the other hand the reporter has brought forth the fact that someone has given out information that should not have been given out. The judge is trying to determine who is the person that has probably done wrong in giving out the information.
So although reporters priviledge is being cited here the more important factor is the source of the leak because the leak is what needs to be identified, curbed and addressed,
JSUM

Chicago, IL

#66 Oct 3, 2013
Why is it most important that Joe Hosey's alleged source be identified? What bearing does it have on the defendants' murder trial? What effect does it have on a future jury? The important matter is, did they kill the two victims?

What does have an effect is how this judge has made a ruling that likely won't stand. His thinking and subsequent ruling in this case would turn the future of anonymous sources on its head. For what? A local case wherein a reporter based a story on information in police reports? It's hardly a secret that these dopes were the ones who told the cops what they allegedly did. They thrive on the shock value of it all, so why stop with the cops? Why not tell anyone who'll listen. Maybe they were getting cozy with the night's arrestees in the lockup, and spilled their guts. Who cares?

This ruling is going nowhere, and Joe Hosey has a groundswell of people behind him, as it should be.
Frank

United States

#67 Oct 4, 2013
So, I keep reading such logical and sound commentary about what Judge Kinney has done to bestow his narrow-minded ideology on the practice of journalists relying on their sources. Amazing how such an adverse ruling has gained such widespread attention. It's a good thing it's out of his hands now.

"Let's not lose sight of the ball here. This trial isn't about finding and punishing the source of the leak. It's about determining the guilt or innocence of four defendants. It's about assuring they get a fair trial.

Nobody has advanced a credible argument that any of that has been compromised by Hosey's refusal to name his source. There is no reason to believe that withholding the source's name could affect the trial's outcome....

But the zeal to identify Hosey's source isn't about repairing any real or imagined damage to the jury pool. It's about finding and punishing the leaker. It's about stopping Hosey from writing more stories."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ed...
Mc Nally

United States

#68 Oct 4, 2013
This story gets more interesting all the time. It becomes more and more multifaceted.

First there is the story that contains info that only LE should know.

Then there is the story of who could have given the info to this reporter?

And then why would they leak the info to such a minor reporter of an online rag? Why not a Tribune or Sun Times reporter or a TV reporter?

What could the adverse effects of this leak be on the fair prosecution of this case?

What other info might the source have to leak?

Has the source already leaked info that hadn't yet been released by a reporter?

Leaking confidential info to a reporter for gains to the source that are not clear should be of great concern to LE. Certainly the reporter didn't make the source wealthy overnight. What if the source was willing to release for a price info in this or other cases to suspects or others involved in the case? Or worse yet; tamper with, steal or destroy evidence?

How does LE identify sources like this one and what do they do with them?

This has many dimensions that if for sure.
Sly

Chicago, IL

#69 Oct 4, 2013
:-)

Since: Apr 13

Dekalb, IL

#70 Oct 4, 2013
"Leaking confidential info to a reporter for gains to the source that are not clear..."

"This has many dimensions that if for sure."

Bartender, I think he's had enough. Time for bed.
Sly

Chicago, IL

#71 Oct 4, 2013
BobRoberston wrote:
"Leaking confidential info to a reporter for gains to the source that are not clear..."
"This has many dimensions that if for sure."
Bartender, I think he's had enough. Time for bed.
Bob Robertson ...:-)
Joe not Hosey

Belvidere, IL

#72 Oct 7, 2013
If the fines are upheld today he would owe $5400.
JSUM

Chicago, IL

#73 Oct 8, 2013
☏ Ring, ring. It's for you Joe not Hosey. They checked your bed and found you missing. Well, you and your calculator.
Roberta

Riverside, IL

#74 Oct 15, 2013
When is the next court date? Hopefully this will all go away.
One Timer

Morris, IL

#75 Oct 16, 2013
I like Joe. Always found him to be fair and he writes with a passion; right wrong or indifferent. Hope it all works out for him.
vince

Chicago, IL

#76 Oct 29, 2013
Geez us

300 bucks a day is like 10 to 12 thousand

Lucky from what I gather the reporter wont ever have to pay it

If he did that would suck
Jim

Bolingbrook, IL

#77 Dec 6, 2013
Does anyone know what is the latest is with Joe Hosey's contempt case?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama 0 for 2 3 min Trump is a Genius 5
Crossfit gyms nearby 31 min Manhappenins reco... 2
new lenox pd 31 min get new leadership 6
Brookstone Springs neighborhood watch. 40 min Removing posts 6
White Supremacist Police Wife Andie Pauly (Ange... (Nov '15) Jun 13 Janet Jones 8
What Is The Deal With Dominic Egizio? Jun 10 Not Joliet 3
Mayfair Subdivision Jun 8 Mind ya 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages