## Facts

- During a high-profile murder trial, the superior court entered an “Order Re Publicity” barring attorneys of record, court employees, and witnesses from releasing for public dissemination the contents or nature of testimony expected at trial.
- A newspaper reporter published an article containing details drawn from a transcript of a prospective witness’s testimony; the testimony was later ruled inadmissible.
- At subsequent hearings investigating violations of the publicity order, the reporter testified he obtained the transcript from one or more attorneys of record, knew they were bound by the order, and actively solicited the transcript in exchange for a promise of confidentiality.
- The reporter refused to identify the attorney source(s) in response to multiple questions, invoking California’s reporter’s shield statute (Evidence Code § 1070) and press protections.
- The trial court found the refusal obstructed enforcement of its order and adjudged the reporter in contempt, committing him to jail until he answered; the commitment was expressly coercive rather than for a fixed term, and execution was stayed pending review.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court had authority to compel a nonparty reporter to disclose confidential attorney sources in an inquiry into violations of a trial publicity order and to enforce that directive through contempt.
2. Whether Evidence Code § 1070 and the First Amendment barred compelling disclosure where the reporter solicited and received material from attorneys acting in knowing violation of a court order.
3. Whether commitment “until he answers” was a permissible coercive civil contempt sanction, and what limits apply if confinement ceases to be coercive.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the contempt adjudication and upheld the superior court’s authority to compel disclosure.
- The court held that neither Evidence Code § 1070 nor the First Amendment provided an absolute privilege to refuse to answer in these circumstances.
- The court characterized the commitment as civil, coercive contempt conditioned on compliance, not criminal punishment.
- The court indicated confinement may continue only while reasonably likely to coerce compliance; once it becomes purely punitive, further confinement is subject to the statutory limit for criminal contempt under Code of Civil Procedure § 1218.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may compel disclosure from a nonparty when the information is necessary to investigate and enforce compliance with a valid court order governing trial participants and to supervise officers of the court.
- California’s reporter’s shield statute does not categorically immunize a reporter from compelled source disclosure when the reporter has solicited or cooperated in a knowing violation of a court order by persons bound to obey it and disclosure is needed to enforce that order.
- The First Amendment does not protect refusal to answer questions essential to enforcing court orders when the contempt is based on obstruction of the court’s inquiry rather than on publication or viewpoint.
- Civil contempt confinement must remain coercive and conditional; when incarceration no longer has a realistic coercive effect and functions only as punishment, statutory limits applicable to criminal contempt constrain continued confinement.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a coercive civil contempt order requiring a reporter to identify attorney sources who violated a trial publicity order, holding that press protections and the reporter’s shield statute did not create an absolute privilege to withhold source identities where disclosure was necessary to enforce the court’s order and preserve the integrity of the judicial process.


In re Farr, 36 Cal. App. 3d 577, 111 Cal. Rptr. 649 (Ct. App. 1974)