New Yorker magazine contesting judge's order to turn over recordings of interviews with Lindsay Clancy's husband
In February, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan issued a subpoena for reporting materials related to the article at the request of Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz's office.
Advertisement
Sullivan approved the subpoena without indicating whether he would review the material before providing it to prosecutors.
In court documents, prosecutors said they needed access to the handwritten notes, emails,
audio recordings, and voice messages between Orbey and people he interviewed for the story, including the person identified as the pastor.
Prosecutors said the published article was crafted to generate sympathy
for Lindsay Clancy and that journalists are legally required to comply with such court orders.
The profile 'in both title and substance — is intended to portray the defendant in a sympathetic light and support her defense of a lack of criminal responsibility,' prosecutors said.
The New Yorker, through First Amendment attorney Jonathan Albano, urged Sullivan to reconsider his order. (Albano also represents the Boston Globe).
'The New Yorker's sympathies are not on trial here,' he wrote. 'In fact, even a cursory reading of the piece shows The New Yorker's reporting is complex and nuanced, and is hardly 'in support' of the defense,' Albano wrote.
Advertisement
More significantly, 'the notion that the government could seek presumptively privileged, unpublished information from any news outlet that expresses sympathy for a criminal defendant is chilling and directly contrary to the First Amendment,' he added.
Under both the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the request by prosecutors is legally invalid and Sullivan should quash the subpoena, he wrote.
Albano filed the magazine's response to the subpoena last week. No hearing is currently scheduled on the issue, according to court records.
John R. Ellement can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shut down following Trump budget cuts
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced on Aug. 1 that it was starting an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' weeks after Congress passed a measure that clawed back more than $1 billion in funds to the organization. The announcement came a day after U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said the Senate Appropriations Committee hadn't included funding for the corporation in its fiscal 2026 spending bill. 'It is a shameful reality, and now communities across the country will suffer the consequences as over 1,500 stations lose critical funding," Murray said, according to The Hill. The corporation has said more than 70% of its federal funding, which it disperses to NPR and PBS, goes to local public media stations. PBS advocates previously told USA TODAY the budget cuts would disproportionately affect rural areas. President Donald Trump called for the outlets' federal funding to be pulled in May, saying 'neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' Corporation for Public Broadcasting employees were told on Aug. 1 that most staff positions would be slashed as the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. Some staff would remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout of operations,' according to the corporation's news release. 'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,' Corporation for Public Broadcasting President and CEO Patricia Harrison said. 'We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established by Congress in 1967. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shut down following Trump budget cuts
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting had long provided federal funding to local public radio and television stations across the country. Congress recently revoked $1.1 billion in funding. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced on Aug. 1 that it was starting an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' weeks after Congress passed a measure that clawed back more than $1 billion in funds to the organization. The corporation disperses federal funds to NPR and PBS. President Donald Trump called for the outlets' federal funding to be pulled in May, saying 'neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' Corporation for Public Broadcasting employees were told on Aug. 1 that most staff positions would be slashed as the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. Some staff would remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout of operations,' according to the corporation's news release. 'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,' Corporation for Public Broadcasting President and CEO Patricia Harrison said. 'We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established by Congress in 1967. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Black America Web
5 hours ago
- Black America Web
Diddy Pushes For New Trial If Mann Act Convictions Are Not Overturned
MediaPunch / Diddy Diddy is now trying to get the conviction on two counts of the Mann Act thrown out, and if that doesn't happen, he and his legal team will demand a new trial to battle those charges. We know, we know, you're tired of hearing and reading about Diddy and his horny behavior, and we are tired of talking about it, yet here we are. TMZ exclusively reports that Diddy and his legal team are pushing Judge Arun Subramanian to overturn the two Mann Act convictions into an acquittal, according to court documents obtained by the celebrity gossip site. The website states that the Mann Act explicitly involves the act of a person transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of having sex. Diddy argues that he didn't have sex with anyone; he just watched. Per TMZ : Diddy's team says they believe he's the only person ever convicted under this statute who did not make money off prostitution, did not have sex with an alleged prostitute and did not arrange the prostitute's transportation. Translation: he's done none of the things spelled out in the Mann Act. Remember, during the trial, none of the sex workers, nor Cassie Ventura or 'Jane' testified Diddy engaged in sex with the sex workers. They all said he was either watching and/or recording the freak-off sessions as the women had sex with the hired guns. Testimony also revealed it was typically the women, not Diddy, who made all the arrangements — travel, compensation and hotels — for the sex workers involved in the freak-offs. Diddy Claims He Was Only Just Watching, Not Participating The documents also state that Diddy's involvement in the freak-offs was strictly on the voyeurism tip and that 'multiple state courts have held that paying for voyeurism — to watch other people have sex — is not prostitution.' Diddy is also claiming that the male sex workers involved 'enjoyed the activities and had friendships with [Cassie and 'Jane'] and were not merely traveling to have sex for money.' And to close all this out, Diddy is claiming that his freak-offs are protected under the First Amendment because they are recordings, or as the docs put it, 'producing amateur pornography for later private viewing.' This latest development in the Diddy saga comes after word on the street is that Donald Trump is considering giving the disgraced music mogul a pardon. SEE ALSO Diddy Pushes For New Trial If Mann Act Convictions Are Not Overturned was originally published on
