Legal Definitions - shield law

A shield law is a type of statute designed to protect certain individuals or groups by limiting the information they can be compelled to disclose, or by restricting the types of evidence that can be introduced against them in legal proceedings. This term typically refers to two distinct types of laws:

• 1. Journalist's Shield Law: This type of law grants journalists a privilege to refuse to disclose confidential sources or unpublished information obtained during their newsgathering activities. The purpose is to protect the free flow of information to the public by ensuring that sources feel secure in providing sensitive information to reporters without fear of exposure or retaliation.

  • Example A: A newspaper reporter is investigating a major embezzlement scheme within a city government. An anonymous whistleblower, a city employee, provides the reporter with crucial documents and insider information, but only on the condition of strict anonymity. When the grand jury subpoenas the reporter to reveal the identity of their source, a journalist's shield law would allow the reporter to refuse, protecting the whistleblower and enabling the story to be published.

    This example illustrates how a shield law protects a journalist's ability to keep a confidential source's identity secret, which is vital for exposing wrongdoing when sources fear reprisal.

  • Example B: A television news crew interviews a former executive who provides damaging details about a company's unsafe product manufacturing practices, but insists on having their face obscured and voice altered. Later, the company sues the news organization for defamation and demands to know the executive's true identity. A state's shield law would likely protect the news organization from having to reveal this information, upholding the promise of confidentiality made to the source.

    Here, the shield law ensures that a news organization can honor its commitment to a confidential source, allowing important public safety information to come to light without compromising the source's identity.

• 2. Rape Shield Law (or Sexual Assault Shield Law): This type of law restricts or prohibits the use of evidence about a victim's past sexual conduct in cases involving rape or sexual assault. The primary goal is to prevent the victim from being unfairly scrutinized or blamed for the assault based on their sexual history, and to ensure that the focus of the trial remains on the alleged crime itself, rather than the victim's character or past relationships. These laws recognize that a person's past sexual behavior does not imply consent to a current sexual act.

  • Example A: During a trial for sexual assault, the defense attorney attempts to introduce evidence that the victim had previously engaged in consensual sexual activity with other partners. A rape shield law would typically prevent the introduction of this evidence, as it is generally irrelevant to whether the victim consented to the specific act with the accused and could unfairly prejudice the jury against the victim.

    This example demonstrates how a rape shield law prevents the defense from using a victim's general sexual history to imply consent or discredit them, keeping the trial focused on the alleged assault.

  • Example B: In a case where a person is accused of sexual battery, the defense argues that the victim's reputation for being "promiscuous" should be admissible evidence to suggest they were more likely to have consented. A rape shield law would prohibit such testimony, recognizing that a person's reputation or past sexual choices have no bearing on whether they consented to the specific act in question.

    This illustrates how a shield law protects a victim from character assassination based on their sexual reputation, ensuring the legal process focuses on the facts of the alleged crime.

  • Example C: A defendant in a sexual assault case claims the victim consented because they had previously sent suggestive messages to the defendant several months before the alleged incident, even though the messages were not directly related to the incident itself. A judge, applying a rape shield law, would likely rule this evidence inadmissible, unless it directly and specifically relates to the issue of consent at the time of the alleged assault, and its relevance outweighs its potential to unfairly prejudice the victim.

    This example shows how a rape shield law requires a high bar for admitting any evidence of past sexual conduct, ensuring it is directly relevant to the specific incident and not used to broadly attack the victim's character.