Show Summary Details
Page of

Confidentiality in Legal Petitions and Claims for Privileged Information 

Confidentiality in Legal Petitions and Claims for Privileged Information
Ethical and Legal Considerations

Annette Flanagin

Page of

PRINTED FROM AMA MANUAL OF STYLE ONLINE ( © American Medical Association, 2009. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the license agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in AMA Manual of Style Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 25 January 2020

A number of cases in US law have served as the foundation for or have directly supported the confidential nature of the editorial and peer review process. In 1972, the US Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg v Hayes that a reporter could be forced to testify if, during the course of news gathering, the reporter became a witness to a crime. However, the court also noted that individual states could create their own standards with regard to a journalistic privilege (ie, a right) to keep sources of information confidential, allowing lower courts in subsequent rulings to support such privilege. With

Access to the complete content on AMA Manual of Style requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.