Jump to content

COMMONWEALTH vs GEORGE HOPKINS 10-23-19


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Spinning said:

I hope he doesn’t. Most narcissistic people don’t accept pleas.

 

  I hope there’s a trial, so it all comes out.  I hope his photo is in the local paper every day of the trial, so he has no peace.

he doesn't live in Allentown anymore. The paper here hasn't had any articles about the whole story since it broke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

he doesn't live in Allentown anymore. The paper here hasn't had any articles about the whole story since it broke

I know where he lives now and it’s not all that far away, so I consider it local. 

Also, there has been a few follow up articles in the paper since the story broke here and there, done by Jacci and another reporter. 

I’m hoping that when the trial starts enough people show up to get the local press (Jacci or whomever) to show up there.  
 

Quiet a few local alumni said they would be there if at all possible as well.

Edited by Spinning
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the title of this thread.... three or four years ago (heck, two years at this time),  who would have ever thought we'd see anything like this?

Sure, there were rumors, etc... there had been for years.  

But now... just looking at this title... wow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

he doesn't live in Allentown anymore. The paper here hasn't had any articles about the whole story since it broke

Yep and local 3 times a week paper is just hanging on as it is. Would only expect them to carry this if it happened locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting First-Amendment (or, more properly, shield-law) question at issue here:

Bergstrom argued that the state’s shield laws do not apply in this case as the Inquirer is not protecting a confidential source or communication. Instead, Beyer is very much in the public eye, and the defense is asking to see the entire video interview, not a reporter’s notes, he said.

Berry said the paper would hand over the full video recording for the judge’s review only, if that was the court’s ruling.

I could see the Inquirer appealing an adverse ruling on this matter, as it would have significant ramifications for its ability to report pretty much any news story. Shield laws not only protect anonymous whistleblowers by privileging journalist notes, they make the police and lawyers do their actual jobs instead of relying on journalists to make their cases for them. The Inky will fight long and hard on this hill to avoid becoming an arm of law enforcement.

Could tie up this case for quite a while.

 

Edited by 2muchcoffeeman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, garfield said:

I almost took the bait!

Gotta be careful with that one... he's shifty and he has beady eyes.

:116_eye::116_eye:

Absolutely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Interesting First-Amendment (or, more properly, shield-law) question at issue here:

Bergstrom argued that the state’s shield laws do not apply in this case as the Inquirer is not protecting a confidential source or communication. Instead, Beyer is very much in the public eye, and the defense is asking to see the entire video interview, not a reporter’s notes, he said.

Berry said the paper would hand over the full video recording for the judge’s review only, if that was the court’s ruling.

I could see the Inquirer appealing an adverse ruling on this matter, as it would have significant ramifications for its ability to report pretty much any news story. Shield laws not only protect anonymous whistleblowers by privileging journalist notes, they make the police and lawyers do their actual jobs instead of relying on journalists to make their cases for them. The Inky will fight long and hard on this hill to avoid becoming an arm of law enforcement.

Could tie up this case for quite a while.

 

This is shocking to me. I would’ve thought the 1st amendment was all the “shield” the Inquirer needed. What’s next, requiring reporters to read Miranda rights before conducting interviews? Seems like a pretty chilling effect to me. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, year1buick said:

This is shocking to me. I would’ve thought the 1st amendment was all the “shield” the Inquirer needed. What’s next, requiring reporters to read Miranda rights before conducting interviews? Seems like a pretty chilling effect to me. 

"The press" is the only private commercial enterprise specifically granted protection from government intrusion. As it concerns federal law, journalists have only the First Amendment as their shield. There is no federal shield law apart from the Constitution itself.

It's rare, however, for the government and the press to tangle at the federal level. As is the case here in Commonwealth v. Hopkins, the rubber usually hits the road at the state level, and 49 states have shield laws in place that vary in comprehensiveness, but in many case specifically declare, for example, a reporter's notebook (camera, computer) to be off-limits to police, public prosecutors and civil attorneys. The value underlying such laws is the very First-Amendment idea that that people should have the assurance they can speak freely, even to members of the press, without fear that the state could use its power to reveal their identity -- the chilling effect you mention. That's not a license to say damaging, untrue things -- truth is still necessary to warrant protection. But the free-speech value underlying shield laws gets balanced all the time against legitimate public interest in catching crooks or defending the accused, and that's why we have judges. But the bar typically is fairly high, and responsible news organizations have a long history of fighting hammer and tong not to give up ground on this issue.

Edited by 2muchcoffeeman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Spinning said:

It’s two women and it’s against him, not them.

True. Of course. Sorry for the mis-typing.

The point holds, IMO, that the type of plea GH might accept would be impacted by how many of the earlier victims would be permitted to testify. Hopefully it is a lot of them. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...