People v. Bonie, 141 A.D.3d 401

Defendant Bonie was indicted for the 2012 murder of Ramona Moore after her remains were found in 2015; the prosecution's case was largely circumstantial.
News 12 reporter Ray Raimundi conducted and videotaped a ~30-minute jailhouse interview of defendant in December 2014; a 5-minute broadcast used ~1 minute of that interview.
Broadcast paraphrase by Raimundi included that defendant described Moore as a good tenant who paid rent on time; News 12 withheld the unaired footage.
The People subpoenaed the aired and unaired footage; News 12 invoked New York’s Shield Law (Civil Rights Law § 79-h[c]) to resist producing unpublished material.
Supreme Court (Bronx) ordered in-camera review of the unpublished footage; News 12 appealed the order compelling compliance with the subpoena.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the People met the Shield Law’s three-part test to overcome journalist privilege for nonconfidential material	Tape is highly material and relevant to motive, intent, consciousness of guilt; not obtainable elsewhere; critical to prosecution	(News 12) Shield Law protects unpublished outtakes; disclosure would chill journalism	Court: People made the required showing only as to portions where defendant discusses killing Moore, their relationship, and impressions/observations of her (including tenant conduct)
Whether the People can rely on the reporter’s broadcast paraphrase and DOC staff memory instead of the tape	Paraphrase and staff recollection are insufficient; the recording shows defendant’s actual words and demeanor	News 12 argued broadcast content suffices and alternative sources exist	Court: Paraphrase and staff recollection are not adequate substitutes for the unaired video for the identified topics; therefore those portions must be disclosed after in-camera review
Scope and form of disclosure and required judicial findings	People sought full unaired footage; requested findings supporting disclosure	News 12 sought quash or narrower disclosure; argued court must respect Shield Law and make specific findings	Court: Limited disclosure ordered (only specified portions). Trial judge need not issue further findings beyond disclosing the delineated portions after in-camera review

O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521 (1988) (recognized qualified privilege for nonconfidential journalistic material under NY Constitution)
People v. Combest, 4 N.Y.3d 341 (2005) (discusses limits of disclosure of journalistic material in criminal cases)
Matter of Holmes v. Winter, 22 N.Y.3d 300 (2013) (noting uncertainties in applying Shield Law; scope decided case-by-case)
Matter of Magrino, 226 A.D.2d 218 (1st Dept. 1996) (addressed interstate subpoena context; court here declined to rely on it as controlling)
Matter of Gilson v. Coburn, 106 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dept. 2013) (contrast on availability of alternative sources for journalistic material)