Incident
United States Supreme Court strikes down Florida law barring a reporter from discussing his own grand jury testimony
In 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Florida law that threatened newspaper reporter Michael Smith with criminal prosecution for discussing his own testimony before a state grand jury investigating local officials. The Court ruled unanimously that a state may not ban a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony once the grand jury's term has ended.1
What happened
Michael Smith was a reporter for the Charlotte Herald-News in Charlotte County, Florida. While writing a series of newspaper articles, he obtained information about alleged wrongdoing in the Charlotte County State Attorney's Office and Sheriff's Department. A special prosecutor called Smith to testify before a Florida grand jury investigating those allegations. At the time he testified, Smith was warned by the special prosecutor's staff not to reveal his testimony in any manner, and that doing so could result in criminal prosecution under Florida Statute 905.27. After the grand jury ended its investigation, Smith wanted to write about what he had learned, including his own testimony, but the statute still barred him from disclosing it. He sued in federal court, and his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States. On March 21, 1990, the Court held unanimously that Florida's law violated the First Amendment insofar as it barred a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the grand jury's term had ended.123456
What reason was given
Stated justificationThe Supreme Court noted that Florida's asserted interests in grand jury secrecy included that if preindictment proceedings were made public, prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testified would be aware of that testimony.3
What changed for reporting
The Court said the ban's impact on Smith's ability to make a truthful public statement was dramatic, since before testifying he had been free to speak about matters of public concern but believed he could no longer communicate that information.24
Timeline
1990
Who acted
| Name | Role in this incident | Office at the time |
|---|---|---|
| Robert A. Butterworth Jr. | defended | Attorney General of Florida |
Outlets and journalists
| Name | Kind | Relation |
|---|---|---|
| Charlotte Herald-News | outlet | affected |
Sources
Claims and evidence
Each numbered claim quotes the source it rests on.
- At the time Michael Smith testified before the grand jury, he was warned by the special prosecutor's staff not to reveal his testimony in any manner, or face criminal prosecution under Florida Statute 905.27.
At the time he testified, respondent was warned by the special prosecutor's staff not to reveal his testimony in any manner, and that such revelation could result in a criminal prosecution for violating Fla.Stat. § 905.27.
Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1990-03-21.Claim 753, checked 2026-09-26. - Michael Smith was a reporter for the Charlotte Herald-News in Charlotte County, Florida.
Michael Smith was a reporter for the Charlotte Herald-News in Charlotte County, Florida.
Butterworth v. Smith (1990), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 754, checked 2026-09-26. - The Supreme Court's opinion said one interest served by grand jury secrecy is that making preindictment proceedings public would make prospective witnesses hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing the people they testified against would learn of their testimony.
First, if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony.
Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1990-03-21.Claim 755, checked 2026-09-26. - The Court said the ban's impact on Smith's ability to make a truthful public statement was dramatic, since he had been free before testifying to speak about matters of public concern but believed he could no longer communicate that information.
The ban's impact on Smith's ability to make a truthful public statement is dramatic. Here, Smith, who before testifying was free to speak about information he possessed on matters of admitted public concern, believes that he is no longer free to communicate this information.
Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1990-03-21.Claim 756, checked 2026-09-26. - The Supreme Court held that Florida's law violated the First Amendment insofar as it barred a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the grand jury's term had ended.
We hold that insofar as the Florida law prohibits a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended, it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1990-03-21.Claim 757, checked 2026-09-26. - The First Amendment Encyclopedia said the Supreme Court ruled that states may not prohibit grand jury witnesses from disclosing their own testimony after the grand jury's term has expired.
the Supreme Court ruled that states may not prohibit grand jury witnesses from disclosing their testimony after the grand jury term has expired.
Butterworth v. Smith (1990), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 758, checked 2026-09-26.