Reporter gets reprieve from contempt order in anthrax case

Columbia, November 18 A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside on Monday the contempt order against a reporter for refusing to name sources for her stories about the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The contempt order issued by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on former USA Today reporter, Toni Locy in March required fines of up to $5,000 a day against her. She was implicated for refusing to identify officials who gave out details about Steven J. Hatfill, who had been named as a ‘person of interest’ in the anthrax attacks by the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Hatfill, a former Army scientist who served at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, sued the federal government for violating his privacy by talking to reporters. He was eventually exonerated by the Justice Department, and awarded $5.8 million to settle the lawsuit.

Also on Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Justice Department to release the information based on which the courts were persuaded to call for a search on Hatfill's home. Lamberth opined that the government's search warrants and all related documents to Hatfill and his then-girlfriend, Peck Chegne, should be released for public scrutiny.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times seconded the demand for the materials to be released. The public needed to know why Hatfill's home was searched and on what basis the courts had allowed the searches, the newspapers contended.

The deadly anthrax had been mailed to Capitol Hill lawmakers and media persons following close upon the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. It caused the death of five people and afflicted 17 others. Bruce Ivins, the Army scientist who was eventually accused of carrying out the attacks committed suicide.

Meanwhile, Locy, who presently teaches journalism at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, greeted the reprieve with mixed feelings. "I am grateful that the appeals court vacated the contempt order against me, but I am concerned that this matter may not be over given statements by Dr. Hatfill's lawyers that they intend to ask Judge Walton to force me to pay Dr. Hatfill's legal bills," she said.

"The circuit did not deal with that issue and I could face a legal bill that far exceeds the fines that Judge Walton initially tried to levy against me," she added.