That would put a dent in New York’s shield law for journalists, one of the strongest in the nation. It would have a chilling effect on news gathering, by routinely burdening journalists with subpoena requests. And it could create the damaging perception that news organizations are an investigative arm of the criminal justice system.

Under New York’s shield law, journalists have robust protections when it comes to information obtained from confidential sources. Litigants may seek records from journalists pertaining to nonconfidential sources only if they demonstrate that the information is “highly material and relevant” to a case, that it is “critical or necessary” to a legal claim or defense, and that it cannot be obtained from an alternative source.

In the Bonie case, the trial judge and an appeals court disregarded that high standard in ruling that prosecutors were entitled to unaired segments of the interview with Mr. Bonie. Mr. Bonie went to trial in June before the fight over access to the interview was settled and the unaired footage was never admitted into evidence.

The fact that Mr. Bonie was convicted without the interview outtakes shows that the material was not critical for prosecutors to make their case. Furthermore, the interview was conducted in front of a jail official, whose testimony would have served as an alternative source for the same information.

Prosecutors have cited the rulings in the Bonie case to compel testimony or records from at least four other journalists or news organizations in recent months. They include Frances Robles, a Times reporter who interviewed a murder defendant in 2013. Ms. Robles and The Times are fighting the effort to compel her to testify in that case. The Times has separately filed a brief in the Bonie case on behalf of several news organizations, urging the Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s decision and set clear guidelines on the circumstances under which litigants should be given access to journalistic material that is not in the public domain.