Albany

In a significant victory for the media in New York, the state's highest court on Tuesday ruled that a Fox News reporter who got a scoop on the 2012 "Dark Knight Rises" massacre in suburban Denver should not be compelled to reveal her sources in a Colorado court.

The 4-3 decision ruled in favor of Jana Winter, who faced the prospect that she would have to reveal the sources behind her July 25, 2012, story. The scoop revealed the existence of a notebook reportedly kept by James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 people and injuring dozens more July 20, 2012, at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at an Aurora, Colo., theater.

The case had drastic implications for the rights of the news media to safeguard the identities of its sources. In New York state, it is guarded by the Shield Law.

The decision was declared a "major win for all journalists" by Roger Ailes, the chairman and CEO of Fox News.

"The protection of Jana Winter's confidential sources was necessary for the survival of journalism and democracy as a whole," he said in a news release. "We are very grateful that the highest court in New York state agreed with our position."

Holmes' attorneys, Daniel N. Arshack and Richard D. Willstatter, both based in New York, argued the revelation of Winter's sources was critical to their client's right to receive a fair trial. Winter had quoted two anonymous law enforcement sources, one of whom told Winter that Holmes mailed a notebook to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the shooting rampage.

"Inside the package was a notebook full of details about how he was going to kill people," one of the law enforcement sources told Winter. "There were drawings of what he was going to do in it — drawings and illustrations of the massacre."

Winter additionally wrote that "among the images shown in the spiral-bound notebook's pages were gun-wielding stick figures blowing away other stick figures."

A Colorado judge had issued gag orders on law enforcement not to discuss the case. But when more than a dozen officers with access to the contents of the notebook were questioned under oath about the leak, none admitted to being a source. Holmes' lawyers claimed it was perjury and police corruption. They argued they need to know the identity of the leakers to properly cross-examine those officers should they testify at Holmes' trial The attorneys argued that Winter should have been forced to testify under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases, a law adopted by all 50 states.

A Colorado judge had determined Winter to be a material and necessary witness and a state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan ordered Winter to appear in Colorado. That decision was upheld by a 3-2 ruling at the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Lawyers made their arguments to the Court of Appeals last month. Winter's attorney, Christopher T. Handman, stated in a brief: "If a New York reporter can be stripped of her protections under New York's public policy simply because the reporter crossed state lines, New York's robust public policy in favor of confidential sourcing will become a dead letter for all but the most parochial stories."

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals reversed the appellate level decision in a 30-page decision written by Associate Judge Victoria Graffeo. "New York public policy as embodied in the Constitution and our current statutory scheme provides a mantle of protection for those who gather and report the news — and their confidential sources — that has been recognized as the strongest in the nation," Graffeo wrote. "And safeguarding the anonymity of those who provide information in confidence is perhaps the core principle of New York's journalistic privilege, as is evident from our Colonial tradition, the constitutional text and the legislative history of the Shield Law."

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Associate Judges Sheila Abdus-Salaam and Jenny Rivera concurred. The dissent included Associate Judges Robert Smith, Susan Read and Eugene Pigott.

Smith wrote in his dissenting opinion: "I agree with the majority that New York's Shield Law reflects a strong public policy of the state to protect confidential sources, and that that policy would justify, in a proper case, a refusal to issue a subpoena under the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases. I do not think this is a proper case, however, because the allegedly privileged communications took place wholly in Colorado, and the New York Shield Law does not apply to them."

rgavin@timesunion.com • 518-434-2403 • @RobertGavinTU