09:45 AM EST on Thursday, December 2, 2004

Your head may be spinning as you try to follow developments in the case of Channel 10 newsman Jim Taricani. Talk about legal snarls!

As next Thursday's U.S. District Court date nears for Chief Judge Ernest Torres' sentencing of Taricani for criminal contempt, a new chapter in the suspense drama unfolds. People had been speculating madly about who gave Taricani the FBI surveillance tape of a City Hall official taking a bribe. Now everyone knows it was Joseph Bevilacqua, lawyer for another defendant in the Plunder Dome corruption case.

But new questions arise -- and to a layman a lot of this doesn't add up.

I speak of papers filed by special prosecutor Marc DeSisto. According to them, Bevilacqua says that he did not ask that Taricani keep his identity secret, that he had signed a waiver of confidentiality, and that he told Taricani to come forward and tell DeSisto that he had given him the infamous tape.

Taricani is a pal and media colleague. But it's not emotion or sentiment that nudges me toward him and away from Bevilacqua. It's logic.

This is what makes it hard to accept Bevilacqua's account:

No reporter on the front lines of controversy and facing prison would insist on keeping a source's identity secret if he were confident the source didn't care. As Taricani, a 1996 heart transplant recipient, said at a news conference yesterday, "I would never have jeopardized my health and reputation, and put my family and my company through this ordeal, if my source had not required a promise of confidentiality."

Remember: This has been a long-running situation. It has cost NBC a ton of money in fines and, presumably, legal fees. The day-to-day wear and tear and the prospect of being put in the slammer have preyed upon Taricani. In my book, he has shown real grit. But while many folks deem him a hero, others think he's some kind of holier-than-thou smart aleck who postures himself above the law. No reporter needs this kind of pressure or notoriety and none I know would invite it or endure it if there were some honorable way around it.

Taricani yesterday seemed angrier than I'd ever seen him during this saga. His integrity was on the line and, apparently feeling boxed in by legal constraints, he was at first tightlipped. But last night he let loose. Pronouncing himself "devastated," he told me Bevilacqua is "a liar" and indicated he would "stake my reputation on this."

Meanwhile, what kind of courageous person is Bevilacqua? Where has he been?

If he's such an out-front, stand-up guy, and he wasn't worried about confidentiality, why didn't he call a news conference somewhere in all this time and come forward himself? That would have impressed me.

And so next Thursday's hearing has taken on new dimensions. It hardly seems a sure thing to bet that Taricani is out of the woods. Torres weeks ago warned that if he was found guilty of criminal contempt -- that's how things turned out -- it would be too late to clear himself. One might think that the judge, now knowing the identity of Taricani's source, might be less interested in throwing the newsman in jail, at least for any substantial time. But who knows -- especially if Torres thinks Taricani was misleading him about the confidentiality obligation?

Taricani is to have the opportunity to address the court.

Outside of the medical challenges he has faced and surmounted, this may be the test of his lifetime.

M. Charles Bakst, The Journal's political columnist, can be reached by e-mail at mbakst [at] projo.com