According to several experts in Florida law, Sean Hannity could be compelled to testify about his conversations with George Zimmerman. Tamara Lave, a professor of criminal law at the Universtiy of Miami who also practiced as a public defender for 10 years, told ThinkProgress it’s a “no brainer.”

Under Florida Law, there is a “qualified privilege” for journalists that protects their conversations with sources. But this priviledge can be overcome, per Florida Evidence Code 90.5015:

A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:

(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought;
(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and
(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

Here’s how Hannity described his conversation with George Zimmerman:

Now yesterday I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case, and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation.

Lave said that, in her opinion, the qualified privilege could “easily” be overcome under Florida law because Zimmerman’s statements about the incident are “relevant and material to unresolved issues.” Further, there are no “alternative sources” for his statements to Hannity and there is a compelling interest for disclosure in a potential manslaughter case.

Lyrissa Lidsky, an expert in media law at the University of Florida and the author of a book on the First Amendment, said that she also believed the factors in the Florida law would be resolved “in favor of forcing Hannity to disclose the information.”

Michael Seigel, Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Florida, agreed, stating that Hannity “may very well have opened himself up to subpoena.” Kenneth Nunn, another criminal law professor a the University of Florida, concurred and said he didn’t think the journalist’s privledge could be made successfully by Hannity.

When George Zimmerman’s attorneys announced they were withdrawing from the case because they had not been in contact with him for several days, they cited a phone call Zimmerman had made to Sean Hannity directly. (Hannity has been using his show to mount a public defense of Zimmerman’s actions.)

“We believe that he spoke directly with Sean off the record and he’s not even willing to tell us what our client told him,” said Hal Uhrig, one of the attorneys who had been representing Zimmerman.

On his radio show Monday, Hannity explained that he had an “off the record” conversation with Zimmerman. The conservative host also came to Zimmerman’s defense. “I spoke to George Zimmerman, and I’m not going to reveal the contents of that conversation, but I have confirmed yes, he was a mentor to minority children. Now if you were racist, I don’t think you’d be a mentor to minority children,” Hannity said.

Then on his Fox News show last night, Hannity again discussed his phone call with Zimmerman, saying he had promised not to report about their conversation and knew nothing about Zimmerman’s relationship with his attorneys:

Now yesterday I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case, and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation. That’s it. I know nothing about his relationship with his now former attorneys.

Watch what Hannity said on his radio and televison shows:

At the press conference yesterday, Zimmerman’s attorneys told people who are looking for him to expand their search beyond Florida, despite earlier assurances that their former client was in the state. The family of Trayvon Martin, who Zimmerman said he shot and killed in self-defense in February, had expressed concerns that Zimmerman would flee the state.

Conservative talker-endorsed precious metal retailer Goldline International agreed to a court order this week to repay defrauded customers $4.5 million and overhaul its business practices. The injunction, handed down by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, was obtained by the City Attorney of Santa Monica, California — where the company is based — who had filed 19 criminal counts of fraud and theft against the company last year. Those charges have now been dismissed.

Goldline’s entire business model was essentially a scam, the city attorney found. It was a bait-and-switch: Consumers wanted to buy gold bullion, but salespeople preyed on their fears — including falsely claiming that the government could seize bullion — and misled them into buying vastly overpriced gold coins instead. Consumers typically paid more than 55 percent above the actual value of the coins, which are much harder to sell down the road, instantly wiping out a large portion of their savings.

At the time, Goldline called the charges “preposterous” and vowed to fight them. But in addition to the $4.5 million, the court order requires Goldline to put $800,000 into a fund for future claims, and submit to a court-appointed monitor who will have full access to company’s operations, at Goldline’s expense. In addition, it will have to disclose its actual markups and stop misleading customers.

The company is best known for its ties to conservative talk radio hosts like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, who were central to the company’s marketing model. Two former GOP presidential candidates — Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson — have even endorsed the gold retailer.

Yuri Beckelman, who conducted a separate investigation into Goldline when he served as former congressman Anthony Weiner’s Legislative Director, told ThinkProgress the endorses should have known better. “It’s unrealistic to think Glenn Beck and other Goldline spokespeople had no clue what was going on. They have a responsibility to their listeners when endorsing products, especially in tough economic times, now it’s up to their fans to hold them accountable.”

“Goldline can try to spin it any way they want,” Beckelman added. “But when you agree to change your business model and then pay a court ordered attorney to monitor your progress for the next five years, you’re admitting that what you were doing was wrong.”