Note, I Shot the Sheriff, But Only My Analyst Knows: Shrinking the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

Authors

Brian Domb

Case Citation

United States v. D.F., 857 F. Supp. 1311 (E.D Wis. 1994)

Citing Quote

In my discussion below, I apply an interest-balancing analysis, and arrive at the conclusion that the privilege should not be applied in this case. It is worth noting, however, that the result would be no different under a definitional approach. D.F. would have difficulty showing that her statements (1) were confidential; (2) were made to medical personnel covered by the privilege; and (3) would not be excepted from the privilege (a) based on a criminal trial exception, (b) based on a homicide trial exception, (c) based on a child abuse exception, or (d) based on an exception for individuals posing dangers to others. See generally Proposed Rule 504, reprinted in Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 504-1, 504-1 - 2 (1993); Cunningham v. Southlake Center (or Mental Health, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 474, 477 (N.D. Ind. 1989) (absent showing of close supervision, extension of privilege to communications with social worker is unwarranted); Brian Domb, I Shot the Sheriff but only My Analyst Knows: Shrinking the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, 5 J.L. & Health 209 (1990/91) (discussing the scope of the privilege and of the various exceptions).

Article Publication Date

1991

Volume

5

Issue

2