Appellants assert a testimonial parent-child privilege with respect to any incriminating communications imparted to them in confidence by their son and to their own observations of any incriminating conduct of their son. Vermont has not recognized a parent-child privilege either at common law or in our rules of evidence. Indeed, the majority of states and federal circuits have refused to recognize such a privilege. Nor have those courts found that a policy of protecting family bonds outweighs the public's interest in uncovering the truth during criminal investigations.
Appellants rely on two trial-court decisions to support their position.
Agosto involved a claim of testimonial privilege asserted by a son with respect to a criminal investigation of his father. The court thus found that the injury that would inure from disclosure of the communications outweighed the State's benefit in its disposal of litigation. We decline to follow Agosto and Fitzgerald. Agosto has not been followed by the federal courts that have considered it, including the federal appeals court of our own circuit. Moreover, the Nevada federal district court in Agosto was itself at odds with the settled law of the Ninth Circuit.