Opinion ID: 155838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jaffee

Text: 7 In Jaffee, Petitioner, the administrator of the estate of a man who was shot by a police officer, sought access to a therapist's notes taken during counseling sessions with the officer after the shooting. Because of the conflicting versions of the event, Petitioner sought to discover the clinical social worker's notes for use in cross-examining the officer in a suit alleging violation of the deceased's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois' wrongful death statute. The officer responded the notes were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege and despite the court's rejecting the argument, the officer and therapist refused to comply with the court's disclosure order, prompting the court to instruct the jury it could presume the contents of the notes would have been unfavorable to respondents. 518 U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1926. The jury then awarded the estate damages on the federal and state claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding  'reason and experience,' the touchstones for acceptance of a privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, compelled recognition of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Id. (quoting 51 F.3d 1346, 1355 (7th Cir.1995)). Because of the split in the circuits in recognizing a psychotherapist privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court granted certiorari. 8 Against the broad mandate of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizing federal courts to define new privileges by interpreting 'common law principles ... in the light of reason and experience,'  id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1927 (citation omitted), yet recognizing the general duty to give what testimony one is capable of giving, id., the Court acknowledged that testimonial privileges may, however, be justified by a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth. Id. (internal quotes omitted) (citations omitted). Reason and experience persuaded the Court the psychotherapist-patient privilege advances both a public good and important private interests. The psychotherapist privilege serves the public interest by facilitating the provision of appropriate treatment for individuals suffering the effects of a mental or emotional problem. The mental health of our citizenry, no less than its physical health, is a public good of transcendent importance. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1929. At the same time, fostering and protecting an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears further important private interests. Id. The Court reasoned sacrificing these important public and private interests for only modest evidentiary benefit, given the communications would unlikely come into being were they not protected, would therefore serve no greater truth seeking function than if it had been spoken and privileged. Id. Thus mirrored against the uniform judgment of the States, id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1930, that fifty States and the District of Columbia had enacted some form of psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Court concluded the confidential communications between a psychotherapist and her patient are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 9 Made clear by Jaffee is that the privilege is not rooted in any constitutional right of privacy but in a public good which overrides the quest for relevant evidence; the privilege is not subject to a balancing component ... [m]aking the promise of confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge's later evaluation of the relative importance or the patient's interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure, id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1932; and it covers confidential communications to licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers whose clients often include the poor and those of modest means who could not afford the assistance of a psychiatrist or psychologist but whose counseling sessions serve the same public goals. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1931. Left expressly unresolved, however, were its exact contours and specific exceptions requiring we analyze the particular facts of this case under Jaffee 's broad directive.