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

Heading: The Threat

Text: 2 The record is sparse and uncontroverted. On February 16, 1996, Archie Monroe Glass was taken to Hillcrest Hospital where he was voluntarily admitted to the mental health unit for treatment of his ongoing mental illness. To Dr. Shantharam Darbe, a psychotherapist examining him, Mr. Glass stated he wanted to get in the history books like Hinkley [sic] and wanted to shoot Bill Clinton and Hilary [sic]. Several days later, Dr. Darbe released Mr. Glass who had agreed to participate in outpatient mental health treatment while residing at his father's home. Ten days after his admission and release from the hospital, an outpatient nurse, discovering Mr. Glass had left his father's home, notified local law enforcement. Subsequently, Secret Service agents contacted Dr. Darbe who related Mr. Glass' statement. 3 Indicted for knowingly and willfully threatening to kill the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a), 1 Mr. Glass moved to exclude Dr. Darbe's statement on the ground the confidential communication to his treating psychotherapist was protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege announced in Jaffee. Responding to the motion, the government argued to the district court, albeit without benefit of an evidentiary hearing, [o]nce Dr. Darbe determined that Defendant Glass presented a danger of violence to the President of the United States, he had a duty to protect the President, 2 relying on footnote 19 of Jaffee, in which the Court expanded on its reluctance to propound the full contours of the psychotherapist-patient privilege but, in dicta, proffered an exception: 4 Although it would be premature to speculate about most future developments in the federal psychotherapist privilege, we do not doubt that there are situations in which the privilege must give way, for example, if a serious threat of harm to the patient or to others can be averted only by means of a disclosure by the therapist. 5 518 U.S. at ---- n. 19, 116 S.Ct. at 1932 n. 19. The district court agreed, persuaded under such compelling circumstances as those presented here of an express threat to kill a third party by a person with an established history of mental disorder, that the broad privilege recognized by Jaffee is inapplicable. This conclusion was made without presentation of evidence and, from our review of the record, appears to be supported factually only by argument contained in the government's trial court brief. 6 Mr. Glass now proposes a triad of alternative resolutions to the district court's adverse ruling: (1) extend the psychotherapist-patient privilege to criminal cases; (2) hold, in this case, assertions made solely for the purpose of treatment, with an expectation of confidentiality, do not constitute threats under § 871; or (3) remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the facts fit the Jaffee exception for serious threats of harm to third persons. In opposition and upon the evidentiary bedrock that testimonial privileges thwarting the search for truth should be narrowly construed, the government warns adopting any of Mr. Glass' alternatives would create a broad exclusionary rule preventing a psychotherapist from fulfilling his common law duty to protect the foreseeable victims from danger. The government urges Jaffee 's rationale for the privilege, fostering an atmosphere of confidence and trust when a person seeks to disclose his thoughts, simply does not apply in a criminal setting and asks we extend United States v. Burtrum, 17 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 863, 115 S.Ct. 176, 130 L.Ed.2d 112 (1994), to all criminal cases. This proposition, Mr. Glass parries, eviscerates Jaffee, requiring the admission of all threatening statements against third parties made to psychotherapists in the course of treatment. Because there was no evidentiary hearing or other fact-finding in this case to establish the patient knew what he was saying or to determine whether the threat of harm could only be averted by disclosure, Mr. Glass insists our embracing the government's suggestion conflicts with Jaffee 's express reluctance to define the parameters of the privilege, preferring analysis on a case-by-case basis.