Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alleged Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Challenge Admissibility of Dr. Cholet's Testimony

Text: Defendant next contends defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to exclude Dr. Mary Cholet's testimony on the ground her testimony violated section 987.9, [16] and was otherwise privileged under the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. (See People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 605, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081.) Dr. Cholet was one of a team of four experts hired by the defense to examine defendant and evaluate his mental condition. The others on the team were Dr. Kathe Lundgren, Dr. K. Edward Dietiker and Mr. Will Powers. At the time, Dr. Cholet was a registered psychological assistant and had not completed her course work or field work for her Ph.D. She was neither a psychiatrist nor a licensed psychologist when she examined defendant. She interviewed defendant, administered some psychological tests, and prepared a report. The prosecutor, Mr. Shumaker, desired to call Dr. Cholet to the stand. Defense counsel did not object, but both parties and the trial court were concerned whether Dr. Cholet's testimony could be introduced consistent with the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Mrs. Huffman opined that the defense would have called her [Dr. Cholet] except that she indicated to us she did not want to testify in any way in this case. Mr. Shumaker took the position that Dr. Cholet, not being a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, fell outside the statutory privilege. [17] After hearing Dr. Cholet testify about her credentials and her relationship with Drs. Lundgren and Dietiker (without revealing any confidential information), the trial court concluded the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply to her because she was neither a psychiatrist nor a licensed psychologist. In addition, the trial court ruled that because Dr. Cholet was part of a team with Drs. Lundgren and Dietiker, and defendant waived the privilege by having those doctors testify, any privilege over information held by Dr. Cholet was also waived. Dr. Cholet later testified and opined that defendant was not psychotic but merely suffered from a personality disorder, he did not demonstrate any signs of PTSD, and he knew what he was doing at the time of the murders. Defense counsel did not object to Dr. Cholet's testimony on the grounds defendant now claims she should have objected: section 987.9, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product privilege. It appears from the record, however, that counsel actually desired Dr. Cholet to testify. As discussed, ante, because counsel did not explain on the record why she chose to acquiesce in the decision to allow Dr. Cholet to testify, and the decision is not one in which there simply could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel's actions ( People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1069, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68), the issue is more properly raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Limited as we are to the appellate record, we reject the contention that Mrs. Huffman was ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Cholet's testimony on grounds of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and section 987.9.