Court Opinion

ID: 9493454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:08:38.81136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:51.144355
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The court’s opinion quite properly distinguishes, in Section III, supra at 583-84, the questions of whether a mental health professional (apparently including, in this case, a social worker) can inform the intended victim of a threat, from the question of whether that person can testify in court. I agree with the court’s analysis of the former question. With respect to the latter question, I believe that when the social worker has specifically informed the patient that the social worker will not keep the communications confidential, there is no barrier to that person testifying, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the court’s holding to the contrary.
*588The governing law in this case is Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which simply says that all privileges are “governed by the principles of the common law ... in the light of reason and experience.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this concept with respect to the privilege at issue here in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996), stating that “confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence” (emphasis added). First, of course, this bare holding does not cover the situation here where the social worker is willing to testify. Second, the details of the social worker, Van Dyke’s, psychother-apeutic credentials are perhaps questionable.1 Third, the much discussed footnote 19 in Jaffee at least indicated that the Supreme Court did not mean that the rule it had laid down was absolute, with no opening for further consideration in light of other circumstances.
In my opinion, the court’s view of this case may be somewhat muddled by the fact that the “crime” at issue here is what some would consider the purely victimless one of making a threat that is not made to the subject of the threat. It is true that, on one view, simply making a threat that is not intended to be conveyed to the potential victim is not a traditional malum in se crime. However, it is important to recognize that, if the proffered evidence is believed, what occurred here was a crime, no different in nature than making similar threats against Odie to fellow drinkers at a bar, or to a policeman in casual conversation, or to one’s lawyer. In addition, the court’s rule would apparently be the same even if the victim of the threat ended up dead, in a fashion exactly paralleling the material revealed to the mental health professional, after a warning of non-confidentiality. I simply do not see that such tender concern for criminal evidence is required by the common law, or by reason and experience, when the patient has been put on notice.
The record evidence as to the notice Hayes was provided goes somewhat beyond the court’s recitation at pages 14-15. Dr. Radford told Hayes in February, as Hayes himself testified, that his threats to kill Odie would have to be reported. Van Dyke warned Hayes twice that his threats would not and could not be kept in confidence. Specifically, on March 10 Van Dyke told Hayes, according to his testimony at the October 27, 1998 evidentiary hearing: “I cannot keep that [homicidal ideation against Odie] within the confines of the room, nor can I keep child abuse within the confines.” He further testified that on March 31 he “reiterated” that same warning to Hayes. Nevertheless, on that latter occasion, having been warned three times, Hayes went on, in the face of the warning, to detail exactly how he planned to waylay and kill Odie.
This constituted more than ample notice that such discussion was outside the bounds of any promised or assumed confidentiality. The fact that Radford and Van Dyke did not use magic words like “I can testify in court about what you tell me” as opposed to simply implying “I can tell the police about what you tell me” should not be decisive. In addition, however, I see no explicit statement in the court’s opinion that even the use of such a magic formula would be good enough.
Furthermore, the court misconstrues the government’s position in its discussion, at page 15, of “constructive waiver.” The United States does not argue that Hayes constructively waived his privilege, which would occur had he repeated the threats to *589a third party. Rather it argues, correctly in my view, that Hayes waived any privilege purely and simply, by continuing to threaten after he had been given notice that his threats would not be held in confidence.
All of the court’s concerns in support of encouraging persons to confide in mental health professionals would be satisfied by a more limited rule that such recipients of information could not testify about anything said up to the point at which notice is given that the actual or threatened criminal conduct being discussed is no longer covered by confidentiality. Otherwise, we have the odd spectacle that a criminal can perpetrate his crimes (the threats) simply by either purchasing, or being provided at public expense, a particular type of listener, with no opportunity for the listener to avoid facilitating the crime.
If the real problem is that we don’t think that this type of threat, alone, is a very serious matter, then that is for Congress. I object to creating a barrier that prevents competent testimony as to the commission of a crime by a fully warned patient from coming into court, and I therefore DISSENT.

. Van Dyke’s position was that of Readjustment Counseling Specialist. He had a Master's in Education, with a concentration in counseling; he was not yet licensed. Although the United States has not argued that it is relevant, I note that Jaffee's holding applied to a "licensed social worker” (emphasis added). See 518 U.S. at 15, 116 S.Ct. 1923.