Difference between revisions of "Priest-Penitent Privilege"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Priest-Penitent Privilege in Federal Court == | == Priest-Penitent Privilege in Federal Court == | ||
| − | Today, no statutory privilege protecting priest-penitent communications exists in Federal Court, unless the court is sitting in diversity. In that case, Fed. R. Evid. 501 | + | Today, no statutory privilege protecting priest-penitent communications exists in Federal Court, unless the court is sitting in diversity. In that case, Fed. R. Evid. 501 states that "the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law." |
| − | However, even in absence of diversity jurisdiction, Fed. R. Evid. 501 gives a judge the inherent power to create the priest-penitent privilege. The | + | However, even in the absence of diversity jurisdiction, Fed. R. Evid. 501 gives a judge the inherent power to create the priest-penitent privilege. The rule states that "the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." Thus, Fed. R. Evid. 501 gives the federal courts broad powers to create and define the contours of privileges as the need arises. As a result, Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 506, which would have covered the priest-penitent privilege, was never passed. |
| − | Despite the paucity of federal common law approving the privilege, some federal judges have | + | Despite the paucity of federal common law approving the privilege, some federal judges have created this right. For instance, in Mullen v. United States, Judge Fahy stated that "recognition of the privilege in federal courts does not depend upon finding that it has either existed uniformly at common law or has been approved in terms by acts of Congress" |
| − | In 1990, after a direct challenge under Fed. R. Evid. 501, the Third Circuit was the first to formally approve the privilege when it held that it would "protect communications made (1) to a clergyperson (2) in his or her spiritual and professional capacity (3) with a | + | In 1990, after a direct challenge under Fed. R. Evid. 501, the Third Circuit was the first to formally approve the privilege when it held that it would "protect communications made (1) to a clergyperson (2) in his or her spiritual and professional capacity (3) with a reasonable expectation of privacy." The judge cited Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 506 as a guideline for this new common law privilege. |
| − | Although the privilege has had | + | Although the privilege has had widespread support, the priest-penitent privilege came under fire during the Catholic Church's clergy-abuse scandals in the early 00s when local prosecutors seeking information regarding clergy abuse were stymied by claims that such information was covered in the priest-penitent privilege. During these confrontations with local prosecutors, churches often attempted to stretch the bounds of the priest-penitent privilege to the point of breaking. For example, in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, the Roman Catholic Archbishop asserted the privilege in raft of internal documents. The court rejected the church's claim that internal documents were protected by the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause of California Constitution, the state's statutory priest-penitent privilege and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The vast majority of these privilege claims were rejected as spurious. |
== Justification for the privilege == | == Justification for the privilege == | ||
